It's dangerous following Liberals

Again, this is a Liberal Utopian pipe dream. We will NEVER see a place and time, where all inhabitants of Earth share the exact same material wealth. It's not going to ever happen, because it can't happen, and it never has happened. We've tried all kinds of socialistic ideas to make it happen, and it still hasn't happened. Even if you could wave your magic Utopian wand and *poof* suddenly, all people have the same exact amount of wealth around the globe, within a decade, there would again be disparity of wealth. Why? Because certain people on our planet are better at making money than others. Certain people on our planet are incapable of self-discipline or lack entrepreneurial spirit. This is just the way God made us, and there isn't any political philosophy out there which will alleviate this fact of life.

It's not a matter of having "the exact same material wealth." It's a matter of some having a lot of material wealth while others struggle to survive. BIG difference. And while the world won't change overnight, it will change. It's already starting. Poor countries are getting the factories and jobs while citizens in first world nations deal with unemployment. Now the "battlefield" changes from across the oceans to across the street.

When an individual can feed and house himself/family he doesn't care what someone else has. Once he is unable to do so things change. As long as a person has enough to eat he doesn't care what others are eating. As soon he gets hungry he takes great personal interest in what others are eating.
 
Again, it does not matter, outsourcing is not driven by something illogical. It makes no sense that the business needs to increase profit margin. It is COST which drives the business to find cheaper ways to produce their product. So that it doesn't effect current profit margin? Perhaps... but certainly not to increase an already successful profit margin, it makes no logical sense.

Of course it makes sense. People go into business to make money. I have yet to hear of any business person say they're making enough money and aren't interested in making any more.
 
Uncomfortable? Explain.

It would appear you're the one uncomfortable as you didn't answer my question.
Becasue everytime you start to be unbable to discuss the item at hand, you get uncomfortable. you bring out your strawman and try to change the goal posts.
 
Ahhh, you're changing the dynamics. It's not that he doesn't want to make more money/profits. It's that he might not want to take the risk vs profit. BIG difference.

I'm changing the dynamic of what, my own argument? I'm not sure what you mean, risk vs. profit? What does that have to do with what I said?

Look... We have two points of view, the statist socialist point of view... that is yours and Althea's... that outsourcing is due to greedy capitalists wanting to make more profit.

My counter-argument, is that it's not what you claim, because what you claim doesn't make rational sense. The greedy capitalist doesn't need to make greater profit, he is doing quite well at the profit level he has. What DRIVES outsourcing, is not the business owner's greed for greater wealth, but the cost of production, which continues to rise. For a rich person, it will take the same $X million to live on this year as last, that isn't going to change much, you can only spend so much money... but the cost of producing his product is a different ball of wax, that's going to increase every year, with every government mandate, regulation or new tax. It is THIS increase in cost, which DRIVES outsourcing.

Neither of you have refuted this, and you can't, because it would refute logic.
 
Of course it makes sense. People go into business to make money. I have yet to hear of any business person say they're making enough money and aren't interested in making any more.

Right... and in my example, Richie Rich makes money selling widgets at 20% over cost, he has made a fortune doing it that way, his father made his fortune that way, and his grandfather as well... why on heaven's earth would Richie up and change this formula? Does it take more percentage profit to grow his wealth? Nope... it will continue to grow as always, at the same rate as always, he has no reason or motivation to change it.

What DOES change, is the cost Richie has to pay to make his widgets. In order to remain competitive, and not interfere with his 20% profit formula, he turns to outsourcing. Not so he can make a greater percentage of profits, he doesn't need them, he just needs to maintain his 20%. He does need to cut his production expense, so he can continue to sell widgets at the price he has always sold them for. This is where outsourcing comes in, it helps Richie to maintain cost of production. It has nothing to do with how much wealth he earns, that remains the same constantly.
 
I'm changing the dynamic of what, my own argument? I'm not sure what you mean, risk vs. profit? What does that have to do with what I said?

Look... We have two points of view, the statist socialist point of view... that is yours and Althea's... that outsourcing is due to greedy capitalists wanting to make more profit.

My counter-argument, is that it's not what you claim, because what you claim doesn't make rational sense. The greedy capitalist doesn't need to make greater profit, he is doing quite well at the profit level he has. What DRIVES outsourcing, is not the business owner's greed for greater wealth, but the cost of production, which continues to rise. For a rich person, it will take the same $X million to live on this year as last, that isn't going to change much, you can only spend so much money... but the cost of producing his product is a different ball of wax, that's going to increase every year, with every government mandate, regulation or new tax. It is THIS increase in cost, which DRIVES outsourcing.

Neither of you have refuted this, and you can't, because it would refute logic.

'So you're saying competiton is ruining business here? Do you think the guy who owns a company in China or Pakistan is making the same money as an owner here?

