|
SusanofO -> RE: Can you still express feeling patriotic as a U.S. citizen? (9/11/2007 3:27:22 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ChainsandFreedom
Susan:
you go, you, for putting up with all of us who are writing such volumous posts trying to counter what you're saying.
I guess my point here was simply that demand for razors hasn't gone down, the supply hasn't gone down, yet the price has risen. They are trying to compete with "Medi-spas" who do things like laser hair removal and simply stay alive in this particular niche, For the time being, my opinion is that this is how they are choosing to do it. The razors are getting bigger and supposedly better, and there are more of them. It might not work, but they'll try it until it costs them more than they make by selling them.
Companies buying out companies to arrive at profit rather than competing for markets has altered capitalism at a fundimental level. Well, IMO before the 1980s there simply weren't that many companies that existed that were large enough to "buy out" lots of other companies (and some of them were doing it, even back then). If capitalism hadn't grown to its current level, maybe would not have occurred. Maybe it's reached a crisis maturation level, and the stock market will crash soon (I've heard that predicted, too). Time will tell I guess.
quote:
Bubbles are created as much out of consumer and-or corporate greed as much as anyhting. The Mortgage loan real-estate example currently is a good example. Some people want their bigger than necessary houses at any price it seems, and there are frims willing to cater to their greed, because they are as greedy, except on the opposite side of the fence.
Consumers also want cheap cocaine, that doesn't mean deregulation is good for anyone save a few cartel kingpins. Regulations are there to protect both consumers and bussiness from greed-driven bad decsions. Unfortunatly, humanity is so filled with greed that the entire economy would collapse if at least some measure of greed-protection wasn't in place. I'm not sure I understand your point here. I never stated that regulation wasn't a good idea. It's pretty well known that government regulation already exists in some arenas - electical energy utlity companies are a good example of this. I know we have a legal system.
quote:
If a proliferation of razor choices is the biggest problem, it is small potatoes IMO compared to getting the Feds involved in regulating how many manufacturers (or cnsumer choices) should be on the market, or stepping in to insist X number of employees per down-sizing firm be re-hired elsewhere at X dollars salary level.
regulating the amount of bussiness's and forcing bussiness to hire the downsized seems pretty complicated. My solution would simply be to make it tougher to sell your case when you want to buy out another bussiness, and to fine major shareholders/executives an amount equal to any personal profits they make during the years downsizing took place so theres no short-term motivation to downsize beyond long-term company health. Sounds like it could work - "Tougher" how, exactly? One problem is that some companies U.S. citizens think are U.S. run maybe are - but are actually incorporated in another country altogether - which means international law applies, in some cases. I agree that in some conpanies, CEO salaries are out of control. There is currently a proposition before Congress to regulate them to either 70 or 100 times (or maybe its 200 times) the lowest salary of any employee (I forget which - I heard this on the news the other night). I think one needs to be careful how a company applies any dis-incentives if it is going to be equated with breaking the law - what is the long-term effect here? That is what concerns me. Not 6 months from now - more like 10-20 years down the road in an economic sense, as far as how it might be likely to affect the entire U.S. economy.
quote:
I worked for General Motors for several years - and one way that catering to employees to a large degree re: Benefits hurt them when they got to their elephantine size, was related to employees ever increasing demands - so that it eventually made them less competitive in the overall market place (I didn't work for the auto division, rather the divison that made Deisel engine locomotives and marine engines). Their cost of empolyee benefits drove them out of the marketplace in some instances entirely, and some divisions closed down entirely.
a major quote I remember from Bill Ford when he took over and the big three laid off tens of thousands a few years back: Ford had to lay people off to compete with Japan and Europe, because 51 cents to the dollar went to finacing retirement/healthcare and such, while in asia/europe, this was absorbed by the government, labor costs were much lower, and taxes still left the forigen auto's with a large net advantage over america. I still don't see how anyone really can expect them not to want to re-locate labor overseas if this is the case, and they have a for-profit motive. They have an obligation to their stockholders. Maybe all the Americans who have retirement bennies in Ford stock (and its a Blue-chip, so its probably a lot, IMO) should maybe sell it, instead. I think that might send a rather loud message (plus, be faster).
Also, When reasearching music a couple of years ago, I came across the Hedonic Pricing Model. Created by ford/GM to sell car stero's in the 50's. The idea was that people would pay 200 bucks for a 25 dollar car radio simply because they wanted one, and it was up to the manufacturer to set a price.
This has been a major factor in the auto industries product development and R&D ever since. Maybe for awhile - but not now. The GM Saturn is selling like wildfire here in the U.S. The PT Crusier was quite a major hit in the marketplace, too. One of the main reasons cars are smaller in Europe has to do with narrower streets (at least in places like Italy) And there are plenty of US auto innovations since the late 1980s. Maybe a day late and a dollar short, but the US is making an effort to catch up in this market. We now have Hybrid cars, developed by Ford.
