Spot on! Years back I had a discussion with a past EVP at Deere, on what you say. He explained that when he was in the loop of decision makers, they set plans for 5, 10, and some 30 years out. He was very concerned as he could see what you related to was not a good thing what so ever. I think of that conversation often in the past 25 years!
China claims another one. Hometown factory now owned by MLB moving to china
- Thread starter slimcake
- Start date
SledTL
Active member
You are spot on here. And like anything else the the two ends are growing faster, and leaving the middle out of the equation. Too many people love affordable things because we have been trained to consume at a certain level, and then they want invenstments to grow at 10%. The bat company said look we can save $40 a bat which is multi-millions of dollars over the total quantity. Lots of other considerations like quality, service etc. but the savings outweigh the costs. They hire out the other things so they don't have to deal with it and the business model keeps going along.
No matter anyone's political persuasion, it's getting hard to argue that tax policy, trade policy, environmental policy and immigration policy aren't all designed to shift profits to the top...
Yep, tax income much harder than cap gains/carried income, flood the nation with cheap labor, crack down on any pollution occurring here but not at all on the production of products made to be imported here, no fair labor requirements on imported products. No surprise on the results.
AMEN to that!!! and if what we are dealing with now isn't a real slap in the face that we need to be less dependent of foreign countries or just outside of our borders and bring manufacturing back to our own soil I don't know what is. The previous leader had the right idea, the right plan and it was all undone in what??? a matter of weeks...months? INCREDIBLE!!!
saber1
Active member
The problem didn't start today, it started in the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan was president, and neoliberal economics were first making their mark on policy. Reagan and his ilk distrusted government and believed that the private sector could make the best decisions when left on its own. You've heard about this — it's called laissez faire economics.
This ideology ultimately led to the financialization of the US corporation — the process of putting shareholders first, often at the expense of workers and consumers — and its emergence as an actor that takes resources from the economy rather than creating them. This, combined with a government zeal for lowering taxes rather than spending, means no one — not the government, and not the private sector — is investing enough in America to keep the economy strong across social classes.
In short: Government cuts and changes in how corporations operate mean American workers are getting screwed by their own government and their own employers...
1982 he made it legal for companies to repurchase their shares on the open market pretty much whenever they wanted. Previously, the SEC had considered this a form of stock price manipulation.
This was also the era of the corporate raider, pushing companies to become leaner and more profitable as quickly as possible.
The shareholder became the main thing for a company to worry about. Employees lost their status. Companies feared getting attacked, so they bent over backward to mollify the former at the expense of the latter. Those new stock repurchasing rules, for one thing, allowed them to shore up their defenses by buying back stock. But, of course, that meant spending money that could've gone to innovate, invest in new technology and equipment, or reward workers.
This ideology ultimately led to the financialization of the US corporation — the process of putting shareholders first, often at the expense of workers and consumers — and its emergence as an actor that takes resources from the economy rather than creating them. This, combined with a government zeal for lowering taxes rather than spending, means no one — not the government, and not the private sector — is investing enough in America to keep the economy strong across social classes.
In short: Government cuts and changes in how corporations operate mean American workers are getting screwed by their own government and their own employers...
1982 he made it legal for companies to repurchase their shares on the open market pretty much whenever they wanted. Previously, the SEC had considered this a form of stock price manipulation.
This was also the era of the corporate raider, pushing companies to become leaner and more profitable as quickly as possible.
The shareholder became the main thing for a company to worry about. Employees lost their status. Companies feared getting attacked, so they bent over backward to mollify the former at the expense of the latter. Those new stock repurchasing rules, for one thing, allowed them to shore up their defenses by buying back stock. But, of course, that meant spending money that could've gone to innovate, invest in new technology and equipment, or reward workers.
saber1
Active member
et's go back to the Reagan era. That was also the time Japanese manufacturers had developed a superior management style to their American rivals and, frankly, started eating our lunch.
Instead of keeping a wall between management and workers, Japanese manufacturers adopted “organizational integration,” which put technical specialists and shop-floor workers together. The result was better products made faster in Japan, and jobs lost permanently in the United States.
