CPCFTW Posted December 30, 2011 Report Posted December 30, 2011 So what you are saying,because the vast majority of folks won't be able to re-educate themselves to the point where they can "compete" in your Darwinian economic model,is that most in The West must necessarily lower their standard of living (willingly or unwillingly) to satisfy your upwards wealth redistribution excercise and misguided economic theories you subscribe to??? Because it's all about the "personal fredom" and the "morality" of the Friedmanite/Von Hayakian cause... So what you are saying is that 80 million people in South Korea and Singapore are a sub-human species that don't deserve to manufacture computer parts at a lower cost than good old North American unionized labour? You would prefer to pay $5000 for a laptop if it meant the upward redistribution of wealth from developing countries to the developed world could be continued? Quote
Jack Weber Posted December 30, 2011 Report Posted December 30, 2011 So what you are saying is that 80 million people in South Korea and Singapore are a sub-human species that don't deserve to manufacture computer parts at a lower cost than good old North American unionized labour? You would prefer to pay $5000 for a laptop if it meant the upward redistribution of wealth from developing countries to the developed world could be continued? Yes... That's exactly what I'm saying... The problem is that there is no end for you folks whilst you wrap yourselves in the deluded notion that you are here to save the world from poverty... You are not...You are simply here to advocate for the shareholder value of said wealthy shareholders of multi-national corporations(many based in the US),while paying phony lip service to the economic heroism of the foolish Friedmanite model.. You folks will only be ahppy when there are no impediments to global free markets and only those who you feel "deserve" that wealth will get it... And if your theories are so sound,could you explain to all of us,Professor Friedman,why there are still 2/3rds of the Chinese populous that still live far below the poverty line??? Why,in fact,is China losing some jobs to Viet Nam and Bangladesh? One would think if this continues,the wealth creation in your crypto-Fascist economic utopia of China might falter? Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
CPCFTW Posted December 30, 2011 Report Posted December 30, 2011 (edited) Yes... That's exactly what I'm saying... The problem is that there is no end for you folks whilst you wrap yourselves in the deluded notion that you are here to save the world from poverty... You are not...You are simply here to advocate for the shareholder value of said wealthy shareholders of multi-national corporations(many based in the US),while paying phony lip service to the economic heroism of the foolish Friedmanite model.. You folks will only be ahppy when there are no impediments to global free markets and only those who you feel "deserve" that wealth will get it... And if your theories are so sound,could you explain to all of us,Professor Friedman,why there are still 2/3rds of the Chinese populous that still live far below the poverty line??? Why,in fact,is China losing some jobs to Viet Nam and Bangladesh? One would think if this continues,the wealth creation in your crypto-Fascist economic utopia of China might falter? Why is shareholder value only important to wealthy shareholders? The ontario teacher's pension plan is a wealthy shareholder... should they not be entitled to a reasonable return on investment for the funds that they have been entrusted with by Ontario teachers to invest? I have an RRSP and TFSA with under $50000 invested. Should I not be entitled to a reasonable rate of return for these investments, or do you suggest that union labour should have a greater claim to my capital and the capital of other investors than the investors themselves? Is the new Marxist maxim that workers should have a claim to the product of their labour, the labour of shareholders, and the labour of consumers as well? Employees are the most replaceable part of the equation. If you don't generate profits, you can't attract investment for continued operations. If you don't provide a product that people demand, then they won't buy it. If you don't pay employees a wage that their collective bargaining overlords will accept, then you can hire cheaper labour in Indiana anyway. Why are 2/3rds of Chinese impoverished? Because there are 7 billion people in the world and the large majority of them have always been impoverished. Resources have always been scarce and wars have been fought for land and resources. Now we have a model that allows people to compete for resources instead of shooting each other for them. I'm not surprised you regressive "revolutionaries" prefer the alternative. Edited December 30, 2011 by CPCFTW Quote
