We are living in a global marketplace where winners and losers are defined by who makes a quality product that costs the least.

The consumer determines what products they are going to buy. If you make a piece of junk product you aren't going to survive unless it is produced by a slave labor workforce.

Japanese and Korean automakers were able to move into the American market because they produced better vehicles that cost less than ours.

Where did the poor quality and the higher costs come from?

Is there that much of a difference between how a Toyota is made compared to a Chevy?

What caused the collapse of the coal and steel industries?

There has to be a reason as to why it was cheaper to import steel from Japan and Korea than make it here.

The demise of these types of industries not only had an impact on the people that were directly involved there was a massive trickle down effect that led to a massive loss of jobs that were dependent on these industries.

Is it any surprise that 1975 was the last year we had a trade surplus? Or that wage stagnation started in 1971?

This was about the time our greatest competition in the marketplace were finished spending their capital rebuilding their capitols.

World War 2 gave us a huge advantage. We exploited it. Got complacent and have been paying the price for the last 40 years.

Running out corporations and moving to a "public" ownership model is not going to change the dynamics that we now have to live by.

China India Latin and South America will chew you up and spit you out.

Of course it surprises you. That's because you get all your information from your 33 percenter friends. I 've been trying for weeks to tell you all about the controversies inside the Democratic Party.



No, that's because Democrats stayed hoe. Pure and simple. The 33 percenters stepped into the void.



Hitler was an extreme fascist. Il and Stalin were Totalitarians. A Socialist , by today's standards, would be somebody like dwight David Eisenhower.



And who told you this?



And you believe that an Act that calls itself a Clear Skies Act actually promotes clear skies. Cmon.

If it were only so simple. This perspective of "winners and losers" is limited to the supply side of economics. It is not even a good description, because it cannot even begin to account for the way things actually are on that side of the equation.

In much of the manufacturing sector, there are at least two markets. One that appeals to those who can afford a very high quality product and the very high cost of the skilled labor and/or manufacturing techniques that are required to produce such a product, and the other market for the rest who cannot afford such quality. I suggest we take on this tack, for it offers a much more comprehensive informing of the mind.



A consumer has a certain amount of purchasing power which gives them a certain amount of control in the economic landscape. However, once again you've given an overly simplied version which does not hold up to the way things are/were. It fails to mention or even be able to take into account other irrevocable variables, which need to be taken into consideration in order to gain an understanding of how it works.

1.A consumer can only afford that which his/her means allows them to afford.
2.A consumer can only purchase that which offered in the marketplace.
3.The more poor people you have, the more cheap products you can sell.
4.The cheaper the product can be made, the higher the porfit margin.
5.The more good paying jobs that are moved overseas, the more poor people you have.

STOP...


THINK about that.



In some cases, yes. In some cases, no. It is not so simple. I happen to be well-versed in this particular area. Let's see if I can lay this out a little more completely. It directly involves a cohesive mindset that is sorely lacking in many American companies.

Astute Japanese automakers were very deliberate in seizing the opportunity that was afforded to them. Japanese cultural tradition holds that failure is a form of dishonor, and success is to be sought at all costs. To die fighting is the most honorable way to die. Nation first, family second, individual third. That's how it goes.

In the business sense, the Japanese strategy was to provide as good, or better, a vehicle at a lower cost in order to get their 'foot in the door' of the American marketplace. The long-term profit potential was clear, and the increased revenue and demand would benefit the whole country of Japan. Americans bought more cars, more frequently than any people of any nation. Therefore the Japanese, knowing this, intentionally undercut the American car manufacturers in pricing, with the sole aim of cornering the market on small cars. The company owners skillfully performed this entrance by willfully and knowingly taking temporary losses here and there in their own profit margin.

The meme of poor American quality cars was introduced in the public mind through our media outlets, and was and is still being perpetuated in commercials and talking head shows that are bought and paid for by anti-union sources. Think about this...