Instead of keeping a wall between management and workers, Japanese manufacturers adopted “organizational integration,” which put technical specialists and shop-floor workers together. The result was better products made faster in Japan, and jobs lost permanently in the United States.
Absolutely SPOT ON you are Saber1! ALL TRUE! Just compare Eisenhower's economic, tax policies, and the building the US Economy, to that of Reagan's many Destructive failures. Such as, VooDoo Economics, disastrous, and which always leads to Economic Recession, Co./Corp.Stock/Shareholder policies, and Vulchur Capitalism, and the Demise/Destruction of Employee Pension Plans! All of these were a Guaranteed Demise, and Destruction of the USA's Economic Juggernaut, and the American Working class people! ALL TRUE FACTS! H Ross Perot absolutely knew this, adamantly despised the Republi"CONS for these reasons!
saber1
Active member
Its hard to get people to see the big picture 1 President isnt going to change the system we need big Policy changes to be made that would give the balance of power back to the people Both house are filled with lawyers and millionaires they dont represent us anymore.And i remember that Ross Perot debate where he said "that sucking sound u hear is your jobs going to Mexico" He was absolutely spot on he was an odd fella but i think would of done a good job.I have also looked back at our corporate tax laws and regulations pre Kennedy and yes the tax rates were higher and the regulations were tougher and it was one of the most prosperous times.Like the Titanic its going to take a while to turn around,In the meantime they divide us with these wedge issues like Abortion,Guns,Race theory etc so the power remains with corporations and big money.
I couldn't agree more with what you have posted! Perhaps the REAL reason Eisenhower reverted, changed his mind, and decided he had to run for POTUS, would shock people, start them to open there eyes, and ears to what is REAL? It was all about what was happening within the Republican party!
In 1992, already 30+ years in IT myself, I found a lot to like about that crazy Texas Banty Rooster, H Ross Perot, as wacky as he was. So much so that I voted for him and thereby threw away my vote (along with 19,000,000+ other folks), and thus helped to enable the election of Bill Clinton! Goes ta show ya, third party candidates in US elections generally have about the chance of a snowball in Phoenix!
So true, and it has gotten even worse.
Last edited:
Agree with all except for the reasoning that those of us who cast our vote for Perot, and thus elected Bill Clinton. Too many working class Republican American families had been devastated by Reaganomics/VooDoo Economic Policies, that resulted in there jobs being lost across the border/over seas, and major wage/income reduction. They elected Bill Clinton.
<br><br>The only problem with this thought is the high tax rates and tough regulations drove manufacturers away. The prosperous times of the Kennedy era was still 100% world war 2 aftermath. American factories produced while the rest of the world rebuilt. Once the rest of the world caught up jobs left BECAUSE of high taxes, tougher regulations, and higher labor costs. Until there is an even playing field jobs will leave. Entice manufacturers to build in the U.S. and have more quality jobs than workers and you will see the american worker have power like never before. And a real worker shortage, not an artificial one with higher unemployment checks that don't end along with rent moratoriums. <br>
<br>
Reagan's VooDoo Trickle Down Economic tax policies not only allowed the Cross Border, Overseas, moves of our manufacturing/jobs, they enabled them. Lower wage incomes then became the result. Mr Perot explained all of this! Big Business Greatly profiting on the Reagan tax policies by doing so, and the ability to profit off of Phony Bankruptcies also created, allowed by his policies. Corrupt, Vulture Capitalism ran rampant, uncontrolled Phony mergers, and buyouts, bringing on forced, slashed wages, lowered income, and many more jobs lost! History provides all the facts!
jime
Active member
i too, elected Clinton by voting Perot, allowing Clinton to win with just 43%
i can't do much, but please, i implore every one to look into ranked voting. Maine is in, on a federal level, N.Y.C. and others in on a local level.
50% to win, more choices, what is the down side?
i can't do much, but please, i implore every one to look into ranked voting. Maine is in, on a federal level, N.Y.C. and others in on a local level.
50% to win, more choices, what is the down side?
Last edited:
You are wrong, Reagan Trickeldown, VooDoo Economics elected Clinton! The proof is in the pudding, eh!