New Orleans

[cornographic]

 

 

There is poverty and unemployment because misguided people rely on altruism instead of logic (except in their own lives) and stand in the way of a rising tide of prosperity.

Yeah, "rising tide", Nike, Indonesia:

 

 

If they don't like it, they can always head back to the kitchen.

 

You get the prize for most racist comment of the day.

[cornographic]

Have a look at the Indonesian economic history:

 

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/indonesia/wages-in-manufacturing

 

 

 

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/indonesia/wages-in-manufacturing

 

 

Wages are at an all time high and trending up thanks to foreign companies employing local workers.

 

But no, no, we should be forcing those "evil corporations" to "keep jobs in the US."

 

 

Why does Bernie Sanders and his followers hate brown people?

YOu're beyond help, I guess that's why I'll put you back on Iggy...

[cm husker]

 

 

What was there condition before?

 

Are they being forced to work in those conditions?

 

I'm all for improving conditions by consumers voting with a pocket book (like you do with redwing), but I'm not for the US imposing US standards are foreign country workers.

Forced? Yeah, either that or starve is pretty much the option.

 

Indonesia has been getting their asses kicked by capitalists going back to at least WWII and the Nazis. Like any country, they had their own local economies that revolved around agriculture and amazing handcrafted commodities by tradesmen and artisans. Maybe you've been to a real Indonesian import shop somewhere?

 

India, you said you liked India so much, well, before the Brits showed up on the scene, India was probably the wealthiest, most prosperous economy in the world, developed as I described. The Brits destroyed all that and basically de-developed them, enslaved them into their form of indusrtial capitalism.

You can't say starvation is the only other option and then say that these jobs are a bad thing.

 

Your propogandist history aside, India and Indonesia were hardly great situations for the poor of those countries 150 years ago.

 

If you want to talk about appropriate reparations for past harms/stealing of productivity, I'm all for it. But that's not accomplished by restricting trade today.

[HuskerNBigD]

Well after reading this entire thread, I have two thoughts:

 

1) Holy sh#t, what is this world coming to? I agree with almost everything that cm husker has stated.... BRV 920 was not the one +1'ing this time

 

2) The BP spill excuse was pretty far-fetched. Actually, it was hilariously far fetched. As someone mentioned above, Grand Isle or Venice is where a lot of the fishing hubs are at, not New Orleans... For the sake of the argument, lets say that the fishing industry took a hit and several inner city individuals no longer drove down to those areas to jump on a boat, they could easily drive to the same location and hop on a helicopter that would take them out to an oil-rig and receive twice as much pay. It isn't like the fishing industry was their only option for income. Additionally, I have made at least one trip a year to NOLA for the last several years and have never been under the impression that their restaurants were suffering from a lack of supply.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Soooo.....bringing this full circle, Corn.....so, your solution would be to have all the potential workers in New Orleans join a union, increase the minimum wage and increase the taxes on any corporation that would move to New Orleans to pay for everything.

That would be the way of a prospering economy, yes. I don't particularly see the need for a billionaire class, or even a multi multi millionaire class, while most the population gets poorer.

 

Corp taxes dont pay for everything, obviously, just get back to paying what reflects as a fair tax contribution back into the locales in which they are located. I mean, if they are using the R&D subsidies, cheap land deals, infrastructure, utilities, necessary labor force, they have to pay their fair share, right? The way it's gone, they don't seem to want to pay anything, want to pay all their share holders, who put the $ in off shore tax havens, yada yada.

 

OK......let's say I want to open a factory somewhere in the south central US. Why would I choose New Orleans?

 

Depends on the factory, I spose. Manufacturing boats or floating houses, since the place gets flooded every 10 yrs. But you know the area better, so you would know more about the "why".

 

My question was actually a valid question. If jobs and poverty are a major driving force behind the crime problems in New Orleans and your solution is to unionize the work force, increase minimum wage, raise taxes on companies....etc.

 

Now.....put yourself in the job of convincing companies to open a factory in New Orleans to employ these people.

 

What are your selling points? Why would I go there instead of Dallas, Jackson, Pensacola, Houston...etc.

 

Companies are in the job of making profits for their share holders, so they wouldn't locate anywhere for the reasons I state. I.e, they aren't in the business of altruism. The only way they would locate to NOLA is if the taxes and labor are lower than wherever else they are considering.

 

So...to solve the problem of poverty and unemployment....the best solution would be to implement policies that would prevent businesses from locating there. They also may drive out companies that are currently located there which would drive up more unemployment.

