It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by dolphinfan
Labor costs are too high in the US compared to other countries.
Originally posted by indianajoe77
reply to post by NorEaster
Ok, but how does your solution answer the questions I put forth to you?
Oh, I forgot, rail, rail, rail against business.
Originally posted by indianajoe77
reply to post by NorEaster
1. Its not an anti-union rant or pro-business rant. It's a "it takes two to tango rant."
2. They lost most of their power because they kept insisting on policies and regulations that killed job growth, but kept their workers happy in the short term. Now that lack of growth has lead to their lack of union members, hence their supposed lack of power as you put it.
3. If the unions have no power anymore, then how come the unions control so many of businesses' positions and entire civil service areas? Why do they have a voice at all and why do workers keep paying dues?
4. My argument is old? The big, bad business and banks argument has been going on as long as the first guy said "worker's of the world unite."
My point is that the solution is creating trade agreements that benefit US businesses AND workers, while uplifting the safety and welfare of foreign workers and businesses.
My point is that Corporate America should be standing up for America and pushing for a fair trade act, they should be saying, the NAFTA program didn’t work to make America better…They should be pushing for a change now. They should be standing up for the people who made them what they are today…
Leveraged buyouts involve an investor, financial sponsors or private equity firms making large acquisitions without committing all the capital required for the acquisition. To do this, a financial sponsor will raise acquisition debt which is ultimately secured upon the acquisition target... en.wikipedia.org...
...In January 1982, former US Secretary of the Treasury William Simon and a group of investors acquired Gibson Greetings, a producer of greeting cards, for $80 million, of which only $1 million was rumored to have been contributed by the investors. By mid-1983, just sixteen months after the original deal, Gibson completed a $290 million IPO and Simon made approximately $66 million. The success of the Gibson Greetings investment attracted the attention of the wider media to the nascent boom in leveraged buyouts. Between 1979 and 1989, it was estimated that there were over 2,000 leveraged buyouts valued in excess of $250 billion en.wikipedia.org...
* Sound recording industries - 97%
* Commodity contracts dealing and brokerage - 79%
* Motion picture and sound recording industries - 75%
* Metal ore mining - 65%
* Wineries and distilleries - 64%
* Database, directory, Book and other publishers - 63%
* Cement, concrete, lime, and gypsum product - 62%
* Engine, turbine and power transmission equipment - 57%
* Rubber product - 53%
* Nonmetallic mineral product manufacturing - 53%
* Plastics and rubber products manufacturing - 52%
* Other insurance related activities - 51%
* Boiler, tank, and shipping container - 50%
* Glass and glass product - 48%
* Coal mining – 48%
[And the list goes on and on]
....These days, corporations seem to exist for the investment bankers.... In fact, investment banks are replacing the publicly held industrial corporations as the largest and most powerful economic institutions in America.... THERE ARE SIGNS THAT A VICIOUS spiral has begun, as each corporate player seeks to improve its standard of living at the expense of another's. Corporate raiders transfer to themselves, and other shareholders, part of the income of employees by forcing the latter to agree to lower wages. January 29, 1989
New York Times:
LEVERAGED BUYOUTS: AMERICAN PAYS THE PRICE
‘Whitewashed Windows and Vacant Stores’ - January 26, 2010
...So, the businesses that provided jobs are gone, the office and retail space sits vacant, likely in default. The windows get broken, the walls get tagged, the weeds grow, trash blows, and, with no one to stop it, nature begins the process of permanent destruction. The value of those businesses and real estate is now gone.
Each of these failed enterprises is a sad testament to the times we live in, but taken in their entirety, they foretell an even grimmer future. It will be a longtime before the jobs return.
The failure of Linen’s and Things is a prime example of how Wall Street plundered Main Street, robbing retailers, big and small, and leaving a trail of failure, unemployment and boarded up buildings behind.
Once Wall Street realized that success can only be so profitable but failure has unlimited potential, the race was on to loan money and securitize the debt.
Just like sub-prime residential mortgages, commercial real estate financing and corporate raiding offer opportunities on many fronts. Private-equity groups bought up large retailers and buried them in debt. Leveraged buyouts, as their name implies, are exactly that, leveraged, in that most if not all of the purchase price is borrowed money. The buyer has little, if any, skin in the game.
The nearby Mervyn’s sits empty, another casualty of a leveraged buyout. In 2004, investors, including Cerberus Capital Management, Sun Capital Management and Lubert-Adler purchased Mervyn’s with $800 million secured by Mervyn’s own real estate. Then the stores were leased back to Mervyn’s at substantially increased rates. Dow Jones reported that investors took $400 million out of the company before filing for bankruptcy.
You might be familiar with the mall-based, teen-focused, accessories chain, Claire’s Stores. It was taken over in 2007 by Apollo Management LP for $3.1 billion. At the time, the chain had over $245 million in cash on hand. Today, the cash is gone. Struggling under the weight of $2.3 billion in debt, sales continue to decline....
Originally posted by indianajoe77
reply to post by NorEaster
I still haven't seen how your "break the system" model solves anything but breaking the system. What next then?
There's this Internet that exists now, and on it, regular meatheads (workers who don't mean a damn thing to geniuses like you) can get emails about your brilliant business best-practices and they can get the word sent on pretty damn fast to others like them who resent super capitalists and their bottom-line thinking. I wonder how long it'd take before some other B2B relationship of yours decided that it's better to pay a little extra for that widget than to be chum in the water (like you) as the real meateaters begin to circle.