There are no trade unions in Japan, and as far as I know, there are no Japanese-owned companies in America with a trade union other than A-mold in southwestern Ohio. That is because the workers in Japanese plants are taken very good care of by the company. They earn a good wage. They have good benefits. The company takes pride in these things, because they know that a happy worker is a more productive worker. They know that if they offer these things, they can pick and choose the most talented and skilled professionals to create a profitable and cohesive company. Again, this stems from traditional cultural tradition. Being a part of the whole is a highly valued moral. If the whole is successful, then the individuals making up the whole have honor. On another tack...

If car manufacturing unions are broken or injured, actual cost goes down. The average American wage goes down. Product prices, however, always remain the same and/or increase. Owner/shareholder profits go up in direct proportion to the loss in wages/benefits suffered by the employees. These are economic facts.



The technology being used was outdated. R&D was lacking. The quality control standards are not set by employees, nor are they checked by union members. Quality control departments are salary(company) positions.



The machining tolerances within the moving components of the drivetrain are, or at least they were, nearly twice as precise. The Japanese automation technology is the standard to this day. The company pursues such innovations, not the employees.



Have they collapsed? The rise of plastics and plastic extrusion innovations played a role in the steel industries decline. That is especially true regarding the automotive industry. Plastic is cheaper. The technology is more automated. More automation, no matter the industry, equates to less need for highly skilled positions, greater precision, greater loss prevention, less employees, lower wages, higher profit margins.



As if it is a big secret, and enigma?

It is simple economics. It is cheaper to produce steel elsewhere for same reason it is cheaper to make clothing in Singapore than it is to make it in Atlanta. The production cost is much lower. Americans have a higher standard of living. Americans expect to share in more of the fruits of the labor from their own hands. Americans expect, a decent living wage, a safe work environment, and health benefits. Americans expect to get treated better, and rightfully so. This is America, not Hong Kong, not China, not India, not Taiwan, not Korea, not Vietnam....

This is America.

American workers have already fought long and hard for the ability to earn a decent wage, and have a relatively comfortable and simple life, if they so choose.



No argument here.



Got complacent in what way? Whose complacency are we talking about, and how exactly does this complacency affect/effect the American marketplace? How did that complacency effect/affect the average American wage? How does that complacency equate to the wrongfully implied necessity to...

1. purchase foreign goods and/or use foreign materials
2. break labor unions
3. move American jobs overseas
4. begin new companies overseas
5. offer foreign competitors the ability to undercut the pricing of American-made goods
7. force American workers/businesses to compete with third world labor



That we - meaning the American people - have to live by? That's what I would call complacency of the very worst kind. I don't think that you quite understand what it is that I'm in mid-process of laying out here. I don't think that you understand at all.

Why ought the American people sit back and watch the backbone of America be ripped out, while it is being justified and contorted in such a way as to make the American workers and unions seem at fault here? That is a lie, born and bred by those who lobbied to pass the trade agreements, by those who bought foreign supplies, by those who created the need for unions to begine with, by those who moved operations overseas in order to keep these below standard working conditions in place, by those had the most to gain.

It is not the American public who still pays the same retail cost - they gained nothing but a lower average wage, it is not the American worker who lost a good paying job - they gained nothing but lost a good wage, rather it is those who benefit from the increase in profit margin.



Yeah, and ten starving citizens of a third world country will kick your a$$ for a scrap of bread for much less than it takes to make it. Is that the kind of competition that the American government should subject it citizens to?

You've missed the point altogether, haven't you?

This system places profit above people. It is doomed to fail. It is divisive, and has proven to be so. It is unsustainable.

Much of the problems I hinted at in this post come as a logical consequence of self-centered, and self destructive American thinking. You know, the same kind of thinking that permeated through the housing crisis. People's only motive was to make a buck, no matter the consequence. The same one that is gradually forcing American workers to compete against slave labor conditions? The same one which moved operations overseas in order to increase profit margins. Taken to it's logical end, capitalism without a morality check will prove to create an extremely wealthy class of powerful people who have the ability to either directly influence or make the rules to keep it that way. The side effects are greater numbers of poor people, with greater needs that cannot be met through their own means. That has clearly been realized. That is the way things are... right now.