Steve T Posted December 30, 2011 Report Posted December 30, 2011 <snip>You folks will only be ahppy when there are no impediments to global free markets and only those who you feel "deserve" that wealth will get it... ...No impediments to a global free market is good because it allows people to trade when it is to their advantage. Believe it or not, there are situations where both parties to a trade benefit! This allows everyone to potentially add to their wealth -- yes, everyone deserves to have the opportunity to do it (but no one deserves to have wealth just given to them, even if they're "poor").And if your theories are so sound,could you explain to all of us,Professor Friedman,why there are still 2/3rds of the Chinese populous that still live far below the poverty line???...Sorry, I don't see what CPCFTW's theories (or Professor Friedman's) have to do with how many Chinese live below the poverty line. It is quite conceivable (and I do believe) that the fact that many Chinese are wealthier now than they would have been otherwise is because of the opportunities available to them to improve their lot with the liberaliz(s)ation of the Chinese economy and many could be wealthier still if their economy was liberaliz(s)ed still further, say to the extent Canada's is.Why,in fact,is China losing some jobs to Viet Nam and Bangladesh?...If that is the case (and I don't doubt it, I just haven't looked at the evidence), then I would think it because either of intervention by the governments of Vietnam and Bangladesh to advantage its businesses (such as tariffs or subsidies or other trade barriers), in which case the situation won't last, or because their economies are becoming even more liberaliz(s)ed than China's and/ or because Vietnamese and Bangladeshi worker productivity is going up relative to that of the Chinese.One would think if this continues,the wealth creation in your crypto-Fascist economic utopia of China might falter?...As is that of, for example, the US vs India or China, as productivity and economic liberaliz(s)ation increases in the latter relative to the former. Quote
Jack Weber Posted December 30, 2011 Report Posted December 30, 2011 (edited) Why is shareholder value only important to wealthy shareholders? The ontario teacher's pension plan is a wealthy shareholder... should they not be entitled to a reasonable return on investment for the funds that they have been entrusted with by Ontario teachers to invest? I have an RRSP and TFSA with under $50000 invested. Should I not be entitled to a reasonable rate of return for these investments, or do you suggest that union labour should have a greater claim to my capital and the capital of other investors than the investors themselves? Is the new Marxist maxim that workers should have a claim to the product of their labour, the labour of shareholders, and the labour of consumers as well? Employees are the most replaceable part of the equation. If you don't generate profits, you can't attract investment for continued operations. If you don't provide a product that people demand, then they won't buy it. If you don't pay employees a wage that their collective bargaining overlords will accept, then you can hire cheaper labour in Indiana anyway. Why are 2/3rds of Chinese impoverished? Because there are 7 billion people in the world and the large majority of them have always been impoverished. Resources have always been scarce and wars have been fought for land and resources. Now we have a model that allows people to compete for resources instead of shooting each other for them. I'm not surprised you regressive "revolutionaries" prefer the alternative. The best I can get out of this self congratulatory tripe is that you seem to think (not shockingly,mind you) that in your 2 dimensional mind anyone who questions your global free market ethos is somehow a Marxist/Communist... Labour overlords...Wow...I'm surprised you did'nt use the old free market maxim of "corrupt labour bosses"... The rest is a rehash of your Friedmanite/Von Hayakian poverty inducing drivel.... I'll await your pithy,yet derivative,response calling me...Stalinist?...Marxist??...Socialist?? Edited December 30, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
CPCFTW Posted December 30, 2011 Report Posted December 30, 2011 The best I can get out of this self congratulatory tripe is that you seem to think (not shockingly,mind you) that in your 2 dimensional mind anyone who questions your global free market ethos is somehow a Marxist/Communist... Labour overlords...Wow...I'm surprised you did'nt use the old free market maxim of "corrupt labour bosses"... The rest is a rehash of your Friedmanite/Von Hayakian poverty inducing drivel.... I'll await your pithy,yet derivative,response calling me...Stalinist?...Marxist??...Socialist?? How was my post self congratulatory? If you have a pension or an RRSP than you are an investor and should be concerned about corporate profits. Most Canadian workers have some kind of investments. Not my problem you can't see the forest for the trees. Quote
Evening Star Posted December 30, 2011 Report Posted December 30, 2011 The company wants to go to the us because of cheaper labour costs there. What does harper have to do with that? Tax cuts aren't a contract. When the government cuts personal taxes do they say "but you have to work in canada for 10yrs or you will have to pay us back!!!". The problem is, was, and always will be the unions. They can't come to terms with the fact that a company doesn't owe them a job. It's not 100% clear from the article but my impression was that there was more than just a general corporate tax cut involved here, that the government actually gave Electro-Motive a specific tax break (subsidy), expecting that they would stay in London. Quote
