New Orleans

[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".

[cm husker]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Globalization is a net win for everyone. Because it raises the dreaded bottom that people supposedly race for.

 

 

The millions of Trump followers disagree.

I know. I just said that. In the next post.

 

Trump and sanders followers are equally misguided on this point, but it's not surprising because both candidates are nothing more than populists.

Yeah, well globalist economics is not a "win" for the working class anywhere, FTMP. It is a race to the bottom, I'm not sure what world you're living in. I think it was Volkswagon that opened some plants in Alabama or something because of the cheaper US labor there relative to the highly unionized labor in Germany. When our labor is cheaper than, say, China, we have big time problems.

Why??! That's a great thing. It'd be great if all economies in the world developed to the level of the US's.

 

That would also put downward pressure on the 1% salaries too.

Look, the capitalists/globalists want the lowest taxes and cheapest labor they can find, so what will continue to happen is the US standard will be eroded more and more to match the 3rd world standard, not the other way around.

You're just not getting it. The capitalists are raising the 3rd world standard. In the long run, things will equalize and everyone will be better off. This is not just theory. We have real world evidence of this. And we have real evidence that government guided economies have the opposite effect.

 

If you seek cheaper gas, or groceries, or haircut, are you part of the problem too?

 

Or is it ok for you to seek a bargain but not companies?

I'm happy to pay more for quality products that last, and that is what I usually do. If my standard as a worker is greater, then I have the means to pay for well made products from fellow workers who also have a decent standard of living. Economic growth happens for the ground up, not trickle down. In short, I don't shop @ Wal Mart. I'd rather but Red Wing boots, that last a long time, than some cheapo crap. Too bad, Red Wing boots have moved some of their production to Mexico.

 

If the capitalists want to raise the standards so much, for the workers, which they don't and never have and that's why they fight unions so fiercely at every turn....but if they did, why does German co. move to Alabama for cheaper labor and the TPP want to open up the cheaper labor of, say, Viet Nam since the already cheap Chinese labor is getting "too costly"?

I'm not saying that capitalist want to raise standards. I'm saying that's the net result.

 

If costs in China are going up relative to Vietnam, that's because sol and labor leverage has improved as China has liberalized their economy. That's a good thing. And eventually Vietnam wages and leverage will increase. And eventually, there will be more productive vibrant economies and less places to find "cheap" labor, and that's a good thing.

 

 

As to your Walmart example, that's great that you want to and can pay for higher grade products. The other day I was in whole foods and saw about a dozen variety of eggs, from free range to fertile to vegetarian fed and a whole variety of sizes and colors and bird types. That's an incredible testament to capitalism as a system. And it would go away if the socialist have their way.

 

If industry moves out of China to Viet Nam, then there's less industry in China, right? The only reason why labor pay has slightly improved in China is, as is usually the case, labor has had to protest, and strike, and try to unionize for some years now. Labor has to fight for improvements, the capitalists generally don't fight for improvements for labor. Their $ interests are contrary, obviously.

 

Food, France, heavier socialistic society, great variety of cuisine. Italy, same deal. Capitalism is just a way of profiteering. Production and distribution can be supplied under socialism. All your advanced industries are developed thru social redistribution of tax $: "corporate welfare". Socialize the costs and privatize the profits, thats the US system.

 

The US system has socialism running throughout it in many ways, which I have gone into extensively in the past on the board here. The military is economically socialistic, for e.g.

 

 

WRONG! In fact, there's more industry and people are freed up to pursue all sorts of other pursuits (that's why Americans on average work far fewer hours per dollar earned than ever before). This is another example of how socialists fundamentally don't understand economics. It's not a zero sum game. As Vietnamese workers gain more, they have more to spend, which usually means that they buy from advanced economies things that they can't use yet themselves.

 

Your rhetoric is disturbingly inaccurate, and by the tone, I know you want accept evidence that runs contrary. So, I'll just leave you with a recommendation that you look at the actual economic systems in France and Italy and their underlying economies.

 

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/04/08/end-of-french-socialism-hollande-elections/

 

 

 

Historically, a tension has pulsated at the heart of French socialism in its attitude toward capitalism and the market economy. When in power, the Socialists have little choice but to accept, though grudgingly, the reality of the marketplace; when in the opposition, they are free, in the phrase of the political theorist Gérard Grunberg, to “redo their ideological virginity.” The problem now confronting the party is that these two tendencies exist simultaneously: While the Socialist government tacks with the current flowing from Brussels, the gusts of wind from the “left of the left” — the so-called frondeurs, or rebels within the party, as well as former allies like the Greens — push in the other direction. As Grunberg concludes, the presence of these countervailing currents “is suicidal.”