...Later evidence indicates that the bankrolling of the Bolsheviks was handled by a syndicate of international bankers, which in addition to the Schiff-Warburg clique, included Morgan and Rockefeller interests. Documents show that the Morgan organization put at least $1 million in the Red revolutionary kitty. (Hagedorn, Herman, "The Magnate", John Day, N.Y. See also Washington Post, Feb. 2, 19?8, p. 195.) Bankrolling the Bolshevik Revolution
...Congress needs more money... They go further down the street to the Federal Reserve building. The Fed has been waiting for them, that's one of the reasons it was created. By the time they get inside the Federal Reserve building the officer of the Fed is opening his desk drawer. He knows they're going to be there and he's ready and he pulls out his checkbook and he writes a check to the US Treasury for one billion dollars or whatever the amount is that they need. He signs the check and gives it to the treasury official.
We need to stop here for a minute and ask a question. Where did they get a billion dollars to give to the treasury? who put that money into the account at the Federal Reserve System? The amazing answer is there is no money in the account at the Federal Reserve System. In fact, technically, there isn't even an account, there is only a checkbook. That's all. That billion dollars springs into being at precisely the instant the officer signs that check and that is called "monetizing the debt," that's the phrase they throw at you. That means they just wrote a check, a big rubber check. If you and I were to do that we would go to jail but they can do it because Congress wants them to do it....
Moving jobs overseas is symptomatic of a larger problem and that is the anti-business culture in the US....
The stated plan was that different parts of the world would be assigned different roles of industry and commerce in a unified global system. The continued preeminence of the United States and the relative independence and self-sufficiency of the United States would have to be changed… in order to create a new structure, you first have to tear down the old, and American industry was one example of that. Each part of the world will have a specialty and thus become inter-dependent, he said. The US will remain a center for agriculture, high tech, communications, and education but heavy industry would be “transported out.” Dr. Richard Day to a meeting in March 1969 that American industry will be sabotaged and shown to be uncompetitive... The Comming Depression
In their 1973 book “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions,” Holdren and co-authors Paul and Anne Ehrlich wrote:
“A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States. De-devolopment means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation. Resources and energy must be diverted from frivolous and wasteful uses in overdeveloped countries to filling the genuine needs of underdeveloped countries."
“The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge,” they wrote. “They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being.” grendelreport.posterous.com...
...In its 1945 report "Agriculture in an Expanding Economy," CED complained that "the excess of human resources engaged in agriculture is probably the most important single factor in the "farm problem'" and describes how agricultural production can be better organized to fit to business needs...
...A report published in 1962 entitled "An Adaptive Program for Agriculture" is even more blunt in its objectives, leading Time Magazine to remark that CED had a plan for fixing the identified problem: "The essential fact to be faced, argues CED, is that with present high levels farm productivity, more labor is involved in agriculture production that the market demands �" in short, there are too may farmers. To solve that problem, CED offers a program with three main prongs....
...Their plan was so effective and so faithfully executed by its operatives in the US government that by 1974 the CED couldn't help but congratulate itself in another agricultural report called "A New US Farm Policy for Changing World Food Needs" for the efficiency of the tactics they employed to drive farmers from their land.... www.opednews.com...
By now, most farmers and honest economists have conceded that the pork industry has virtually eliminated independent pork producers as the NPPC, Farm Bureau, State Universities, politicians, and others of like persuasion have pushed forward the agenda of big business and the vertical integration of this industry into a carbon copy of the poultry industry, aka Corporate Agribusiness. Note I did not call these operations "farms" as they prefer to call themselves. By no stretch of the wildest imagination are they farms.
While many forward thinking individuals and organizations forward this consolidation of the pork and poultry industry as exactly what it was -- a takeover of the food industry... Those opposing the corporate agenda were labeled radicals, doom-sayers, and un-credible. (Given the accuracy of predictions made by the opponents of corporate farming, I prefer the label incredible!). So, now I would ask those supposedly knowledgeable defenders of vertical integration, "What is the live pork price? Where are the markets the independent producer was assured would be there? And, given the price of "on the hoof," why have prices in the meat case remained high (and in some instances even higher) than when prices were in the 40 to 50 cent range?"
Look out beef industry; here it comes! Cattle Buyers Weekly reported in their October 5 newsletter on the trend toward concentration in the feedlot industry. And guess who tops the list in numbers of fed cattle for 1997? The same giant corporation that ranks number 3 in pork production, Continental Grain Company (Boulder, Colo), with an estimated 975,000 head of beef. Others sharing the spotlight with CG in the top 30 among cattle feedlots are ConAgra (Greeley, Colo) and National Farms (Kansas City, MO). Interestingly, these three also are among the top producers involved in mega hog confinement facilities. See the writing on the wall yet?
Before you grain farmers get to thinking you are out of the corporate takeover, need I remind you that many of the same corporations that are now in the livestock business are also in the grain-buying business? And guess what! Low grain prices make their live-stock enterprises more profitable!
Remember the grandiose promises of "Freedom to Farm?" Who do you think initiated this legislation that has resulted in $1.50 corn this year? And it was none other than the "Bigger is Better" lobby (aka Farm Bureau) that helped convince many farmers that "Freedom to Farm" was in their best interest!
...When the independent farmer is gone -- and make no mistake, he is being eradicated rapidly -- there will be no competitive supply and demand market. And consumers will pay the price, as will the nation, at the supermarket -- and beyond. www.inmotionmagazine.com...
They've lost the capacity to be human beings, and we've begun to suffer as a result of that inbreeding. Time to kill off the bloodlines - professionally speaking, of course.