The only thing that has continued to bind the people of this country together from it's very inception through the current day has been a common enemy. It does not matter whether that is a real one or an imagined one. Right now, that enemy is wrongfully conceived. It is a cancerous and divisive meme of thought in the minds of those who believe certain sources. Those which are framing the thoughts of the American public in order so that the political narrative avoids the reality of the true cause(s) of the current situation that we've found ourselves in.

It is being imagined that union workers and the poorest members of society are the enemies of the state. Nothing could be further from truth. There are not, nor have there been, any actions taken by union members or poor people that have resulted in the situation that we find ourselves in. That is pure fiction being fed to the willfully ignorant. It is a cancerous meme of American thought. It needs stamped out an corrected. It divides the country while neglected what really has happened in our recent past. It is neglecting to focus upon the reality of the situation as it has came to pass. It is to point the finger at the victims of a well planned crime.

This is quite a lengthy post. Feel free to extract portions and discuss them, rather than to continue such a broad scope.

That's pretty low-hanging fruit.

The greedy business owners play no part?

How, exactly do you think that player wages affect you personally? Perhaps it be better to also ask another question. Does owner profit affect you in the same way?



No one makes 45 dollars an hour to turn a screwdriver, at least not that I'm aware of. But, so what if they did? Are you saying that you're against having good paying jobs available to the American public? Are you further saying that it is better to have the owners/shareholders reap more profit from cutting worker wages? The cost never goes down, you see?





Well first of all I don't believe that story. It is exaggerated. The journeyman electrican scale gets lower the further south you are. The scale in the north being the highest at around 35 an hour. Secondly, holding a union position does not eliminate the possibility of getting fired. Again, are you against having good paying American jobs available?



If this were true, we would not find ourselves looking at current legislation all over the country aiming to change the labor laws, aiming to do away with mininum wage, aiming to do away with safety laws, etc. That is exactly what we are looking at. We are looking at people who want to enact laws that require American workers to compete against the slave trade.

Unions were started because some owners put their personal profit above the wellbeing of the workforce, and they are becoming more and more necessary because it is quite clear that there are many very wealthy people influencing a number of young politicians who could care less about those who are born into less fortunate circumstances not as a result of their own choosing.

You've missed the point altogether, haven't you?

This system places profit above people. It is doomed to fail. It is divisive, and has proven to be so. It is unsustainable.



I simplify my posts because most people won't sit and read 5 paragraphs of opinion. I just read yours so call me unique.

I can certainly appreciate you laying all your cards on the table and attempting to justify a system that would be a total failure and probably lead to another civil war.

If you asked the average person whether they would prefer to work on what we have or become Venezuela I would bet it would be work on what we have.

I find your distaste for profitability rather interesting. I would think that a business working under the socialist model would want to make enough money to stay in business. Or is the idea that a business should only make enough to support its employees?

I am interested in how that is actually supposed to work.

You raised the issue of innovation and R&D. How do you suppose said businesses are to raise the funds for capital investments? Is the government just going to cut them a check when they decide its time to improve their process? How much money is said business required to turn over to the government so they have the ability to redistribute it to more needy businesses?

How does the hierarchy work with a business? Is a design engineer going to be paid the same as a machinist? Because they have jobs are they going to be required to turn over a portion of their paychecks to the government so it can be redistributed to someone that doesn't have a job?

Or does the socialist model have 0% unemployment?

How does the socialist model compete with China?

Do you lower the wages paid and increase the money given to the overseer of the public good? Do you demand that all goods and services must come from within your socialist system?

How does your model account for professions in the service side of the system?

A fireman or policeman is an important part of the public welfare, but what they provide cannot be sold.

Who pays them? Where does that money come from?

Do farmers harvest crops for money? Are they expected to simply provide the food necessary and expect nothing more that gratitude in return?

If they are paid who pays them? The consumer or the overseer of the public good?

Where does the money come from to help the people with disabilities?