 

What am I missing?

 

Capitalists dont go into business to solve poverty and unemployment. They go into business to make profits for themselves, employing as few workers as needed toward that end. Until that "ethos" changes, which won't be anytime soon, there will always be poverty and unemployment. It's really a problem inherent to the capitalist system. So, you'd most likely have to go into business in the standard way, low taxes, cheap labor, wherever that may be.

 

However, if you want to adopt a slightly different ethos, you could model it more along the lines of a WSDE, which means you are treating the utilization and distribution of profits in a more equatable way and not afraid to pay your fair share of taxes. Just means, you and shareholders wouldn't get as rich, and the shareholders could be the employees of your company, and not a bunch of outside people.

 

Well.....

 

 

Interesting that you don't really have any solution other than what would make it worse.

[cornographic]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Soooo.....bringing this full circle, Corn.....so, your solution would be to have all the potential workers in New Orleans join a union, increase the minimum wage and increase the taxes on any corporation that would move to New Orleans to pay for everything.

That would be the way of a prospering economy, yes. I don't particularly see the need for a billionaire class, or even a multi multi millionaire class, while most the population gets poorer.

 

Corp taxes dont pay for everything, obviously, just get back to paying what reflects as a fair tax contribution back into the locales in which they are located. I mean, if they are using the R&D subsidies, cheap land deals, infrastructure, utilities, necessary labor force, they have to pay their fair share, right? The way it's gone, they don't seem to want to pay anything, want to pay all their share holders, who put the $ in off shore tax havens, yada yada.

 

OK......let's say I want to open a factory somewhere in the south central US. Why would I choose New Orleans?

 

Depends on the factory, I spose. Manufacturing boats or floating houses, since the place gets flooded every 10 yrs. But you know the area better, so you would know more about the "why".

 

My question was actually a valid question. If jobs and poverty are a major driving force behind the crime problems in New Orleans and your solution is to unionize the work force, increase minimum wage, raise taxes on companies....etc.

 

Now.....put yourself in the job of convincing companies to open a factory in New Orleans to employ these people.

 

What are your selling points? Why would I go there instead of Dallas, Jackson, Pensacola, Houston...etc.

 

Companies are in the job of making profits for their share holders, so they wouldn't locate anywhere for the reasons I state. I.e, they aren't in the business of altruism. The only way they would locate to NOLA is if the taxes and labor are lower than wherever else they are considering.

 

So...to solve the problem of poverty and unemployment....the best solution would be to implement policies that would prevent businesses from locating there. They also may drive out companies that are currently located there which would drive up more unemployment.

 

What am I missing?

 

Capitalists dont go into business to solve poverty and unemployment. They go into business to make profits for themselves, employing as few workers as needed toward that end. Until that "ethos" changes, which won't be anytime soon, there will always be poverty and unemployment. It's really a problem inherent to the capitalist system. So, you'd most likely have to go into business in the standard way, low taxes, cheap labor, wherever that may be.

 

However, if you want to adopt a slightly different ethos, you could model it more along the lines of a WSDE, which means you are treating the utilization and distribution of profits in a more equatable way and not afraid to pay your fair share of taxes. Just means, you and shareholders wouldn't get as rich, and the shareholders could be the employees of your company, and not a bunch of outside people.

 

Well.....

 

 

Interesting that you don't really have any solution other than what would make it worse.

 

Hey, you're the businessman, why are you asking me in the 1st place? I don't see that a business has alot of options: you either do the right thing or do the greedy thing. What's your plan to "save NOLA". other than minimum wage and child labor?

 

As to WSDEs, I know you laugh it off in your patronizingly smug way, but they will become more and more common just as say, healthy/whole foods diets and yoga started off back in the 60s/70s and guys like you laughed.

[cornographic]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Soooo.....bringing this full circle, Corn.....so, your solution would be to have all the potential workers in New Orleans join a union, increase the minimum wage and increase the taxes on any corporation that would move to New Orleans to pay for everything.

That would be the way of a prospering economy, yes. I don't particularly see the need for a billionaire class, or even a multi multi millionaire class, while most the population gets poorer.

 

Corp taxes dont pay for everything, obviously, just get back to paying what reflects as a fair tax contribution back into the locales in which they are located. I mean, if they are using the R&D subsidies, cheap land deals, infrastructure, utilities, necessary labor force, they have to pay their fair share, right? The way it's gone, they don't seem to want to pay anything, want to pay all their share holders, who put the $ in off shore tax havens, yada yada.

