APP - Culture versus Reality

Schadenfreude said:
if you want to continue the flight of jobs from the u s of a, then buy foreign goods, otherwise buy american
Click to expand...
Easier said then done. Look, I'm not opposed to these trade agreements. They should be a win/win situation. Instead the capitalist class in industrial nations have been manipulating them to exploit cheap labor in third world countries at the expense of the working/middle classes of those industrial nations while those developing nations have been manipulating these agreements to expand their economies at our expense through manipulation of currency, labor and environmental laws. The problem with these trade agreements is that they do not fairly represent major stakeholders and until they do, I'll oppose them and insist on reform.
 
Lowaicue said:
If Americans refuse to buy foreign goods then will they also refuse to sell American goods into foreign markets?
How about invisibles?
Methinks you will lose much more than you will gain.
Click to expand...
That's true and how exactly do you buy "American" or "Japanese" or any nationality? Go buy a Ford car. 10% of the parts will come from Germany, Steel from Korea, 25% of Parts from Japan, rubber from Brazil, etc, etc. The global economy makes such a notion impossible in practice. You're right, you'd lose more then you'd gain. "Buy American" is fundamentally an Un-American concept. American consumers should be able to buy the best quality products and services at the most competative prices. Now that's American!

That doesn't mean that we should stand by and allow negotiated trade agreements to undermine our standards of living or quality of life. The problem with Free Trade agreements is that the devil is in the details!
 
Damn Yankee said:
It is well documented that unions stifle innovation and hard work by rewarding the mundane and mediocre. Do you deny this?
Click to expand...

It's also documented that Union improve the ability of working people to negotiate their fair share of the profits realized from their skills and labor and to improve working conditions and safety for employees. Do you deny this?
 
I recognize the complexity and trade offs free trade brings, but still if we don't support work here then we are all in trouble. Our son who is much worse than I am when it comes to buying American, he scourers the internet for American made and pays the price. How far are we from Egypt when our poverty rates continues to grow, and wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few?

http://www.howtobuyamerican.com/index.php

http://bumperstickers.cafepress.com/made-in-usa

http://www.madeinusa.com/
http://www.made-in.us.com/
http://www.madeinusaforever.com/
http://www.uaw.org/uawmade/index.cfm
http://shopunionmade.org/

http://www.unionbuiltpc.com/aboutus.php
https://unionbuiltpc.com/netbook_ubu100.php

http://www.ask.com/web?q=made+in+usa+symbol&qsrc=999&l=dis&o=13751&sq=1


"An entire century of human progress separates the worst-off from the best-off groups within the U.S., according to the latest update of the American Human Development (HD) Index. Read the report."
http://www.measureofamerica.org/acenturyapart/
 
Lowaicue said:
I bought a fridge about 20 years ago and a couple of bottles of cheap California wine. But then most overseas goods here tend to be from Oz or Europe.
However, in the world of insurance, finance and banking you have a strong presence. Close down the AIAs and the Citibanks etc etc and I would put money on the fact that you would lose more than you gain.
Click to expand...

perhaps, but in the u s of a it is difficult to find american made goods
 
Lowaicue said:
As I said, there are good unions and bad. Many companies demand a union presence on the board to ensure both openness and ease of negotiation. As far as mundane and mediocre are concerned that is by no means the sole province of unions.
Business has a tendency towards caution. Revolutionary products and services are rare enough to make headlines. iPad, iPhone to name but two. Change comes about comparatively slowly. Print unions did try to prevent computerised newspapers in the UK, but that was as much about seeking a fair judgement for those made redundant as anything else.
Once again I must point out that your habit of reducing everything to its most simplistic is all too often inadequate.
Click to expand...
I don't see an answer to my question there.
 
Damn Yankee said:
I don't see an answer to my question there.
Click to expand...

Is this the question to which you refer?

It is well documented that unions stifle innovation and hard work by rewarding the mundane and mediocre. Do you deny this?

To answer your question presupposes I agree with your premise.
I don't.
Do I deny these accusations have been documented?
Do I deny they have been well documented?
Do I deny that unions stifle innovation?

Your question is stupid.
 
Lowaicue said:
Is this the question to which you refer?

It is well documented that unions stifle innovation and hard work by rewarding the mundane and mediocre. Do you deny this?

To answer your question presupposes I agree with your premise.
I don't.
Do I deny these accusations have been documented?
Do I deny they have been well documented?
Do I deny that unions stifle innovation?

Your question is stupid.
Click to expand...
Actually, your answer is stupid.

...literature continues to find unions associated with lower profitability, as noted by Freeman and Medoff. Unions are found to tax returns stemming from market power, but industry concentration is not the source of such returns. Rather, unions capture firm quasi-rents arising from long-lived tangible and intangible capital and from firm-specific advantages. Lower profits and the union tax on asset returns leads to reduced investment and, subsequently, lower employment and productivity growth.
Click to expand...
http://ideas.repec.org/p/iza/izadps/dp892.html
 
On stifling innovation:

A labor union is, among other things, a cartel or monopoly that
attempts to exert market power to extract a higher price for the labor
it offers to a firm. Like monopolies in product markets, the result can
be a misallocation of resources. Higher wages cut into firm profits,
reducing investment and employment levels in the affected industry.
Unions can also impose restrictive work rules and featherbedding
that reduce productivity and stifle innovation. An emphasis on seniority
over merit in pay and promotion can reduce the incentive for
worker effort. One result can be the inability of management to
respond in a timely way to changing market conditions, putting the
firm at a competitive disadvantage. Strikes and other industrial action
can damage a firm’s ability to retain market share.
Click to expand...
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj30n1/cj30n1-10.pdf
 
"Corporate propaganda directed outwards, that is, to the public at large, has two main objectives: to identify the free enterprise system in popular consciousness with every cherished value, and to identify interventionist governments and strong unions (the only agencies capable of checking a complete domination of society by corporations) with tyranny, oppression and even subversion. The techniques used to achieve these results are variously called 'public relations', 'corporate communications' and 'economic education'." Alex Carey 'Taking the Risk out of Democracy'

Damn Yankee said:
On stifling innovation:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj30n1/cj30n1-10.pdf
Click to expand...