The military is socialistic in the sense that it, as a sole purchaser, does directly drive production and distribution, but it's not socialist overall. If you're referring to similar pay for any type of job of the same rank, under a tortured and misguided view that may be considered "socialist." But, if you've ever served, you know there's a lot of pushback in the ranks around whether a yeoman E-5 should receive the same base pay as an E-5 SEAL.

 

What's amusing to me is how the far left progressives rail against capitalism's ills that led to the great recession, but gloss right over socialism's responsibility for the Great Chinese Famine (a catastrophe only 50 years old that can't even be fathomed by western countries).

 

The Chinese economy is contracting because they built up too much too fast and overproduce, and people in, say the US, dont have as much $ to buy all the stuff. Chinese Labor has fought for more of a slice, still tiny slice, and thats why they want the cheaper labor in Viet Nam. So maybe Apple moves to Viet Nam eventually, not back to Murca, as Trumpf says.

 

Unions gave the American worker all the benefits he/she has/had enjoyed for the 2-3 decades post FDR: 8 hr day, OT, weekends off, pensions, safe conditions, etc. In case you hadn't noticed, the big gripe these days is WORKER INSECURITY, lower wages, fewer hours, crazy schedules, etc etc.

 

As to the military, its paid for by the US tax $, hence "socialistic", like public schools, roads.

 

Again, I repeat, the US and Euro, SE Asian, economies are a mixture of capitalism and socialism, there is no such thing as pure capitalism, pure free markets.

 

 

The Chinese economy is slated to grow 6.8% this year. You have a funny sense of "contraction." All those empty cities were mainly built under communist orders. That's why it's a mess.

 

Today a buddy was telling me he's having a 65" tv delivered that costs $900. He may or may not have as much real dollars to spend, but his buying power is significantly higher.

 

Your history is completely wrong. The hours were dropping before unionization. Ford also supposedly drove that, but in reality, they were already dropping.

 

I do find it amusing that you simultaneously argue that unions reduced hours, but now people are complaining about numbers of hours worked.

 

Your definition of socialism is misunderstood completely. But that's ok.

 

I'm not going to reach you, because you don't want to be reached; I just hope there are few other Americans that are so misguided.

[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.

[cornographic]

 

 

 

 

I would read it. Please post anything substantive that you found there.

 

And his policies are absolutely anti-immigrant. He just wouldn't build a physical wall.

 

FDR is mythologized but he was awful for the overall development of the economy and poor people outside of the special interests who were paid off by his policies.

You are free to research Bernie on your own.

 

He is not anti immigrant, that's ridiculous. He's about immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship(amnesty) for undocumented folks already living here.

 

Yeah, your take on FDR is bonkers, not really useful for me to respond. I guess you don't like social security, public schools, unions, etc etc. Like I said, you sound like a Libertarian.

I'm a classical liberal. I like the idea of helping share the proceeds of productivity, but I want to do that in the most efficient way possible while eliminating all barriers to competition. The problem I have with progressives is that they want to engineer an outcome that too often isn't realistic or isn't universal.

 

That's why I philosophically have a problem with unions, which I don't think get the best deals for their member, all while tamping down non-member opportunities.

 

So, you're saying that, say, professional athletes are WORSE off in modern times due to their unions than they were back in the pre union days? I guess thats why most of them are multimillionaires. How about the cops? They're union, one of the strongest. Nobody ever criticizes cops for being union.

 

Nope, across the board, workers are far better off unionized than nonunionized, it's not even close. Why do you think the capitalists hate unions so much?

 

 

Professional athletic unions are NOTORIOUS for protecting the interests of the established, big money players at the expense of other potential players. For example, you see teams firing older players all the time due to union mandated pay schedules; guys who would have otherwise been able to stay on a team at a lower price. Yes, they make some millionaires, but how many guys have they prevented from earning any pay?

 

I'm against police unions entirely; just like I'm against all public unions because their interests are not sufficiently aligned with the taxpayers' (unlike in a private union situation where ultimately they need their industry to remain profitable).

 

I hate unions so much because they keep out labor competition, which is bad for everyone, but especially the have nots. Take a look at how organized labor, which specifically deleted a prohibition on racial discrimination in the original labor legislation, has set back african american advancement historically. It's shocking and that same sort of things occurs today, even if it's not based on race.