 

OK......let's say I want to open a factory somewhere in the south central US. Why would I choose New Orleans?

 

Depends on the factory, I spose. Manufacturing boats or floating houses, since the place gets flooded every 10 yrs. But you know the area better, so you would know more about the "why".

 

My question was actually a valid question. If jobs and poverty are a major driving force behind the crime problems in New Orleans and your solution is to unionize the work force, increase minimum wage, raise taxes on companies....etc.

 

Now.....put yourself in the job of convincing companies to open a factory in New Orleans to employ these people.

 

What are your selling points? Why would I go there instead of Dallas, Jackson, Pensacola, Houston...etc.

 

Companies are in the job of making profits for their share holders, so they wouldn't locate anywhere for the reasons I state. I.e, they aren't in the business of altruism. The only way they would locate to NOLA is if the taxes and labor are lower than wherever else they are considering.

 

So...to solve the problem of poverty and unemployment....the best solution would be to implement policies that would prevent businesses from locating there. They also may drive out companies that are currently located there which would drive up more unemployment.

 

What am I missing?

 

Capitalists dont go into business to solve poverty and unemployment. They go into business to make profits for themselves, employing as few workers as needed toward that end. Until that "ethos" changes, which won't be anytime soon, there will always be poverty and unemployment. It's really a problem inherent to the capitalist system. So, you'd most likely have to go into business in the standard way, low taxes, cheap labor, wherever that may be.

 

However, if you want to adopt a slightly different ethos, you could model it more along the lines of a WSDE, which means you are treating the utilization and distribution of profits in a more equatable way and not afraid to pay your fair share of taxes. Just means, you and shareholders wouldn't get as rich, and the shareholders could be the employees of your company, and not a bunch of outside people.

 

Well.....

 

 

Interesting that you don't really have any solution other than what would make it worse.

 

Hey, you're the businessman, why are you asking me in the 1st place? I don't see that a business has alot of options: you either do the right thing or do the greedy thing. What's your plan to "save NOLA". other than minimum wage and child labor?

 

As to WSDEs, I know you laugh it off in your patronizingly smug way, but they will become more and more common just as say, healthy/whole foods diets and yoga started off back in the 60s/70s and guys like you laughed.

 

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Soooo.....bringing this full circle, Corn.....so, your solution would be to have all the potential workers in New Orleans join a union, increase the minimum wage and increase the taxes on any corporation that would move to New Orleans to pay for everything.

That would be the way of a prospering economy, yes. I don't particularly see the need for a billionaire class, or even a multi multi millionaire class, while most the population gets poorer.

 

Corp taxes dont pay for everything, obviously, just get back to paying what reflects as a fair tax contribution back into the locales in which they are located. I mean, if they are using the R&D subsidies, cheap land deals, infrastructure, utilities, necessary labor force, they have to pay their fair share, right? The way it's gone, they don't seem to want to pay anything, want to pay all their share holders, who put the $ in off shore tax havens, yada yada.

 

OK......let's say I want to open a factory somewhere in the south central US. Why would I choose New Orleans?

 

Depends on the factory, I spose. Manufacturing boats or floating houses, since the place gets flooded every 10 yrs. But you know the area better, so you would know more about the "why".

 

My question was actually a valid question. If jobs and poverty are a major driving force behind the crime problems in New Orleans and your solution is to unionize the work force, increase minimum wage, raise taxes on companies....etc.

 

Now.....put yourself in the job of convincing companies to open a factory in New Orleans to employ these people.

 

What are your selling points? Why would I go there instead of Dallas, Jackson, Pensacola, Houston...etc.

 

Companies are in the job of making profits for their share holders, so they wouldn't locate anywhere for the reasons I state. I.e, they aren't in the business of altruism. The only way they would locate to NOLA is if the taxes and labor are lower than wherever else they are considering.

 

So...to solve the problem of poverty and unemployment....the best solution would be to implement policies that would prevent businesses from locating there. They also may drive out companies that are currently located there which would drive up more unemployment.

 

What am I missing?

 

Capitalists dont go into business to solve poverty and unemployment. They go into business to make profits for themselves, employing as few workers as needed toward that end. Until that "ethos" changes, which won't be anytime soon, there will always be poverty and unemployment. It's really a problem inherent to the capitalist system. So, you'd most likely have to go into business in the standard way, low taxes, cheap labor, wherever that may be.

