How to spell "us"

[Althea]

No, they don't. They want to turn the US into something mirroring Western Europe. That is a massive social-welfare state funded by onerous taxes and backed by a draconian bureaucracy of labyrinthine regulation that strangles business. That is exactly what they've done in deep blue states and why those states are hemorrhaging businesses and population fleeing to red states.

No. They want to bring manufacturing back from overseas so that corporations cannot continue to destroy the middle class. In that way, the fantasy social welfare state you bleat about won't be necessary.

If corporations refuse, then they should be taxed at rates we saw when Reagan took office.

Corporations that comply, can pay no taxes.

 

[QP!]

The fracking industry was giddy a decade ago when records were being broken. Then Saudi Arabia opened the flood gates and oil was actually trading in negative territory for a day or two.

It effectively put many American companies out of business and then Covid created a double whammy.

Now it's just Wall St refusing to provide funding for more production. They took a beating during Covid, and don't give a shit about the economy as long as they make their oil profits.

Yup.

And the incentives are up side down.

You need look no further then Texas deregulated grid, where Capitalism reigns.

The power companies have ZERO incentive to build enough capacity to cover in emergency need surge times when that capacity will not be needed 99% of the time. Also they make record profits for their power in those surge times especially if the grid partially collapse. So why take todays profits to reduce tomorrows record profits? that is someting the grid regulator has to FORCE. 'you want the good profit 99% of the time then you are obligated to up the capacity to cover that 1% surge period'.


It is the same for new train brakes and why most of these trains are still on brakes from the 1960's when the tech has advanced so far. It is cheaper for them to just pay the insurance premiums and allow for one big crash every X train runs, then to upgrade each and every train to the new brakes to prevent that one wreck in so few runs. that is why a regulator has to set that standard to force them if they want the profits from the 9(% of rins that do not crash.

Saudi loves fake oil shortages as they drive record profits. NO incentive to fix that.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

No. They want to bring manufacturing back from overseas so that corporations cannot continue to destroy the middle class. In that way, the fantasy social welfare state you bleat about won't be necessary.

If corporations refuse, then they should be taxed at rates we saw when Reagan took office.

Corporations that comply, can pay no taxes.

So, why did corporations flee overseas to begin with?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

So, why did corporations flee overseas to begin with?

Republicans supported them doing so. It's called capitalism.

 

[Althea]

So, why did corporations flee overseas to begin with?

Nixon opened the door to improved trade relations with China, and Most Favored Status was restored.

It was renewed under Reagan/Clinton, and made permanent in '2000.

Ironically, Ross Perot was correct when he referenced 'that sucking sound' being American jobs going to China and never coming back.

 

[leaningright]

I did for 38 years. 2012 was my last time voting Republican. I'd consider returning if they nominated a sane candidate like Nikki. Odds are, I'll be voting a straight Libertarian ticket again next year.

I’d vote for Nikki too. But I will vote for the conservative candidate … unless it is Trump.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Republicans supported them doing so. It's called capitalism.

Bullshit. Democrat led tax increases and regulatory overkill, along with wage controls forced them to move overseas.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Nixon opened the door to improved trade relations with China, and Most Favored Status was restored.

It was renewed under Reagan/Clinton, and made permanent in '2000.

Ironically, Ross Perot was correct when he referenced 'that sucking sound' being American jobs going to China and never coming back.

But it was high taxes and masses of regulations that really drove this process. Both parties are guilty of the later, while the Democrats led the way on the former.

 

[Taichiliberal]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1716548767350984944

You have to see it to believe it!

 

[Hawkeye10]

You have to see it to believe it!

"Having lived your life with increasingly shit quality leaders finding a good one is something to behold!"

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Althea View Post
Nixon opened the door to improved trade relations with China, and Most Favored Status was restored.

It was renewed under Reagan/Clinton, and made permanent in '2000.

Ironically, Ross Perot was correct when he referenced 'that sucking sound' being American jobs going to China and never coming back.

But it was high taxes and masses of regulations that really drove this process. Both parties are guilty of the later, while the Democrats led the way on the former.