Is this socialist system going to employ the tactics of the early 20th century causes? Eugenics? Elective Breeding? Social Darwinism?

I will end this with one of my favorite quotes by the famous socialist Bernard Shaw. Whenever I read or hear this I can only imagine what it must have been like being classified as one of the undesirables of the time.

"You must all know half a dozen people at least who are no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there and say Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you can’t justify your existence, if you’re not pulling your weight in the social boat, if you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can’t be of very much use to yourself".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQvsf2MUKRQ


I look forward to you taking the time to answer my simplistic questions

You've mistaken a distaste for a system which fosters and perpetuates elitism and has willfully created the largest income gap in almost 70 years through financial oppression with a distaste for profitability.



The idea is that more of the wealth can, and ought be enjoyed by more of the population. The idea being that we are already on the slide towards forcing American workers to compete with slave wages, while the owners/shareholders reap more and more profits. I'm arguing that a capitalist mindset which blatantly and callously disregards fellow Americans/'lower class' people in lieu of personal profit margin has been cancerous to American society, and that the facts in evidence clearly support this conclusion. I'm not arguing for pure socialism/Marxism. Rather I'm arguing against the model in place by looking at it's results. There are many ways to solve the problems at hand. All of them involve a vested interest in cooperation working towards the overwellbeing of the nation as a whole, whether that be employee owned businesses, good profit sharing incentives, good private business practice as the Japanese-owned companies have shown to be quite successful, or some combination thereof.

I'm arguing the fact that the system in place has allowed the country to suffer while the wealthy have not. I've given the beginings of a very sound argument which shows why and how that has been the logical consequence.



The point of my raising the R&D aspect was in response to questions regarding how the quality was low and the price was high on American automobiles. The implication being that the unions were at fault. I merely showed how that was not necessarily the case, contrary to popular opinion.



Government subsidies are already in place my friend.



Loans are already in place. The auto companies paid back their bailout and saved good paying American jobs.



The more reasonable approach, on my view, is to look at what constitutes being an acceptable ratio for the wages of the highest paid employee compared to the wages of the lowest and to implement pay-scales based upon this. That allows the harder working to receive better pay. That allows the higher skilled to receive better pay. That allows the owner, should s/he have a privately owned business to find it worth while to take the risk, should there be much of one. It also would increase the lower payed individual's pay. The lower and middle classes of people are the ones who spend the most of their money. An economy without spending is dead.

Look at this one... right now. The people who have are not spending. If more people would have had, we would not be here.



Why ought we need/have to, is the better question to ask?



I demand that the country be as self-sufficient as possible.



Are you invoking successful socialist programs to argue against socialist programs and more socialist business models? Why would that need changed, after all it works.



I think you're raising questions which need not be yet raised. Afterall, the mechanization of planting and harvesting along with the genetic alterations of corn and soybean products have many farms being subsidized as it is. The government already is paying farmers to not produce food. It is not a free market, it is not competition based supply and demand. It is manipulated.



The same place it comes from now.



You've confused Nazism/Fascism with modern socialist thinking.



Interesting... and this kind of thinking is different in exactly what way from modern conservative policies working towards the abolishment of social welfare programs that constitute the sole means of one's income?





I look forward to your addressing the below...

--

1. A consumer can only afford that which his/her means allows them to afford.
2. A consumer can only purchase that which offered in the marketplace.
3. The more poor people you have, the more cheap products you can sell.
4. The cheaper the product can be made, the higher the profit margin.
5. The more good paying jobs that are moved overseas, the more poor people you have.



There's the recipe being followed to the letter.

i said the "root" cause, not the only cause...in 1984, a CEO was making roughly 16 times the wage of the common worker at their company... right now, it is about 2600 times more...

Hey, moe...

Why do you think that is?

it effects me and everyone else for 2 reasons. first, they have to raise ticket prices to compensate, so many people that can't afford to will not be able to, so they are only catering to the rich people now. they also promoting greedyness, saying it is allright to suck in all the money and keep it out of circulation, like the oil companies do...the rich people do not pay the most in taxes, the middle class does. so when the middle class disappears, what happens? you get a government that can't pay it's bills...



a decent wage for a decent days work...while i agree with you about the cost never going down, but the greed has set in, and hard to change now... but your view on this is kind of a weird for a socialist



well, all you have to do is a little investigation work...