 

However, if you want to adopt a slightly different ethos, you could model it more along the lines of a WSDE, which means you are treating the utilization and distribution of profits in a more equatable way and not afraid to pay your fair share of taxes. Just means, you and shareholders wouldn't get as rich, and the shareholders could be the employees of your company, and not a bunch of outside people.

 

Well.....

 

 

Interesting that you don't really have any solution other than what would make it worse.

 

Hey, you're the businessman, why are you asking me in the 1st place? I don't see that a business has alot of options: you either do the right thing or do the greedy thing. What's your plan to "save NOLA". other than minimum wage and child labor?

 

As to WSDEs, I know you laugh it off in your patronizingly smug way, but they will become more and more common just as say, healthy/whole foods diets and yoga started off back in the 60s/70s and guys like you laughed.

 

Hey...I have said before. I have absolutely no problem with WSDEs. If you think that's a better place to work, go start one.

 

So....let me ask this. If WSDEs are the answer in New Orleans, how do you draw them to the area to employ these people?

 

I'm still trying to figure out your solution to the problem and to this point, you admit all of your solutions actually make it worse. Shocker!!!!

 

Again...I have absolutely no problem with WSDEs. Hey....if they work....go for it.

 

Fact is, those WSDEs still have to make money to stay alive and thrive. Some times I think you hate profit so much that you think business's just don't need it. News flash, it doesn't matter what the ownership structure is, if you lose money, you won't be around long.

 

So....I ask again......do you have a solution to drawing any type of enterprise to New Orleans that will create jobs and raise their standard of living so that hopefully the crime rate goes down?

 

 

 

PS....I didn't specifically ask you. I asked a general question and you posted in the thread with nothing but cutting down other people's ideas.

[cornographic]

 

 

What was there condition before?

 

Are they being forced to work in those conditions?

 

I'm all for improving conditions by consumers voting with a pocket book (like you do with redwing), but I'm not for the US imposing US standards are foreign country workers.

Forced? Yeah, either that or starve is pretty much the option.

 

Indonesia has been getting their asses kicked by capitalists going back to at least WWII and the Nazis. Like any country, they had their own local economies that revolved around agriculture and amazing handcrafted commodities by tradesmen and artisans. Maybe you've been to a real Indonesian import shop somewhere?

 

India, you said you liked India so much, well, before the Brits showed up on the scene, India was probably the wealthiest, most prosperous economy in the world, developed as I described. The Brits destroyed all that and basically de-developed them, enslaved them into their form of indusrtial capitalism.

You can't say starvation is the only other option and then say that these jobs are a bad thing.

 

Your propogandist history aside, India and Indonesia were hardly great situations for the poor of those countries 150 years ago.

 

If you want to talk about appropriate reparations for past harms/stealing of productivity, I'm all for it. But that's not accomplished by restricting trade today.

 

 

Starvation is the only other option because the Western imperialists came in, like they always do, and took over everything--pushed all the people into urban slums for slave labor. It's not complicated.

Do you want to work in an Indonesian sweat shop c/o Phil Knight and "live" in the adjacent god awful slums? I didn't thing so. Why is it alright for them and not for you? That's right, they are the slaves and you are not. Maybe you've heard the concept of "primitive accumulation"? Probably not, eh? Well, that's where you have to have a zillion slaves working to extract the basic raw materials/resources to get capitalism going--Western Europe and the USA were basically built off the back of Africa, still going today. Capitalism depends on slavery in one form or another and the relative theft of raw materials.

Anyhoo, yeah, 150 years ago, the Brits were still kicking ass in India, so you are right about that, and I'm not sure who got into Indonesia 1st--may have been the French, or Brits. Colonialization/imperialism--maybe you've heard of it--is not propaganda, it's the theft of another countries resources and labor.

 

Anyway, If things don't work out for ya in your current gig, I can see a bright future for you as a prof @ the Ludwig Von Mises School of Fascist Economics....

 

More "rising tide" prosperity for Indonesian sweatshop workers:

 

[cornographic]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Soooo.....bringing this full circle, Corn.....so, your solution would be to have all the potential workers in New Orleans join a union, increase the minimum wage and increase the taxes on any corporation that would move to New Orleans to pay for everything.

That would be the way of a prospering economy, yes. I don't particularly see the need for a billionaire class, or even a multi multi millionaire class, while most the population gets poorer.

 

Corp taxes dont pay for everything, obviously, just get back to paying what reflects as a fair tax contribution back into the locales in which they are located. I mean, if they are using the R&D subsidies, cheap land deals, infrastructure, utilities, necessary labor force, they have to pay their fair share, right? The way it's gone, they don't seem to want to pay anything, want to pay all their share holders, who put the $ in off shore tax havens, yada yada.

