NY Times Story on Pilot Population Decline

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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?