Once a company starts competitors will enter the market. It is up to the original company to improve, to keep ahead of the curve. That is where the owner keeps trying to increase profits. What he loses on, say, transportation he may gain on lower supply prices. He doesn't stay stationary.

As for, "The greedy capitalist doesn't need to make greater profit, he is doing quite well at the profit level he has" that's absurd. The reason he started a company was to make money and he will continue to think of ways to make more money.
 
Right... and in my example, Richie Rich makes money selling widgets at 20% over cost, he has made a fortune doing it that way, his father made his fortune that way, and his grandfather as well... why on heaven's earth would Richie up and change this formula? Does it take more percentage profit to grow his wealth? Nope... it will continue to grow as always, at the same rate as always, he has no reason or motivation to change it.

What DOES change, is the cost Richie has to pay to make his widgets. In order to remain competitive, and not interfere with his 20% profit formula, he turns to outsourcing. Not so he can make a greater percentage of profits, he doesn't need them, he just needs to maintain his 20%. He does need to cut his production expense, so he can continue to sell widgets at the price he has always sold them for. This is where outsourcing comes in, it helps Richie to maintain cost of production. It has nothing to do with how much wealth he earns, that remains the same constantly.

That's crazy. You're saying he's happy making the same profit as his grandfather. That's absolutely nuts.
 
'So you're saying competiton is ruining business here? Do you think the guy who owns a company in China or Pakistan is making the same money as an owner here?

Once a company starts competitors will enter the market. It is up to the original company to improve, to keep ahead of the curve. That is where the owner keeps trying to increase profits. What he loses on, say, transportation he may gain on lower supply prices. He doesn't stay stationary.

As for, "The greedy capitalist doesn't need to make greater profit, he is doing quite well at the profit level he has" that's absurd. The reason he started a company was to make money and he will continue to think of ways to make more money.

No, I am not saying "competition is running the business here" ...whatever the fuck that means. Try reading the actual WORDS that I post, and not trying to read stuff into them, you'll have much better comprehension of what I am saying. The driving force behind outsourcing is not the need for the business owner suddenly requiring more profit margin. It is the growing and increasing costs associated with production.

That's crazy. You're saying he's happy making the same profit as his grandfather. That's absolutely nuts.

What's nuts is you can't comprehend the difference in a RATE of profit, and actual money itself. You erroneously continue to think that I am saying the rich guy doesn't want to make money because he has no interest in raising the percentage RATE of profit he is making. In my example, his grandfather did not make the same amount of money, he made much less actual money, although... it was still only 20% above what production cost. Their RATE OF PROFIT or PROFIT MARGIN was the same, the actual MONEY this generated... different story! I am saying he is happy making the same RATE OF PROFIT as has worked for three generations, and has NO reason or motivation to change that formula, because it works, and has made he and his father and grandfather wealthy. You've not explained why he would need or want a greater RATE OF PROFIT. More profits? Sure, who doesn't want more money as opposed to less? That's not what we're talking about.
 
Not necessarily. Outsourcing is about greatly increasing profits. That doesn't mean the business wasn't profitable to begin with.

Absolutely it is often not about making a profit or not but about increasing profits or growing the company to get stock prices up.

When I owned a business I figured how much money I needed from the business. I then shared the rest of the profits that I did not reinvest in the company with my employees in the form of bonuses.
I had a very hard working loyal bunch of employes.
When my health caused me to sell the business, I turned down 2 higher offers and sold my company to my employees.
Loyalty is repaid by those who have good morals.
 
Outsourcing is not about increasing profits as much as decreasing cost.
You go on to mention cost of production.

How can you argue against increased profit that outsourcing yields, while simultaneously illustrating exactly why businesses outsource?

If production costs are higher here, then profits are lower. Why are you arguing against the exact point that you are making?
 
You go on to mention cost of production.

How can you argue against increased profit that outsourcing yields, while simultaneously illustrating exactly why businesses outsource?

If production costs are higher here, then profits are lower. Why are you arguing against the exact point that you are making?

I'm not, you continue to not see the point I am making. Outsourcing does yield greater profits, but it is not done because greater profit margin is needed or desired. It is done to mitigate cost of production here. The profit margin is going to be the same for the business year after year, the targets, goals, and objectives of the business aren't suddenly going to change, for some unknown reason. If it costs 20% more to produce widgets, it's not coming out of the 20% profit margin of Richie Rich, he will find a way to produce for 20% less. Voila, Outsourcing! You see, Richie's formula for wealth and success doesn't work at a 0% profit margin, he can't absorb the added cost of production, and he won't. He will find ways to cut those costs every way he can, and if there is no way for him to do that any longer, he will simply stop producing widgets and retire. There is no scenario where you 'punish' him and make him forfeit his profit margins to pay for all your shit.
 