 

OK......let's say I want to open a factory somewhere in the south central US. Why would I choose New Orleans?

 

Depends on the factory, I spose. Manufacturing boats or floating houses, since the place gets flooded every 10 yrs. But you know the area better, so you would know more about the "why".

 

My question was actually a valid question. If jobs and poverty are a major driving force behind the crime problems in New Orleans and your solution is to unionize the work force, increase minimum wage, raise taxes on companies....etc.

 

Now.....put yourself in the job of convincing companies to open a factory in New Orleans to employ these people.

 

What are your selling points? Why would I go there instead of Dallas, Jackson, Pensacola, Houston...etc.

 

Companies are in the job of making profits for their share holders, so they wouldn't locate anywhere for the reasons I state. I.e, they aren't in the business of altruism. The only way they would locate to NOLA is if the taxes and labor are lower than wherever else they are considering.

 

So...to solve the problem of poverty and unemployment....the best solution would be to implement policies that would prevent businesses from locating there. They also may drive out companies that are currently located there which would drive up more unemployment.

 

What am I missing?

 

Capitalists dont go into business to solve poverty and unemployment. They go into business to make profits for themselves, employing as few workers as needed toward that end. Until that "ethos" changes, which won't be anytime soon, there will always be poverty and unemployment. It's really a problem inherent to the capitalist system. So, you'd most likely have to go into business in the standard way, low taxes, cheap labor, wherever that may be.

 

However, if you want to adopt a slightly different ethos, you could model it more along the lines of a WSDE, which means you are treating the utilization and distribution of profits in a more equatable way and not afraid to pay your fair share of taxes. Just means, you and shareholders wouldn't get as rich, and the shareholders could be the employees of your company, and not a bunch of outside people.

 

Well.....

 

 

Interesting that you don't really have any solution other than what would make it worse.

 

Hey, you're the businessman, why are you asking me in the 1st place? I don't see that a business has alot of options: you either do the right thing or do the greedy thing. What's your plan to "save NOLA". other than minimum wage and child labor?

 

As to WSDEs, I know you laugh it off in your patronizingly smug way, but they will become more and more common just as say, healthy/whole foods diets and yoga started off back in the 60s/70s and guys like you laughed.

 

Hey...I have said before. I have absolutely no problem with WSDEs. If you think that's a better place to work, go start one.

 

So....let me ask this. If WSDEs are the answer in New Orleans, how do you draw them to the area to employ these people?

 

I'm still trying to figure out your solution to the problem and to this point, you admit all of your solutions actually make it worse. Shocker.

 

Again...I have absolutely no problem with WSDEs. Hey....if they work....go for it.

Fact is, those WSDEs still have to make money to stay alive and thrive. Some times I think you hate profit so much that you think business's just don't need it. News flash, it doesn't matter what the ownership structure is, if you lose money, you won't be around long.

So....I ask again......do you have a solution to drawing any type of enterprise to New Orleans that will create jobs and raise their standard of living so that hopefully the crime rate goes down?

 

Open up a liquor store chain and hire 10 yr olds as cashiers and 12 year old floor moppers, I've never seen liquor stores fail. How 'bout a pizza/fried chicken/BBQ ribs chain? Seriously, any successful biz in any inner city scenario can be counted a plus, considering the general dirth of investment and resources in most:

 

 

Anyway, where did I ever say I "hate profits"? Show me where I said that? Predatory profiteering, profits over people, the concentration of profits to the few at top(the non producer class, the "1%") while the workers remain poor. Therein lies the problem, hence the preference for unionized labor or WSDEs. In, say, a WSDE, or something in that direction, everyone has a stake in the business and share in the the profits and decisions thereof.

 

To try and introduce a different business model into the normal biz environment will obviously have it's challenges: namely, attacks from those doing business as usual. However, WSDE ARE cropping up more and more and some cities--NY, Cleveland, Milwaukee, for e.g.--are starting to invest in WSDE models. If you wanted to do the "right thing" re: NOLA, or wherever, that's the way I would go or something in that direction.

 

What would you do, Mr. McGoo?

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Soooo.....bringing this full circle, Corn.....so, your solution would be to have all the potential workers in New Orleans join a union, increase the minimum wage and increase the taxes on any corporation that would move to New Orleans to pay for everything.

That would be the way of a prospering economy, yes. I don't particularly see the need for a billionaire class, or even a multi multi millionaire class, while most the population gets poorer.

