Where America's jobs went

Thanks for once again proving that the founders believed in a DECENTRALIZED government

LOL, you are hell bent on changing the subject aren't you freak? And you are so willing to IGNORE the 800 lb gorilla in the room. But as long as you want to make this about central/local government, please tell me, if our founders believed in decentralized government WHY would they believe in centralized corporations over local community based economies?

Here are some examples of how they were AGAINST centralized and absentee owner corporations...

*Directors of the corporation were required to come from among stockholders.

*Corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located.

*Corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately.

*Corporations’ real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose(s).
 
LOL, you are hell bent on changing the subject aren't you freak? And you are so willing to IGNORE the 800 lb gorilla in the room. But as long as you want to make this about central/local government, please tell me, if our founders believed in decentralized government WHY would they believe in centralized corporations over local community based economies?

Here are some examples of how they were AGAINST centralized and absentee owner corporations...

*Directors of the corporation were required to come from among stockholders.

*Corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located.

*Corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately.

*Corporations’ real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose(s).

these are brilliant corporate constraints. All of these need to be re-implemented.
 
But the point is that they were also aware of the danger corporations can pose. Can you acknowledge that, gimpy?

Not once I have I EVER stated that we should have no regulations on corporations. In no way have I ever stated the founders weren't aware of the dangers of a 'no regulation' environment. My point to that moron is that the founders were most certainly in favor of a decentralized government. Because they ALSO saw the dangers of a federal government with too much power. Can you acknowledge that gimpy?
 
Not once I have I EVER stated that we should have no regulations on corporations. In no way have I ever stated the founders weren't aware of the dangers of a 'no regulation' environment. My point to that moron is that the founders were most certainly in favor of a decentralized government. Because they ALSO saw the dangers of a federal government with too much power. Can you acknowledge that gimpy?


Yes i can, but im not the one changing the subject, douchebag. You know im not a liberal. Im just not a fascist like you.
 
Yes i can, but im not the one changing the subject, douchebag. You know im not a liberal. Im just not a fascist like you.

Yes, I know. Bfgrn is the one who keeps changing the subject (do try to read the thread, count how many times he changes the topic). Yes, I know you are not a liberal.... if you will note, I NEVER stated you were a liberal.
 
These are booming times for corporations.


To a large extent, this comes at the expense of their workforce.


When workers are laid off, those remaining on the job must shoulder the extra burden.


After shedding millions of jobs during the recession, the corporate world remains loath to hire full-time workers during the recovery.


Half of newly created jobs are in temporary help agencies, and many of the newly created full-time positions lack benefits.


Over 90 percent of the growth in output has been due to rising productivity. Workers still fortunate enough to have a job are being driven to work harder, put in longer hours, and to take on more duties without any corresponding gain in pay. In plain terms, the exploitation of labor is increasing.






http://www.counterpunch.org/elich07112011.html










tax_cuts_for_the_rich002.jpg
 
LOL, you are hell bent on changing the subject aren't you freak?

ROFLMAO.... you truly are comical. YOU are the one who keeps shifting the topic.

And you are so willing to IGNORE the 800 lb gorilla in the room. But as long as you want to make this about central/local government, please tell me, if our founders believed in decentralized government WHY would they believe in centralized corporations over local community based economies?

So you think that if they are against a centralized FEDERAL GOVERNMENT that must mean they are opposed to ALL centralization???? That goes way beyond absurd and into full on retarded.... never go full retard

Here are some examples of how they were AGAINST centralized and absentee owner corporations...

This should be fun....

*Directors of the corporation were required to come from among stockholders.

So having experienced people on the board who have no stake in the company is bad? Why??? If someone were opposed to centralization.... they would WANT some of the directors to be outsiders you moron.... AS THEY ARE TODAY.

*Corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located.

Do explain how this opposes centralization????

*Corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately.

We still have anti trust legislation that will prevent most of that from occurring. Clinton did indeed screw us by repealing Glass Steagall though and your precious Obama failed to reimplement it.... even with Dem super majorities.

*Corporations’ real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose(s).

How does the above 'oppose centralization'???
 
ROFLMAO.... you truly are comical. YOU are the one who keeps shifting the topic.



So you think that if they are against a centralized FEDERAL GOVERNMENT that must mean they are opposed to ALL centralization???? That goes way beyond absurd and into full on retarded.... never go full retard



This should be fun....



So having experienced people on the board who have no stake in the company is bad? Why??? If someone were opposed to centralization.... they would WANT some of the directors to be outsiders you moron.... AS THEY ARE TODAY.



Do explain how this opposes centralization????



We still have anti trust legislation that will prevent most of that from occurring. Clinton did indeed screw us by repealing Glass Steagall though and your precious Obama failed to reimplement it.... even with Dem super majorities.



How does the above 'oppose centralization'???

You fool. board members who have no stake in the company are operating under a prima facie conflict of interest.
 
Come on Asshat... tell us... how is it that you think they have a conflict of interest? Do tell....

I will be most happy to mock your ignorance, just put it forth for us to witness.... if you truly think it is obvious and clear cut, then surely you can explain WHY you think so....
 
Why pay a U.S. worker a piddling $8 an hour, when you can get someone in Indonesia, for instance, to do the same job at 50 cents an hour?



In the decade leading up through 2009, U.S. multinational corporations slashed 2.9 million domestic jobs.




At the same time, they added 2.4 million employees abroad.




This figure represents direct hires only, and does not take into account subcontracting to foreign films, which is typically the means used for moving one's manufacturing to sweatshops.












http://www.counterpunch.org/elich07112011.html
 
Come on Asshat... tell us... how is it that you think they have a conflict of interest? Do tell....

I will be most happy to mock your ignorance, just put it forth for us to witness.... if you truly think it is obvious and clear cut, then surely you can explain WHY you think so....


Surely you can explain why you think otherwise.
 
Back
Top