No, it wasn't. That's the dogma fed to you by the very people who are screwing you over.

Think it through: why is it that corporations outsource to countries that have LITTLE TO NO PROTECTION FOR THEIR WORKERS? why must your taxes go up while corporation's taxes do not via 'loopholes' obtained through congress via lobbying (i.e., bribes)?

I agree both parties are guilty of aiding and abetting such, but given everything since Reaganomics, you have to give the GOP the edge.

 

[Althea]

But it was high taxes and masses of regulations that really drove this process. Both parties are guilty of the later, while the Democrats led the way on the former.

It was union labor and enviro regulations that drove jobs overseas.

Two things that Democrats fight for

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I’d vote for Nikki too. But I will vote for the conservative candidate … unless it is Trump.

I won't vote for an election denier, a vax denier or anyone who supported Trumpian bigotry. Which pretty much covers all the Republican candidates except Nikki.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

It was union labor and enviro regulations that drove jobs overseas.

Two things that Democrats fight for

That's a part of it. Democrats pushed the nominal tax rate on corporate profits to one of the highest in the world. Regulations in general caused industry to choose moving, and environmental and safety ones were a big part of that. That isn't an argument against regulations per se, but rather an argument that regulations cost money, and if they cost enough money corporations either close or move to avoid paying for them.
Unions are another issue. The UAW just got Ford to agree to a 25% wage increase. I bet the management at Ford is already looking at putting plants in right-to-work states to avoid the union wage, or at moving operations out of the country that otherwise would have stayed.

 

[QP!]

That's a part of it. Democrats pushed the nominal tax rate on corporate profits to one of the highest in the world. Regulations in general caused industry to choose moving, and environmental and safety ones were a big part of that. That isn't an argument against regulations per se, but rather an argument that regulations cost money, and if they cost enough money corporations either close or move to avoid paying for them.
Unions are another issue. The UAW just got Ford to agree to a 25% wage increase. I bet the management at Ford is already looking at putting plants in right-to-work states to avoid the union wage, or at moving operations out of the country that otherwise would have stayed.

When you see Big Auto ask the workers to all take pay cuts and forego raises and share the pain during tougher times do you support that?

And when Big Auto is raking in record profits, the CEO and Management are raking in record pay and bonuses, and the CEO is on earnings calls bragging about that, do you think... 'workers deserve NONE of that'?

If Big Auto starts to move labor off shore because they are pouting that labor has to get a share too, the gov't should just tax them even more to claw back any labor savings they get as punishment. That way they know there is no benefit in shipping the jobs offshore and VOILA the problem you identify goes away.

And do not pretend that cutting labor in on the windfall profits harms anything OTHER THAN reducing by a small amount the profits they are shipping out to Management and Shareholders. It in no way impacts their competitiveness.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

When you see Big Auto ask the workers to all take pay cuts and forego raises and share the pain during tougher times do you support that?

And when Big Auto is raking in record profits, the CEO and Management are raking in record pay and bonuses, and the CEO is on earnings calls bragging about that, do you think... 'workers deserve NONE of that'?

If Big Auto starts to move labor off shore because they are pouting that labor has to get a share too, the gov't should just tax them even more to claw back any labor savings they get as punishment. That way they know there is no benefit in shipping the jobs offshore and VOILA the problem you identify goes away.

And do not pretend that cutting labor in on the windfall profits harms anything OTHER THAN reducing by a small amount the profits they are shipping out to Management and Shareholders. It in no way impacts their competitiveness.

That's between the two to work out. But don't expect the management to forego an opportunity to cut costs and maintain quality by moving their operations to a location where the cost of labor or other operating costs are lower either.

For example, the US steel industry collapsed mainly because their plants were old and it would have been too expensive to upgrade them with needed pollution controls. It was cheaper to build new plants elsewhere. Thus, the Rust Belt...

 

[QP!]

That's between the two to work out. But don't expect the management to forego an opportunity to cut costs and maintain quality by moving their operations to a location where the cost of labor or other operating costs are lower either.