 

Corp taxes dont pay for everything, obviously, just get back to paying what reflects as a fair tax contribution back into the locales in which they are located. I mean, if they are using the R&D subsidies, cheap land deals, infrastructure, utilities, necessary labor force, they have to pay their fair share, right? The way it's gone, they don't seem to want to pay anything, want to pay all their share holders, who put the $ in off shore tax havens, yada yada.

 

OK......let's say I want to open a factory somewhere in the south central US. Why would I choose New Orleans?

 

Depends on the factory, I spose. Manufacturing boats or floating houses, since the place gets flooded every 10 yrs. But you know the area better, so you would know more about the "why".

 

My question was actually a valid question. If jobs and poverty are a major driving force behind the crime problems in New Orleans and your solution is to unionize the work force, increase minimum wage, raise taxes on companies....etc.

 

Now.....put yourself in the job of convincing companies to open a factory in New Orleans to employ these people.

 

What are your selling points? Why would I go there instead of Dallas, Jackson, Pensacola, Houston...etc.

 

Companies are in the job of making profits for their share holders, so they wouldn't locate anywhere for the reasons I state. I.e, they aren't in the business of altruism. The only way they would locate to NOLA is if the taxes and labor are lower than wherever else they are considering.

 

So...to solve the problem of poverty and unemployment....the best solution would be to implement policies that would prevent businesses from locating there. They also may drive out companies that are currently located there which would drive up more unemployment.

 

What am I missing?

 

Capitalists dont go into business to solve poverty and unemployment. They go into business to make profits for themselves, employing as few workers as needed toward that end. Until that "ethos" changes, which won't be anytime soon, there will always be poverty and unemployment. It's really a problem inherent to the capitalist system. So, you'd most likely have to go into business in the standard way, low taxes, cheap labor, wherever that may be.

 

However, if you want to adopt a slightly different ethos, you could model it more along the lines of a WSDE, which means you are treating the utilization and distribution of profits in a more equatable way and not afraid to pay your fair share of taxes. Just means, you and shareholders wouldn't get as rich, and the shareholders could be the employees of your company, and not a bunch of outside people.

 

Well.....

 

 

Interesting that you don't really have any solution other than what would make it worse.

 

Hey, you're the businessman, why are you asking me in the 1st place? I don't see that a business has alot of options: you either do the right thing or do the greedy thing. What's your plan to "save NOLA". other than minimum wage and child labor?

 

As to WSDEs, I know you laugh it off in your patronizingly smug way, but they will become more and more common just as say, healthy/whole foods diets and yoga started off back in the 60s/70s and guys like you laughed.

 

Hey...I have said before. I have absolutely no problem with WSDEs. If you think that's a better place to work, go start one.

 

So....let me ask this. If WSDEs are the answer in New Orleans, how do you draw them to the area to employ these people?

 

I'm still trying to figure out your solution to the problem and to this point, you admit all of your solutions actually make it worse. Shocker.

 

Again...I have absolutely no problem with WSDEs. Hey....if they work....go for it.

Fact is, those WSDEs still have to make money to stay alive and thrive. Some times I think you hate profit so much that you think business's just don't need it. News flash, it doesn't matter what the ownership structure is, if you lose money, you won't be around long.

So....I ask again......do you have a solution to drawing any type of enterprise to New Orleans that will create jobs and raise their standard of living so that hopefully the crime rate goes down?

 

Open up a liquor store chain and hire 10 yr olds as cashiers and 12 year old floor moppers, I've never seen liquor stores fail. How 'bout a pizza/fried chicken/BBQ ribs chain? Seriously, any successful biz in any inner city scenario can be counted a plus, considering the general dirth of investment and resources in most:

 

 

Anyway, where did I ever say I "hate profits"? Show me where I said that? Predatory profiteering, profits over people, the concentration of profits to the few at top(the non producer class, the "1%") while the workers remain poor. Therein lies the problem, hence the preference for unionized labor or WSDEs. In, say, a WSDE, or something in that direction, everyone has a stake in the business and share in the the profits and decisions thereof.

 

To try and introduce a different business model into the normal biz environment will obviously have it's challenges: namely, attacks from those doing business as usual. However, WSDE ARE cropping up more and more and some cities--NY, Cleveland, Milwaukee, for e.g.--are starting to invest in WSDE models. If you wanted to do the "right thing" re: NOLA, or wherever, that's the way I would go or something in that direction.

 

What would you do, Mr. McGoo?

 

So...you still don't have a solution.

 

Got it.