C,mon moe...

I suggest you do the investigative work. I know damned good and well exactly what the building trades' pay scales are.



I am all about the sustainable overall wellbeing of the nation on a whole. I am all about shared vested interest in the success of the nation on a whole. I am all about more of the wealth being enjoyed by all of those who play a direct role in creating it. I am all about citizens having a moral obligation to the wellbeing of the nation that affords such a high standard of living. I am all about a thriving country with a strong economy. I am all about high quality products being afforded to the citizens of the country via good paying jobs. I am all about not allowing callous people to have power over other citizens for whom they care nothing at all about. I am all about looking at who benefits from what actions. If the individual is the only beneficiary of an action taken, and it is at the direct negative expense of the nation on a whole, then the action itself is destructive to the nation's overall wellbeing. I am all about this nation's founding principles. Some may call that patriotic, some may call that communistic, some may call that idealistic...

I call that being an American socialist.

well, your vast knowledge is doing so much good here, on a dating site forum...

because of the democrats and socialists?

1. A consumer can only afford that which his/her means allows them to afford.
2. A consumer can only purchase that which offered in the marketplace.
3. The more poor people you have, the more cheap products you can sell.
4. The cheaper the product can be made, the higher the profit margin.
5. The more good paying jobs that are moved overseas, the more poor people you have.


1. A wise consumer only purchases what they need and saves what is left.

2. This is not necessarily true. With the internet I can purchase much more than what is offered in my local marketplace. I can walk into Best Buy and not find what I am looking for. I can go onto the internet and find anything I want. We are not even limited by the borders of a country. If I wanted the German version of the Audi RS5 then I could order it and have it shipped here. We aren't still living in the age of the company store.

3. This is not true either. WalMart did not become the worlds largest retailer yesterday. Nor did they because everything they offer is cheap. Whether you are poor or wealthy people go to WalMart because they offer a large selection of items. I have a many friends that are well off and they do most of their shopping at WalMart.

I personally despise WalMart.

4. This again deals with profitability. Does the little girl that opens a lemonade stand do it just so she can bake in the sun on a random afternoon or does she do it so maybe she can save the money she earns and can use it later at her discretion?

I am wondering if you think she ought to pay some of that to the government and help out those other little girls that would rather play with barbies.

Random thoughts..

Profitability is what allows a business to invest in their employees and helps keep them employed. If a business is in the practice of creating a slave/master environment how many of today's modern employees are going to go for that? How many quality employees are they going to replace them with? They will be out of business..

I think you are blaming the business for what you perceive as a reversion to the sweatshop days. It has been proven that happy employees are much more productive than disgruntled employees.It is not in the best interest of the business to purposely create an environment that would cause employees to react in an unsatisfactory way.

5. GM is the perfect example of why moving some operations outside of the US can hurt the assembly line worker, but can keep the dealers, parts suppliers, truck drivers and anyone else that is involved in the after market sales of their products in business. Has GM moving operations out of Michigan hurt the local economy? Of Course. There were thousands of workers that lost their jobs. The numbers of peripheral workers and businesses that would have been lost is probably 10 times as many as were lost in Michigan had they not closed those plants. Is it really all about greed? If you have the choice between eating bugs to survive or not eating bugs and dying which would you choose?

One other issue I want to address is that you said I was confusing modern socialism with Nazism.

I am not. I know that there are those in the Marxist/Socialist camp that continue to believe in necessitating a massive reduction in population. Not slowing the rise in global population, but out and out reducing it. It's not just a few million either. Proponents of Marxist/Socialist programs have a well documented history of favoring oppressive regimes that create the means to their ends.

I am not saying that you, personally, are advocating for such, but I have to admit that the track records of those that have imposed this type of collective for the public good system of oppression have made it very difficult for someone like me to think that this isn't just a nicer, gentler version of the third reich.