So is the More so than Europe/Japan. Fast forward to the ninties. You read about how the push to get everyone into an SUV was because they only costed a fraction more to build but sold for 50% more. So they pushed SUV's, the market evloved, and they were left with no choice but to lay off and to buy out and neutur perfectly good cars like Saabs and Volvo's. Same idea in the seventies when people decided they didn't need a 6 ft long trunk. Yes, and there have usually been at least 50 models of car on the market (if not many more) at any given time, from which to choose. I also noticed at the same time that people had a choice - and many of them chose badly - it isn't all the fault of the evil manufacturer man - some of this is the fault of the very spoiled consumer who chooses to 2nd mortgage their too large house they paid for with an ARM mortgage loan so they could get a 2nd SUV for mom (who really doesn't need it anyway, IMO) maybe they chose badly - they could have bought Chevettes, and some people did. The most expensive cars in the world are manufactured in Italy and Germany, not the U.S.
quote:
Re: The rest of what you said, IMO -No, they'd be coming in the form of more taxation, and also a much higher level, of bureucratic entanglement for governement doled benefits. Anyone who really believes that a government that cannot seem to balance a checkbook is going to be proficient at offerring these services to its voters and consumers, is IMO in for a sad wake-up call.
Just because Government is inefficent doesnt mean it has to be. It's the bankers-hours theory of bussiness: don't offer the consumer good service if you can get away with offering them bad service and minimize how much they use services. That way both parties can go on saying the system is broken and win votes by promising to fix something they never get around to. Yes, I know that. I get sick of it, too. And people can assemble and protest, and join PACs, and vote them out of office, too. As far as I know, unless people want to move elsewhere, that is about the only solution available.
Tell me why Manhattan, with such high property values and wealth, has four hour lines at the DMV and less than 20 tellers? because they can get away with it. I suggest a citizen boycott, and being willing to risk the fines involved (really). Find a solution - that is one, and there must be others, too.
Why do Immigration cases take so long to resolve? Because nobody really wants to fix the system, not because it cant be done. I am not touching this topic - it's too complex to resolve in one website discussion, IMO.
Why do non-jury leagle cases take so long? because every motion and application includes a 200 hundred or so dollar filing fee paid to uncle sam. Not every one, it depends on where you live. There are states where filing fees are far less for some things, because citizens got involved and decided to take action, This kind of solution usually starts at a grass roots level, IMO.
Like you said, with the transportation system, if the money / political pressure is there, things tend to move much more quickly smothly and more efficently. I sympathize but -this isn't new, really. I agree. People need to help to create the necessary political presssure if they want change. And if necessary, be pretty relentless in pursuing it, IMO.
socialism doesnt have to equal red tape and the american economy is in no way the most efficant mode of capitalism. Where are the examples where a socialistic solution is quick, efficient, and all of the citizens are happy with how it works for all govermental benefits involved? I need a model to follow. I agree that insistent, very persistent citizens can make a crucial difference in how things are run - especially, IMO, at a grass-roots, local level.
quote:
Re: The rest of what you said, IMO -No, they'd be coming in the form of more taxation, and also a much higher level, of bureucratic entanglement for governement doled benefits.
The form of more taxation would be up to voters/politicians: if voter numbers outweighed lobbying interests for once, the taxes could come fromt the majority of income, which is at the very top, and leave the 10% of money the other 90% of us have alone. I think there is some problem some people have with the fact some people are born rich and some others are born poor. Since if one is extraordinarily ambitious in this country, things don't always need to say that way for many folks who might be born poor, I've never really had a problem with this. I admit some people are born with more advantages - but that is just the way life is - it isn't fair for anyone, IMO, particularly, depending on your barometer of what "success" entails.
Some very wealthy people, have loads of problems I don't envy at all. I am sure plenty of them are corrupt - so are plenty of welfare mothers, probably, as well as middle-class folks. If someone wants to become a multi-millionaiore, and is able-bodied and reasonably intelligent and willing to get an education, they can still make it here - that is the reason a lot of people still want to live here. Can you offer some current, real-life tax accounting numbers in your example? Because I think some of these laws are changing as we write this (for the better. Not completely, but a little).
and like I said, there doesnt have to be so much bearacratic entaglemtent: its a question of methods, not a question of feasablility. Personally, I'd outsource all of the govt's HR problems to the many private HR/logistics/filing firms that already exist (in america) to serve other big bussinesses. That's not a bad idea as long as you intend to give people a partial tax refund for the government not doing a major part of what many view as their job (which I doubt will ever happen given the way the Feds operate. I am not joking about that, either.) It is the same probem some have with private school vouchers being used, because public schools are so lousy. It's a quick fix, but IMO one that can definitely work well - farming traditionally "government work" out to private firms.
I'd vote for heavy oversight of any attempt by the Feds to do this - I am remembering the "contracts" doled out to private firms in Iraq for the re-building efforts there. Ditto during Hurricane Katrina. If there is an eagle-eyed over-sight committe (or even 1 or 2 worker-agent types) in place in every city where this siolutuon is implemented that has reporting and accountability standards they must adhere to, or face relatively immediate jail time -and-or fines, then I am all for this.
Companies could compete over doing things quickly and more effeciantly than the Fed and each other to get awarded annual contracts. I think it's a pretty good idea, if they can do it with an adequately sized oversight committee in every city. I've seen examples where this has worked. There are charter public schools where this solution has worked very well. There are charter schools in Baltimore, MD that are very good, for example, from what I've read.
|
|
|
|