[cornographic]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Soooo.....bringing this full circle, Corn.....so, your solution would be to have all the potential workers in New Orleans join a union, increase the minimum wage and increase the taxes on any corporation that would move to New Orleans to pay for everything.

That would be the way of a prospering economy, yes. I don't particularly see the need for a billionaire class, or even a multi multi millionaire class, while most the population gets poorer.

 

Corp taxes dont pay for everything, obviously, just get back to paying what reflects as a fair tax contribution back into the locales in which they are located. I mean, if they are using the R&D subsidies, cheap land deals, infrastructure, utilities, necessary labor force, they have to pay their fair share, right? The way it's gone, they don't seem to want to pay anything, want to pay all their share holders, who put the $ in off shore tax havens, yada yada.

 

OK......let's say I want to open a factory somewhere in the south central US. Why would I choose New Orleans?

 

Depends on the factory, I spose. Manufacturing boats or floating houses, since the place gets flooded every 10 yrs. But you know the area better, so you would know more about the "why".

 

My question was actually a valid question. If jobs and poverty are a major driving force behind the crime problems in New Orleans and your solution is to unionize the work force, increase minimum wage, raise taxes on companies....etc.

 

Now.....put yourself in the job of convincing companies to open a factory in New Orleans to employ these people.

 

What are your selling points? Why would I go there instead of Dallas, Jackson, Pensacola, Houston...etc.

 

Companies are in the job of making profits for their share holders, so they wouldn't locate anywhere for the reasons I state. I.e, they aren't in the business of altruism. The only way they would locate to NOLA is if the taxes and labor are lower than wherever else they are considering.

 

So...to solve the problem of poverty and unemployment....the best solution would be to implement policies that would prevent businesses from locating there. They also may drive out companies that are currently located there which would drive up more unemployment.

 

What am I missing?

 

Capitalists dont go into business to solve poverty and unemployment. They go into business to make profits for themselves, employing as few workers as needed toward that end. Until that "ethos" changes, which won't be anytime soon, there will always be poverty and unemployment. It's really a problem inherent to the capitalist system. So, you'd most likely have to go into business in the standard way, low taxes, cheap labor, wherever that may be.

 

However, if you want to adopt a slightly different ethos, you could model it more along the lines of a WSDE, which means you are treating the utilization and distribution of profits in a more equatable way and not afraid to pay your fair share of taxes. Just means, you and shareholders wouldn't get as rich, and the shareholders could be the employees of your company, and not a bunch of outside people.

 

Well.....

 

 

Interesting that you don't really have any solution other than what would make it worse.

 

Hey, you're the businessman, why are you asking me in the 1st place? I don't see that a business has alot of options: you either do the right thing or do the greedy thing. What's your plan to "save NOLA". other than minimum wage and child labor?

 

As to WSDEs, I know you laugh it off in your patronizingly smug way, but they will become more and more common just as say, healthy/whole foods diets and yoga started off back in the 60s/70s and guys like you laughed.

 

Hey...I have said before. I have absolutely no problem with WSDEs. If you think that's a better place to work, go start one.

 

So....let me ask this. If WSDEs are the answer in New Orleans, how do you draw them to the area to employ these people?

 

I'm still trying to figure out your solution to the problem and to this point, you admit all of your solutions actually make it worse. Shocker.

 

Again...I have absolutely no problem with WSDEs. Hey....if they work....go for it.

Fact is, those WSDEs still have to make money to stay alive and thrive. Some times I think you hate profit so much that you think business's just don't need it. News flash, it doesn't matter what the ownership structure is, if you lose money, you won't be around long.

So....I ask again......do you have a solution to drawing any type of enterprise to New Orleans that will create jobs and raise their standard of living so that hopefully the crime rate goes down?

 

Open up a liquor store chain and hire 10 yr olds as cashiers and 12 year old floor moppers, I've never seen liquor stores fail. How 'bout a pizza/fried chicken/BBQ ribs chain? Seriously, any successful biz in any inner city scenario can be counted a plus, considering the general dirth of investment and resources in most:

 

 

Anyway, where did I ever say I "hate profits"? Show me where I said that? Predatory profiteering, profits over people, the concentration of profits to the few at top(the non producer class, the "1%") while the workers remain poor. Therein lies the problem, hence the preference for unionized labor or WSDEs. In, say, a WSDE, or something in that direction, everyone has a stake in the business and share in the the profits and decisions thereof.