I have traveled extensively throughout Eastern Europe and I have had many a conversation with people that lived through the oppression and I can tell you that their stories are harrowing. They all said they were sold a bill of goods and told how much better their lives were going to be.

They were nothing more than lies.

Thomas Jefferson...

--

"Take not from the mouth of labor the bread it as earned."

"A nation as a society forms a moral person, and every member of it is personally responsible for his society"

"We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate."

"I believe that justice is instinct and innate; the moral sense is as much a part of our constitution as the threat of feeling, seeing and hearing."

"Honesty is the first chapter of the book of wisdom."

"I have come to a resolution myself as I hope every good citizen will, never again to purchase any article of foreign manufacture which can be had of American make be the difference of price what it may"

"It is always better to have no ideas than false ones; to believe nothing, than to believe what is wrong."

"The merchant has no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains."

"The selfish spirit of commerce, which knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain."

"If the children are untaught, their ignorance and vices will in future life cost us much dearer in their consequences than it would have done in their correction by a good education"

"The only purpose of government is to protect the people."

"There is...an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents.... The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provisions should be made to prevent its ascendancy."

"The tax which will be paid for the purpose of education is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests and nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance"

"Leave no authority existing not responsible to the people."

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometric progression as they rise"

"I hope we shall take warning from the example of England and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our Government to trial, and bid defiance to the laws of our country"

"I have but one system of ethics for men and for nations - to be grateful, to be faithful to all engagements under all circumstances, to be open and generous, promoting in the long run even the interests of both; and I am sure it promotes their happiness"

"It is a misnomer to call a government republican in which a branch of the supreme power [the judiciary] is independent of the nation."

"The greatest honor of a man is in doing good to his fellow men, not in destroying them."

"Experience demands that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the general prey of the rich on the poor."

The point remains. One cannot buy what one cannot afford.



That is necessarily true, my friend. The internet constitutes part of your marketplace.



What? Your friends do not constitute the people who prove the claim. Rather, they constitute the people who willfully perpetuate slave labor conditions even though they have a choice in the matter. You response is mostly irrelevant. Walmart's rise to power has no bearing whatsoever on my claim.

It is a mathematical fact that the more low wage incomes there are, the higher the number of cheaper products will be sold, because despite types like your friends, there ARE many who can only afford those cheap products but would buy better products if they could afford to. Those are the people who prove the point. People buy what is made available that they can afford. You can't buy what you want if it is unavailable, and you can't buy what you want if you don't have the money. It is completely unintelligible to argue otherwise.





Another irrelevant response.

The cheaper the product can be made, the higher the profit margin.



The point I've made is clear here and it remains the case. You're now focusing upon the afteraffects and what needed to be done in order to justify arguing against unions and socialist measures. There is no question that GM was in trouble. There is also no question that GM shafted it's retirees by breaching a contract with those who worked long and hard when the company was booming, when the company was profitable, but not saving and investing into itself like it should have been doing. It is as a result of poor management that GM was in trouble to begin with. It is as a result of poor working conditions that unions came to be.



Well, what can I say? I see little to no difference between that and young republican policies to kill social programs in the US.



Apples and oranges. What I've laid out in part here is nothing like Fascist Germany or Communist China or Communist USSR. I've outlined the facts of the matter. I've given the recipe that has been followed. I cannot say if that is intentional, but it most certainly pinpoints some of the bigger manufacturing/retailing issues at hand that have led to the demise of many small businesses and the loss of many decent paying jobs.



Those companies need not offer good working conditions... they just opt to produce overseas and sell back to those who lost their jobs.

5. The more good paying jobs that are moved overseas, the more poor people you have.

Learn you history, Eisenhower was far from a Socialist\Communist. The Nazi's WERE Socialist's, so was Stalin.

I think we are at the point where you need to start explaining things in real terms.

What is your definition of poor?

For all I know you could be talking about someone making less than $100,000 per year..

So lets clear that up.. and then I'll address your reply.