For example, the US steel industry collapsed mainly because their plants were old and it would have been too expensive to upgrade them with needed pollution controls. It was cheaper to build new plants elsewhere. Thus, the Rust Belt...

Ok.

But you have all this massive amount of money hitting the bottom line, that is profits today. Management and Shareholders are gorging to record levels. If they just cut labor in for a portion of that, that does not change the competitive nature of the cost structure, it is just shifting dollars going currently to Management and Shareholders with a share for Workers.

What i am saying is if you look at it today... and then you look at it a day after the workers are cut in, the share they get is costs, yes, but it is coming out above the bottom line before the Management and SHareholders take it out as profits below the bottom line.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Ok.

But you have all this massive amount of money hitting the bottom line, that is profits today. Management and Shareholders are gorging to record levels. If they just cut labor in for a portion of that, that does not change the competitive nature of the cost structure, it is just shifting dollars going currently to Management and Shareholders with a share for Workers.

What i am saying is if you look at it today... and then you look at it a day after the workers are cut in, the share they get is costs, yes, but it is coming out above the bottom line before the Management and SHareholders take it out as profits below the bottom line.

Not necessarily. Raising worker's wages does not automatically result in a better product or more productivity.

Let me shift this to education, since I regularly make this argument about it. If we double teacher's salaries will we markedly increase educational outcomes and quality, say, by as little (in comparison) as 20%?

Same teachers being paid twice as much. What does that buy us? The answer I've always gotten from the teacher union types, politicians, and supporters of that sort of idea is something along the lines of, Well, education doesn't work that way. There are no simple answers to improving outcomes...

The way I see it is, if the educational outcomes were improving, then the teachers deserve raises for that happening. Same goes for a car manufacturer. If sales are going up, workers deserve raises, along with management (or bonuses if you want) for increased productivity. That's fair. Outcomes improved, so you deserve to be rewarded for that improvement.

If things are just going the same-o, same-o and nothing is improving, then raises are probably not in order until things do improve. That is to say, raises rarely or never improve productivity. Improving productivity deserves raises.

 

[QP!]

Not necessarily. Raising worker's wages does not automatically result in a better product or more productivity.

Let me shift this to education, since I regularly make this argument about it. If we double teacher's salaries will we markedly increase educational outcomes and quality, say, by as little (in comparison) as 20%?

Same teachers being paid twice as much. What does that buy us? The answer I've always gotten from the teacher union types, politicians, and supporters of that sort of idea is something along the lines of, Well, education doesn't work that way. There are no simple answers to improving outcomes...

The way I see it is, if the educational outcomes were improving, then the teachers deserve raises for that happening. Same goes for a car manufacturer. If sales are going up, workers deserve raises, along with management (or bonuses if you want) for increased productivity. That's fair. Outcomes improved, so you deserve to be rewarded for that improvement.

If things are just going the same-o, same-o and nothing is improving, then raises are probably not in order until things do improve. That is to say, raises rarely or never improve productivity. Improving productivity deserves raises.

Nor does giving Management a huge bonus or SHareholders big checks necessarily result in a better product or more productivity.

Take it a step further, just taking a portion of the huge bonus and shareholder checks SHOULD NOT result in the product or productivity not getting better.

So i am not sure what you r point is as your education does not really address this.

If you are going to say it does then explain specifically how taking a share of the Management bonus and Shareholder checks DOES RESULT in lesser product or productivity or it NOT getting better?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Nor does giving Management a huge bonus or SHareholders big checks necessarily result in a better product or more productivity.

Take it a step further, just taking a portion of the huge bonus and shareholder checks SHOULD NOT result in the product or productivity not getting better.

So i am not sure what you r point is as your education does not really address this.

If you are going to say it does then explain specifically how taking a share of the Management bonus and Shareholder checks DOES RESULT in lesser product or productivity or it NOT getting better?

Yes, yes... But management of any company will almost always act selfishly and take the lion's share of the profits for themselves. That's an unfortunate side of human nature.