 

They, like every other corporate special interest, are more about what makes their union managers rich than about what is best for society overall.

 

Eliminate all forms of corporate welfare, including union protectionism.

 

Uh, me thinks pro aths are across the board light years better off than back in the day, c'mon, there's no refuting it.

 

When labor competes, it always gets the lowest bid the bosses will pay. When labor is organized for collective bargaining, they get the best deal possible because there is power in numbers. The guy fighting out there on his own hasn't much of a chance at a better deal, in most cases. But hey, you are free to hate unions, just dont go around scabbing onto the pay and benes the unions have achieved w/o paying dues, like those "right to workers".

[cm husker]

 

 

 

 

 

I would read it. Please post anything substantive that you found there.

 

And his policies are absolutely anti-immigrant. He just wouldn't build a physical wall.

 

FDR is mythologized but he was awful for the overall development of the economy and poor people outside of the special interests who were paid off by his policies.

You are free to research Bernie on your own.

 

He is not anti immigrant, that's ridiculous. He's about immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship(amnesty) for undocumented folks already living here.

 

Yeah, your take on FDR is bonkers, not really useful for me to respond. I guess you don't like social security, public schools, unions, etc etc. Like I said, you sound like a Libertarian.

I'm a classical liberal. I like the idea of helping share the proceeds of productivity, but I want to do that in the most efficient way possible while eliminating all barriers to competition. The problem I have with progressives is that they want to engineer an outcome that too often isn't realistic or isn't universal.

 

That's why I philosophically have a problem with unions, which I don't think get the best deals for their member, all while tamping down non-member opportunities.

 

So, you're saying that, say, professional athletes are WORSE off in modern times due to their unions than they were back in the pre union days? I guess thats why most of them are multimillionaires. How about the cops? They're union, one of the strongest. Nobody ever criticizes cops for being union.

 

Nope, across the board, workers are far better off unionized than nonunionized, it's not even close. Why do you think the capitalists hate unions so much?

 

 

Professional athletic unions are NOTORIOUS for protecting the interests of the established, big money players at the expense of other potential players. For example, you see teams firing older players all the time due to union mandated pay schedules; guys who would have otherwise been able to stay on a team at a lower price. Yes, they make some millionaires, but how many guys have they prevented from earning any pay?

 

I'm against police unions entirely; just like I'm against all public unions because their interests are not sufficiently aligned with the taxpayers' (unlike in a private union situation where ultimately they need their industry to remain profitable).

 

I hate unions so much because they keep out labor competition, which is bad for everyone, but especially the have nots. Take a look at how organized labor, which specifically deleted a prohibition on racial discrimination in the original labor legislation, has set back african american advancement historically. It's shocking and that same sort of things occurs today, even if it's not based on race.

 

They, like every other corporate special interest, are more about what makes their union managers rich than about what is best for society overall.

 

Eliminate all forms of corporate welfare, including union protectionism.

 

Uh, me thinks pro aths are across the board light years better off than back in the day, c'mon, there's no refuting it.

 

When labor competes, it always gets the lowest bid the bosses will pay. When labor is organized for collective bargaining, they get the best deal possible because there is power in numbers. The guy fighting out there on his own hasn't much of a chance at a better deal, in most cases. But hey, you are free to hate unions, just dont go around scabbing onto the pay and benes the unions have achieved w/o paying dues, like those "right to workers".

 

 

 

Actually, there's a lot to refute because sports are so much more productive today than they were even 20 years ago. I'd have to look at the overall percentages of income versus revenue from 20 years ago to have a sense of how much unionization has helped. Plus, haven't sports athletes always been unionized? NFLPA was founded in 1956. NBPA was founded in 1954. MLBPU was founded in 1953.

 

It's very good that we have people pay the lowest that they have to pay, whether it's corporation or individual consumers.

 

And don't be so quick to prop up those "bene's" that union leaders foist on their membership as "wins." We are already seeing them collapse into themselves in a way where if union dues and "bene" contributions had gone to an index fund, those retirees would be doing much better today. Instead, the same monies end up in those places anyway, but minus the "beak wetting" of some union and money management executives.

[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.

[The Dude]

The town is like 20 feet below sea level, right next to the sea. It's only a matter of time before it all sorts itself out.

[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?

[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.

[cm husker]

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.

[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:

 

[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.

[cm husker]

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?

[Stumpy1]

 

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.

[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.