Truck Fump / h1b
Verified User
Im unemployed. SO there! But seriously, some of the biggest abolitionists were slaves.
Do you have anything intelligent to add to the conversation.
Where America's jobs went
- Thread starter Bfgrn
- Start date
Im unemployed. SO there! But seriously, some of the biggest abolitionists were slaves.
Do you have anything intelligent to add to the conversation.
Truck Fump / h1b
Verified User
People used to say that slaves just had a bad attitude too. Why are you such an internationalist fascist elitist polesmoker?
Bfgrn
New member
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).
Truck Fump / h1b
Verified User
these are brilliant corporate constraints. All of these need to be re-implemented.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
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?
Truck Fump / h1b
Verified User
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.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
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.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
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
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
Truck Fump / h1b
Verified User
You keep changing the subject.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
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'???
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
LMAO.... no... I keep answering bfgrn.
Truck Fump / h1b
Verified User
You fool. board members who have no stake in the company are operating under a prima facie conflict of interest.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Please, do explain how you have reached the above conclusion.
Truck Fump / h1b
Verified User
Please explain how you could arrive at a different one.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
So you cannot explain your position?
Truck Fump / h1b
Verified User
No. I choose not to bother with your idiocy.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
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....
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....
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
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
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