![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Larry Dighera wrote:
Are you able to articulate them? How would you address the implicit mandate in a Capitalistic system, that drives corporations to continually seek cost reductions to the point of absurdity and Damm Larry, why doesn't government ever try to do that? Unlike government, corporations have to make a profit... ot they go bankrupt. Government never has to balance the books, it just keeps taxing and spending. _dishonesty_ just to meet the competition's price and remain viable in Oh, so any business that makes a profit or trims down to be more successful is _dishonest_ ??? Maybe government should try some dishonesty.... ooops... they already are and its still not working. the marketplace? Do you believe outsourcing US jobs is good for our nation? Do you believe that forcing US corporations to move to other countries in order to escape income tax liability on income earned in the US is desirable? Let's see how simple you can make the solutions of which you speak. As stated, businesss have to be profitiable or they go OUT of business. (sort of like Darwin's theory). It is good decisionmaking to adjust your business (downsize, move manufacturing elsewhere) to offset increased taxation by government in order to stay competetive and keep the shareholders happy. If govenment doesn't want businesses to move offshore they should LOWER the tax burdens on corporations. As a socialist you do not understand that concept. They're not put into action because doing so would not help those in power stay in power. Are you also suggesting that the solution is to dismantle the US government? Lets just dismantle it back to the size specified by the Constituion, and the founding fathers. That's all that is needed. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 11:38:15 GMT, kontiki
wrote in : Larry Dighera wrote: Are you able to articulate them? How would you address the implicit mandate in a Capitalistic system, that drives corporations to continually seek cost reductions to the point of absurdity and Damm Larry, why doesn't government ever try to do that? The topic was Capitalism, not government. corporations have to make a profit... ot they go bankrupt. That is my point. Today's Capitalism demands that producers meet the lowest price in the marketplace, or face insolvency. That means that if one producer is willing to reduce the cost of production through unethical or immoral means, all the other producers are FORCED to do the same or go broke. The cost-cutting efficiency of Capitalism is commendable, but Capitalism's continual dive to the bottom begins to cause problems after a certain point. That issue should be addressed. Surely, even you can see the truth in what I'm saying. _dishonesty_ just to meet the competition's price and remain viable in Oh, so any business that makes a profit or trims down to be more successful is _dishonest_ ??? I'm sorry if I failed to make myself clear enough for you to understand. That is not what I said at all. I have restated what I said above. Hopefully you'll take the time to read and COMPREHEND it. the marketplace? Do you believe outsourcing US jobs is good for our nation? Do you believe that forcing US corporations to move to other countries in order to escape income tax liability on income earned in the US is desirable? Let's see how simple you can make the solutions of which you speak. As stated, businesss have to be profitiable or they go OUT of business. I for one, would be willing to pay a little more for goods produced in the USA, wouldn't you? I would be willing to pay a little more for goods that are produced responsibly, and I think there is a significant segment of the marketplace that would also. The concept I'm trying to get across, is that the cost of a product shouldn't be the sole criterion for purchasing decisions. The change in consumer's spending decisions is slowly gaining momentum, such as locally grown produce over supermarket fair supports local agriculture, and Southern California Edison subscribers are able to choose "green" sources of power: http://www.poweryourway.com/pages/greenpower.html (sort of like Darwin's theory). It is good decisionmaking to adjust your business (downsize, move manufacturing elsewhere) to offset increased taxation by government in order to stay competetive and keep the shareholders happy. How do you determine at what point the price of lowering the cost of production further is not worth its non-monitory impact? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Larry Dighera wrote:
That is my point. Today's Capitalism demands that producers meet the lowest price in the marketplace, or face insolvency. And that, my friend, is exactly how it is supposed to work. MArxism see things totally differently... the way you do in fact. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 14:42:42 GMT, kontiki
wrote in : Larry Dighera wrote: That is my point. Today's Capitalism demands that producers meet the lowest price in the marketplace, or face insolvency. And that, my friend, is exactly how it is supposed to work. MArxism see things totally differently... the way you do in fact. Unfortunately, you seem to be unable to understand my point of view at all. I don't know how to make it any clearer for you. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:00:46 +0200, Martin Hotze
wrote in : On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 15:10:07 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote: That is my point. Today's Capitalism demands that producers meet the lowest price in the marketplace, or face insolvency. And that, my friend, is exactly how it is supposed to work. MArxism see things totally differently... the way you do in fact. Unfortunately, you seem to be unable to understand my point of view at all. I don't know how to make it any clearer for you. Larry, what you try to explain is a system that some countries in Middle Europe tried and still try. It is called something like social free-market economy (it might got lost in translation). Thank you for your input. Unfortunately, I seem to not have made myself clear at all. I'm describing the shortcomings of pure capitalism. I'm not advocating any particular system or remedy. I'm just interested in discovering how those shortcomings a of capitalistic system I mentioned might be mitigated, so that ALL benefit, producers and consumers alike. After all, producers are victims of ever decreasing prices just as consumers are victims of the loss of US jobs. As it is, the producer who is able to offer a product at the lowest prices in the marketplace, regardless of the consequences to society and the environment as a result of the methods used to achieve that price reduction, effectively dictates the quality and ethics for ALL producers of that product if they want to remain solvent. Free market and capitalism at every price is not always the best way to go. I have no problem with free-market capitalism if it doesn't drive better and more responsibly produced products from the marketplace and export US jobs to other countries. As you stated, in some cases it might make sense to buy local (for different reasons: to save jobs and generate money locally, to cut transportation, to cut down emission on transport, ...). Some people go directly to the farmer and buy their products off the farm at higher prices than the 'same' product would cost in the supermarket. There are different reasons for doing so. Yes. Recently consumers have begun so have the choice of buying the at the lowest price, or buying the best or most responsibly produced product. I would like to find a way to reward those producers who want to produce quality, responsibly produced goods made with US labor, so that impact of their reduced market share is mitigated. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Larry Dighera wrote:
Yes. Recently consumers have begun so have the choice of buying the at the lowest price, or buying the best or most responsibly produced product. I would like to find a way to reward those producers who want to produce quality, responsibly produced goods made with US labor, so that impact of their reduced market share is mitigated. There is a way. Buy from them, ask your friends and neighbors to buy from them and tell them why they should. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Larry Dighera wrote:
Unfortunately, I seem to not have made myself clear at all. I'm describing the shortcomings of pure capitalism. I'm not advocating any particular system or remedy. I'm just interested in discovering how those shortcomings a of capitalistic system I mentioned might be mitigated, so that ALL benefit, producers and consumers alike. After all, producers are victims of ever decreasing prices just as consumers are victims of the loss of US jobs. _All_ can never benefit. That is not how life works. Though people have tried mightily over the years to force outcomes with legislation, governmental fiat or physical force. It is not sustainable.. any more than trying hold the steam inside of a tea kettle. As it is, the producer who is able to offer a product at the lowest prices in the marketplace, regardless of the consequences to society and the environment as a result of the methods used to achieve that price reduction, effectively dictates the quality and ethics for ALL producers of that product if they want to remain solvent. That's not true. Look at Toyota... walking all over American car makers. Better overall quality and customer satisfaction and NOT the lowest prices. Free market and capitalism at every price is not always the best way to go. I have no problem with free-market capitalism if it doesn't drive better and more responsibly produced products from the marketplace and export US jobs to other countries. We've already covered all of this, its boring to repeat the reasons why this occurs and whether it is good or not. As you stated, in some cases it might make sense to buy local (for different reasons: to save jobs and generate money locally, to cut transportation, to cut down emission on transport, ...). Some people go directly to the farmer and buy their products off the farm at higher prices than the 'same' product would cost in the supermarket. There are different reasons for doing so. Yes. Recently consumers have begun so have the choice of buying the at the lowest price, or buying the best or most responsibly produced product. I would like to find a way to reward those producers who want to produce quality, responsibly produced goods made with US labor, so that impact of their reduced market share is mitigated. "responsibly produced" ? What does that mean? WHo determines whether something is 'responsibly produced'... Al Gore? Sheesh... The free market is always the best arbiter. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
As it is, the producer who is able to offer a product at the lowest
prices in the marketplace, regardless of the consequences to society and the environment as a result of the methods used to achieve that price reduction, effectively dictates the quality and ethics for ALL producers of that product if they want to remain solvent. No, that is not true. It assumes people make choices based on price alone. This is clearly false. People make choices based on many things, including quality, "Made in the USA", foreign cachet, marketing and image, ecological impact, and many other things. People =do= pay more for what they want. However, they don't want to pay more for what =you= want. Pure capitalism does have problems; this is why libertarianism is so naive. Some careful tweaks are warranted. However, it does seem to be the least bad system there is, so tweaking it needs to be done very gently. I would like to find a way to reward those producers who want to produce quality, responsibly produced goods made with US labor, so that impact of their reduced market share is mitigated. Permitting people to buy them is sufficient. Jose -- Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Larry Dighera" wrote in message ... Thank you for your input. Unfortunately, I seem to not have made myself clear at all. I'm describing the shortcomings of pure capitalism. I'm not advocating any particular system or remedy. I'm just interested in discovering how those shortcomings a of capitalistic system I mentioned might be mitigated, so that ALL benefit, producers and consumers alike. After all, producers are victims of ever decreasing prices just as consumers are victims of the loss of US jobs. There is no improving of free markets. Whatever shortcomings you might see in them, the "cure" is always worse. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 21:28:13 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in .net: There is no improving of free markets. Whatever shortcomings you might see in them, the "cure" is always worse. Perhaps. But it seems that Congress has recently influenced Halliburton to stop "trading with the enemy" through it's foreign subsidiary as part of the economic sanctions the US has imposed on Iran since 1997. I would characterize that as an improvement. Incidentally, I was surprised to hear that VP Cheney has over 400,000 shares of Halliburton options that are due when he leaves office in 2009. Isn't there at least a bit of conflict of interest there? |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FA: pilot and globe trotter with a story to tell? | wcmoore | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | February 16th 05 10:53 PM |
Story from an older pilot 74 | Hankal | Owning | 17 | November 4th 04 04:26 AM |
Story of an older pilot 74 | Hankal | Instrument Flight Rules | 3 | November 3rd 04 03:52 AM |
Start of the Decline of Al Qaeda?? | Denyav | Military Aviation | 5 | May 8th 04 06:45 PM |
Soaring's decline SSA club poll | Craig Freeman | Soaring | 4 | May 4th 04 01:07 PM |