A corporation is a cartel or oligarchy that attempts market control to extract a higher profit. Labor is incidental to a corporation, particularly international global corporatism. Like all oligarchies, the result can be an abuse of labor, dangerous working conditions, or threats of unemployment if corporate dictates are not adhered to by management and labor. Higher wages for executives and improved stock value are the chief motivations of corporate power and propaganda. Corporations can also impose restrictive work rules that amount to unjust labor and sweat shop work conditions. An emphasis on profit over labor reduces worker incentive since goals only affect stock owners. Both workers and management organize against each other where laws exist, and where there are no laws, such as third world nations, corporations engage humans as slaves. Walmart serves as a prime example, controlling work hours to 32 hours to avoid fair pay and benefits. Nike presents another case in which all production is in third world nations, but US market propaganda maintains high sales and increased profits for billionaires. Unions, and Federal, as well as State laws, are the only barrier to a return to the working conditions of thirties.


"...In his classic study of mid 19th century American labor, Norman Ware observes that the imposition of industrial capitalism and its values 'was repugnant to an astonishingly large section of the earlier American community'. The primary reason was 'the decline of the industrial worker as a person', the 'degradation' and 'psychological change' that followed from the 'loss of dignity and independence' and of democratic rights and freedoms. These reactions were vividly expressed in the working class literature, often by women, who played a prominent role despite their subordination in the general society." Introduction 'Taking The Risk Out Of Democracy' by Alex Carey
 
I am not a fan of unions. But corporations also fought the OSH Act tooth & nail. And that is one of the few gov't acts that has had a huge and measureable impact on our workforce.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Actually, your answer is stupid.

http://ideas.repec.org/p/iza/izadps/dp892.html
Click to expand...

So a paper has been published offering the views of two men and some students. I know nothing of them and they know nothing of me. I have been a member of a union I am not aware of their personal involvement.
So, from MY point of view (and this is a forum of opinions, right?) unions can be bad and good. Unions have achieved huge gains for working people in many of the world's societies and markets but some unions have also shown themselves to be corrupt and innefficient. The stories of out and out corruption, that have made their way to my shell-likes, have stemmed from America, but that is not to say that only those unions are bad.
Blanket statements cannot work when they cover such a huge subject over such a long time.
Unions CAN impose restrictive practices and rightly so. It is but one tool in an armoury under constant attack by the haves against the have nots.
Big business has its clubs and organisations and, more importantly the ear of the politicians. Working people have no such priviledge. Without trades unions they are at huge risk.
I strongly suggest you read 'The Condition of the Working Class in England' by Freidrich Engels (a capitalist factory owner).
Please read it DY, I know it is not American but it IS about people and, as far as I am aware, you are a person.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Actually, it's a research document, not a mere opinion as you express.
Click to expand...

That wins the naive statement, aka reply, of the month award. A corporate supported think [?] tank finds what it is looking for and that is research. Way too funny!

"The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy." Alex Carey [see http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/827 ]




"In 1977, the top 10% of the American population had an income 30 times that of the bottom tenth; the top 1% of the nation owned 33% of the wealth. The richest 5% owned 83% of the personally owned corporate stock. The 100 largest corporations (despite a graduated income tax that misled people into thinking the very rich paid at least 50% in taxes) paid an average of 26.9% in taxes, and the leading oil companies paid 5.8% in taxes (internal revenue service figures for 1974). Indeed, 244 individuals who earned over $200,000 paid no taxes." Howard Zinn "A People's History of the United States"
 
midcan5 said:
Indeed, 244 individuals who earned over $200,000 paid no taxes.
Click to expand...

Does it say why? By itself and out of context, that sounds terrible. But if those people would have owed $50k or $75k in taxes, and made charitable donations that exceeded that amount, think of the good that was done with that money.

If half of the 244 individuals made donations of between $50k and $75k, the total donated to charity would be between $6 million and $9 million. Do you really think the gov't would use the money in wiser ways than the charities?
 
midcan5 said:
That wins the naive statement, aka reply, of the month award. A corporate supported think [?] tank finds what it is looking for and that is research. Way too funny!

"The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy." Alex Carey [see http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/827 ]




"In 1977, the top 10% of the American population had an income 30 times that of the bottom tenth; the top 1% of the nation owned 33% of the wealth. The richest 5% owned 83% of the personally owned corporate stock. The 100 largest corporations (despite a graduated income tax that misled people into thinking the very rich paid at least 50% in taxes) paid an average of 26.9% in taxes, and the leading oil companies paid 5.8% in taxes (internal revenue service figures for 1974). Indeed, 244 individuals who earned over $200,000 paid no taxes." Howard Zinn "A People's History of the United States"
Click to expand...

What's funny is you quoting Howard Zinn as fact. :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top