 

To try and introduce a different business model into the normal biz environment will obviously have it's challenges: namely, attacks from those doing business as usual. However, WSDE ARE cropping up more and more and some cities--NY, Cleveland, Milwaukee, for e.g.--are starting to invest in WSDE models. If you wanted to do the "right thing" re: NOLA, or wherever, that's the way I would go or something in that direction.

 

What would you do, Mr. McGoo?

 

So...you still don't have a solution.

 

Got it.

 

Well, maybe I don't understand your question, so maybe you could kindly offer up your solutions so I can better understand WTF you are driving at.

 

I've offered up some ideas, so I don't know what you're missing. If anybody thinks they have solutions to end urban poverty anytime soon, they are dreaming.

 

How about end 'red lining' of urban blacks for starters, you know, so they can get loans and start businesses?

[BigRedBuster]

I've simply asked, how do you promote WSDEs to be started and thrive in New Orleans. All you ever seem to come back with are snide comments towards anyone who might actually want to make a profit. You know....because all we want to do is own slaves. Gee....wonder where I got the idea you hate profit.

 

So...if a group of people who are all going to work together want to start a WSDE to make something and sell it, what entices them to do it in New Orleans instead of some other city? That is....after they start paying everyone a higher wage and pay higher taxes than those other cities.

 

And....on a side tangent.......Please explain to me if I'm making bobbers and own the business....why do I care if one of my competitors is a WSDE?

[cm husker]

All socialists hate profit. They believe it's "excess" charging. What they fail to understand is that driving for profit leads to less expensive but higher quality goods.

 

There's real cost associate with cutting out profit incentives.

[cm husker]

 

 

 

 

What was there condition before?

 

Are they being forced to work in those conditions?

 

I'm all for improving conditions by consumers voting with a pocket book (like you do with redwing), but I'm not for the US imposing US standards are foreign country workers.

Forced? Yeah, either that or starve is pretty much the option.

 

Indonesia has been getting their asses kicked by capitalists going back to at least WWII and the Nazis. Like any country, they had their own local economies that revolved around agriculture and amazing handcrafted commodities by tradesmen and artisans. Maybe you've been to a real Indonesian import shop somewhere?

 

India, you said you liked India so much, well, before the Brits showed up on the scene, India was probably the wealthiest, most prosperous economy in the world, developed as I described. The Brits destroyed all that and basically de-developed them, enslaved them into their form of indusrtial capitalism.

You can't say starvation is the only other option and then say that these jobs are a bad thing.

 

Your propogandist history aside, India and Indonesia were hardly great situations for the poor of those countries 150 years ago.

 

If you want to talk about appropriate reparations for past harms/stealing of productivity, I'm all for it. But that's not accomplished by restricting trade today.

 

Starvation is the only other option because the Western imperialists came in, like they always do, and took over everything--pushed all the people into urban slums for slave labor. It's not complicated.

Do you want to work in an Indonesian sweat shop c/o Phil Knight and "live" in the adjacent god awful slums? I didn't thing so. Why is it alright for them and not for you? That's right, they are the slaves and you are not. Maybe you've heard the concept of "primitive accumulation"? Probably not, eh? Well, that's where you have to have a zillion slaves working to extract the basic raw materials/resources to get capitalism going--Western Europe and the USA were basically built off the back of Africa, still going today. Capitalism depends on slavery in one form or another and the relative theft of raw materials.

Anyhoo, yeah, 150 years ago, the Brits were still kicking ass in India, so you are right about that, and I'm not sure who got into Indonesia 1st--may have been the French, or Brits. Colonialization/imperialism--maybe you've heard of it--is not propaganda, it's the theft of another countries resources and labor.

 

Anyway, If things don't work out for ya in your current gig, I can see a bright future for you as a prof @ the Ludwig Von Mises School of Fascist Economics....

 

More "rising tide" prosperity for Indonesian sweatshop workers:

 

This is loony. For one, even if I accepted your arguments about imperialism, which I don't, the solution isn't to punish these people further through economic isolationism.

 

Do you even understand why India fell behind its textile industry? It wasn't imperialism or international trade, which originally drove their gdp way up. It was their failure to industrialize processes. At the time, it made sense because it was cheaper to buy more manual labor than to develop or buy machinery. But it hurt them badly in the end, leaving them wrong footed for competing internationally.

 

I'm not going to sit here and defend colonialism, but under the prior royal rule, the poor in India were easily as exploited as they were under British influence.

 

The fact is, for all your rhetoric, you've offered no path forward for poor people. Except that you want to "FDR" them. But that's just more rhetoric.