Throughout the history of liberal socialist statism, there have been many hapless victims. Sucked in to the rhetoric, mesmerized by the prophets, brainwashed into believing in Utopia. I suppose it's not really a surprise, it's human nature for mankind to course the path of least resistance, and it's easier to believe in a Utopian dream world than to accept reality. What's wrong with dreaming we can someday feed all the hungry and heal all the sick? Well, it's dangerous, that's what.

We can look to history, and find example after example, of the liberal socialist statist philosophy being attempted, in a number of different variations-- Maoism in China, Marxism in Russia, Nazism in Germany, and assorted offshoots from rogues like Pol Pot and Qaddafi to regime dynasties like Castro and Saddam Hussein. None of the examples end well for the people. It would be great if there were a good example, then the liberal socialist statists could manage to print t-shirts with someone other than Che Guevara.

The struggle against the liberal socialist statist mentality in our own country, has been going on for years. Libs love to quote Hamilton, and perhaps Hamilton was one of the country's first pinheads. Most of his statist ideas were fundamentally rejected by Madison, Jefferson, and Washington, but important to history, because they presented the perfect platform to juxtapose the new ideas of freedom and liberty. Of course, lazy asses today will not bother reading the Federalist Papers, to understand this, they will accept the Liberals quoting Hamilton, as if his words were some sort of principled ideas of our founding fathers. The "general welfare" clause is a good example. Hamilton believed, like many liberal socialist statists, that "general welfare" was sort of a 'carte blanc' for government to assume responsibility regarding any aspect of our general welfare. Madison brilliantly pointed out, that is precisely why "general welfare" can't be interpreted that way, it would render the Constitution meaningless and grant unlimited power to the central government. If you follow the Hamiltonian philosophy, the end result is not good for the people. It eventually replaces personal freedom with central government power, which has never worked out well for the average Joe.

Still, we have people in history like Adams, who have entertained some notion of a "middle ground" between founding principles and statist nonsense. We've always had a certain segment who are not totally on board with the liberal socialist statists, but apparently dislike confrontation so much, they are willing to abandon their own principles to try and "get along" with them. This is where we find the most evidence of how dangerous it is to follow Liberals. A most recent example is the Pill Bill, signed into law by Compassionate Conservative, George W. Bush. Libs throw the 'crisis' out there... poor old people can't buy their medicine! They continue to protest and scream, and cry and plead, and nag and pester, until someone who should know better, says... OKAY! OKAY! Maybe we can do something to help the poor old people buy their medicine! *poof* we get the Pill Bill. What happened next? Problem solved? Hardly! Libs moved on to nationalized health care. Look what happened with FDR? We went along with his liberal socialist statist principles because we were desperate, and created an entitlement class. Was the New Deal it? Did it fix all our problems? Oh no! Was LBJ's Great Society enough? Nope! Still not there yet. Since then, Libs have pressed on, with more an more departments and more and more government.

You see, when you follow a Liberal, the road to Utopia never ends. The world has an endless supply of people suffering, the planet produces new crisis everyday. The planet is never going to have enough people or resources to adequately accommodate all inhabitants at all times everywhere. There will forever and always be, some people who have more than others, and some people who have very little or nothing. This is what is commonly referred to as "a fact of life." We should all be aware of this, and it should be obvious it's a problem we can't ever solve, but for some reason, it is easier to believe in Liberal Utopia....Nirvana!
Hey Dixie,! Why don't you ask one of our heros who died in Iraq fighting Bush's immoral war how safe it is to follow a conservative?
 
Well, I can't, because they are dead. But what we can do, is ask one of the 50 million people liberated, if that was a good idea?

At the expense of losing ones child by enticing 18 year olds with the lure of world travel and excitement and/or an opportunity to receive an education they wouldn't otherwise be able to afford? Or a patriotic young man or woman naively believing they're defending their country when the reality is they're defending big oil?

As for liberating the people the Iraqis have a strange way of thanking the survivors by telling them to get the hell out of their country.
 
At the expense of losing ones child by enticing 18 year olds with the lure of world travel and excitement and/or an opportunity to receive an education they wouldn't otherwise be able to afford? Or a patriotic young man or woman naively believing they're defending their country when the reality is they're defending big oil?

As for liberating the people the Iraqis have a strange way of thanking the survivors by telling them to get the hell out of their country.

So now we're back to debating Iraq? As we can see, we've followed the Liberals full-circle. It always comes back to Iraq, Bush, and Big Oil!
 
I require substance. Facts. You keep mentioning strawman without saying what the strawman is.

Spit it out, boy!

If you aren't even able to see how you want to move the goal posts and then present strawmen, in an attempt to change the discussion, then I doubt that you would or will accept anything that is presents; especially when you're rejected the proof provided, in other discussions.
But then, that is part of your circular defense and has become part of your you are.

Now; suck my dick, bitch.
 
Back
Top