Wild Bill Posted December 30, 2011 Report Posted December 30, 2011 It's not 100% clear from the article but my impression was that there was more than just a general corporate tax cut involved here, that the government actually gave Electro-Motive a specific tax break (subsidy), expecting that they would stay in London. Your impression may be true Star. Then again, it may not. It may have been that the newspaper article you saw gave that impression without coming right out and saying so. Why? Because the paper may have a bias. They want you to believe that because they're not a Tory paper. If they came right out and said it when it wasn't true they could be sued. This is how all propaganda works. It's not always the facts, its how you present them. I learned long ago to read such articles very carefully. After a while you begin to see if the language is actually clear or more "weaselly". Then again, it may be true! Although if they were willing to sue U S Steel why wouldn't they sue Electro Motive? Although it could be that EM has a portion of its business remaining in the community that the government hopes will be saved. If they sue they might lose that as well. All I'm saying is that we should always be skeptical! Look for clear statements and not inferences in news reports! Even if there's not a political bias the source may simply be trying to pump something up to sell more papers. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Guest Manny Posted December 30, 2011 Report Posted December 30, 2011 Sorry Canadians don't have a noble right to a higher living standard than other world citizens. Really. So all the innovation, hard work, infrastructure building done by generations of Canadians, that allowed companies to develop their technological products here should now be taken over to Bangladesh where the people live below the poverty line. Pay them just barely enough to survive, so the elite can reap disgustingly huge returns, then cut and run because the next generation is damned. Sounds pretty psychotic to me. Rich people's kids. Quote
Rick Posted December 30, 2011 Report Posted December 30, 2011 Really. So all the innovation, hard work, infrastructure building done by generations of Canadians, that allowed companies to develop their technological products here should now be taken over to Bangladesh where the people live below the poverty line. Pay them just barely enough to survive, so the elite can reap disgustingly huge returns, then cut and run because the next generation is damned. Sounds pretty psychotic to me. Rich people's kids. Bingo...You just described CPCFTW to a tee... Quote “This is all about who you represent,” Mr. Dewar (NDP) said. “We’re (NDP) talking about representing the interests of working people and everyday Canadians and they [the Conservatives] are about representing the fund managers who come in and fleece our companies and our country. Voted Maple Leaf Web's 'Most Outstanding Poster' 2011
Wild Bill Posted December 30, 2011 Report Posted December 30, 2011 Really. So all the innovation, hard work, infrastructure building done by generations of Canadians, that allowed companies to develop their technological products here should now be taken over to Bangladesh where the people live below the poverty line. Pay them just barely enough to survive, so the elite can reap disgustingly huge returns, then cut and run because the next generation is damned. Sounds pretty psychotic to me. Rich people's kids. All that may be true Manny but it doesn't matter. I came from that world and I know how things work. The sad fact is that if ONE company making computer boards or hard drives or whatever moves to China or some similar country, it becomes IMPOSSIBLE for any company here to compete with them! By a light year! So if you run a company in the USA or Canada and a competitor has moved over there, you either follow or you die. Period and end of story. So what else are you supposed to do? Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
cybercoma Posted December 30, 2011 Report Posted December 30, 2011 Really. So all the innovation, hard work, infrastructure building done by generations of Canadians, that allowed companies to develop their technological products here should now be taken over to Bangladesh where the people live below the poverty line. Pay them just barely enough to survive, so the elite can reap disgustingly huge returns, then cut and run because the next generation is damned. Sounds pretty psychotic to me. Rich people's kids. The problem with these people is that they are anti-tariffs. A company here is only successful because of the system we've setup that allows them to succeed. A system that costs money to operate, but they don't want to contribute to that. They'll do whatever they can to reap all of the benefits, but pay none of the costs. They'll remain a Canadian company but contract out all of their labour to a country where people make 3 cents a day for putting parts together for 16 hours. Instead of charging that company tariffs to offset the considerably lower standard of living in those countries, we have people arguing for free markets! Free to lower our standard of living to the lowest common denominator around the world, while wealth is concentrated at the top. People can't just go find a job and make an honest living and support a family any longer. Free trade has been a disaster. It kills the wage labourer, while those running the companies benefit. They get all the perks of our society without having to pay back into it. It's a god damn joke and Harper keeps making moves to concentrate that wealth even further. He won't be happy until 99% of us are living like they do in the "developing" world or incarcerated. Something will give eventually. It's quite simply not sustainable. Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted December 30, 2011 Report Posted December 30, 2011 The problem with these people is that they are anti-tariffs. A company here is only successful because of the system we've setup that allows them to succeed. A system that costs money to operate, but they don't want to contribute to that. They'll do whatever they can to reap all of the benefits, but pay none of the costs. They'll remain a Canadian company but contract out all of their labour to a country where people make 3 cents a day for putting parts together for 16 hours. Instead of charging that company tariffs to offset the considerably lower standard of living in those countries, we have people arguing for free markets! Free to lower our standard of living to the lowest common denominator around the world, while wealth is concentrated at the top. People can't just go find a job and make an honest living and support a family any longer. Free trade has been a disaster. It kills the wage labourer, while those running the companies benefit. They get all the perks of our society without having to pay back into it. It's a god damn joke and Harper keeps making moves to concentrate that wealth even further. He won't be happy until 99% of us are living like they do in the "developing" world or incarcerated. Something will give eventually. It's quite simply not sustainable. If we had any brain power in the federal government we would be developing the north, that effort would be sustainable for decades. Enough time to get our act together. Quote
Wild Bill Posted December 30, 2011 Report Posted December 30, 2011 Free trade has been a disaster. It kills the wage labourer, while those running the companies benefit. They get all the perks of our society without having to pay back into it. It's a god damn joke and Harper keeps making moves to concentrate that wealth even further. He won't be happy until 99% of us are living like they do in the "developing" world or incarcerated. Something will give eventually. It's quite simply not sustainable. Again CC, while you may be right there's still reality to consider. It's sad but true that if Harper did what you suggested he'd be political toast! ANY party who did that would be toast! The vast majority of Canadians just don't think that deeply. They want cheap stuff in their stores. They don't see the connection with that cheap stuff and their jobs. Unless public perception changes, you're asking whoever is in power to commit political suicide. It ain't gonna happen! As has been said by someone before "Democracy is a system where the common man deserves to get what he wants, good and hard!" Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
TimG Posted December 30, 2011 Report Posted December 30, 2011 (edited) Free trade has been a disaster. It kills the wage labourer, while those running the companies benefit.Wrong. Everyone benefits from goods and services that are provided at lower cost. How many people would go with a new computer or washing machine because it was unaffordable at 2-3 times the cost?They get all the perks of our society without having to pay back into it.If money paid to corporations is always taxed when it leaves the corporation then there is no need to tax the income of corporations themselves. This is what mostly happens today. Edited December 30, 2011 by TimG Quote
Scotty Posted December 30, 2011 Report Posted December 30, 2011 There are two ways out of this predicament you easterners are in, drop your wages and let the cost of products fall with the cut in demand, or be willing to pay higher prices for goods made in north America. This spoiled ass child garbage from the 1960s is really getting old and Asia is laughing at your guys collective stupidity and arrogance. Was watching a BBC story the other day, about a Nokia plant in Romania. The Romanians gave them the land to build the plant, along with a number of tax breaks, in 2008. So we have a very modern factory, with an enthusiastic work force which was, of course, non-unionized, and a government bending over backward to give Nokia whatever they wanted. The average pay of their work force? $300 a month. And guess what? It wasn't good enough. Nokia closed the plant and moved production to China. Dropping wages is not going to cut it, not unless you drop them to something close to what most Chinese get, which is under $2 a day. You willing to work for under $2 a day, blueblood? Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted December 30, 2011 Report Posted December 30, 2011 I can agree with some of that! Average Joe does tend to buy the cheapest, regardless of the source. However, a stroll through stores like Canadian Tire or Best Buy shows that when virtually everything is coming from China what other choice do you have? In most cases I'd be willing to pay more for an item which was made in Canada, if I had that option. Show me a $17 toaster made in China with a $40 toaster made in Canada beside it and I'll buy the Canadian toaster. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
TimG Posted December 30, 2011 Report Posted December 30, 2011 (edited) And guess what? It wasn't good enough. Nokia closed the plant and moved production to China.What Nokia did is restructure to deal with changing demand. The factories in Romania did not make the phones that are now in demand. It was cheaper to expanding existing facilities.http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-09-29/europe/30216829_1_nokia-smartphones-feature-phones Therefore, We plan to ramp down our manufacturing facility in Cluj, Romania by the end of 2011. We are aligning our manufacturing in Europe with consumer behavior in Europe. Specifically, smartphones sales in Europe increased while feature phones have sales in Europe have decreased Edited December 30, 2011 by TimG Quote
TimG Posted December 30, 2011 Report Posted December 30, 2011 Show me a $17 toaster made in China with a $40 toaster made in Canada beside it and I'll buy the Canadian toaster.Only because you are not struggling to make ends meet. People in that situation do not have that luxery. Quote
Shady Posted December 30, 2011 Report Posted December 30, 2011 Tax cuts for the wealthy have not brought economic growth Either has our funding of education. I mean, we pour hundreds of millions of dollars in it per year, and look at how high our unemployment rate is! Quote
Scotty Posted December 30, 2011 Report Posted December 30, 2011 What Nokia did is restructure to deal with changing demand. The factories in Romania did not make the phones that are now in demand. It was cheaper to expanding existing facilities. The factory was three years old. Don't tell me it couldn't have made smartphones if they were minded to do so. They said it was cheaper to build them in China, but again, don't tell me the wages of the workers there had nothing to do with it. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted December 30, 2011 Report Posted December 30, 2011 Only because you are not struggling to make ends meet. People in that situation do not have that luxery. That goes without saying, but there are a lot of consumers like me who aren't struggling to make ends meet... Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
NWRS Posted December 30, 2011 Report Posted December 30, 2011 Only because you are not struggling to make ends meet. People in that situation do not have that luxery. It doesn't take a huge leap of logic to see that some people aren't doing as well because we sent our jobs to China, and sure, we get cheaper products in return, but our cost of living is still going up. Quote
waldo Posted December 30, 2011 Report Posted December 30, 2011 What Nokia did is restructure to deal with changing demand. The factories in Romania did not make the phones that are now in demand. It was cheaper to expanding existing facilities. you should have stuck with your original before-edit post... it was slightly less plausible than this, your latest least plausible post. Nokia feature phones aren't going anywhere... err, rather, they're going to Nokia's Asian manufacturing factories: from the official Nokia press announcement... Nokia plans to adjust its manufacturing capacity and renew its manufacturing operations to better serve its global network of customers, partners and suppliers in the following manner:- Focus its feature phone manufacturing on those locations with optimal proximity to suppliers and key markets. As a result, Nokia plans to close its manufacturing facility in Cluj, Romania by the end of 2011, as Nokia's high-volume Asian factories provide greater scale and proximity benefits. . . hmmmm.... I do believe, "greater scale and proximity benefits" is code-word for... cheaper Asian labour! Quote
dre Posted December 30, 2011 Report Posted December 30, 2011 It doesn't take a huge leap of logic to see that some people aren't doing as well because we sent our jobs to China, and sure, we get cheaper products in return, but our cost of living is still going up. Not to mention if you run a gigantic trade defecit with a country for too long you run into real issues with soveriegnty and debt. We are basically borrowing money from China to buy Chinese stuff... You can only do that for so long, and gives a foreign power a whole lot of influence over us. For now China is willing to break even on trade with the US. They dump the money generated by the massive trade imbalance back into the US through the bond market. Picture a store giving its profits back to its customers so that they can keep buying stuff. What if China stops doing that? How many domestic assets are we comfortable with a foreign power obtaining through such a scheme? How much influence are we comfortable with them having? Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.