Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: 1K0N on August 02, 2004, 10:19:11 AM
-
Our Dem candidate is creating jobs just like he stated in his speach......Just not in the USA....
HEINZ WATTIE'S AUSTRALASIA - Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
HEINZ SINGAPORE PTE. LTD. - Republic of Singapore
HEINZ WATTIE'S LIMITED - Auckland, New Zealand
HEINZ JAPAN LTD - Tokyo, Japan
HEINZ-UFE LTD. - Guangzhou, People's Republic of China
HEINZ COSCO - Qingdao, People's Republic of China
HEINZ KOREA LTD. - Inchon, South Korea
HEINZ WIN CHANCE LTD. - Bangkok, Thailand
HEINZ INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED - Mumbai, India
PT HEINZ ABC INDONESIA - Jakarta, Indonesia
PT HEINZ SUPRAMA - Surabaya, Indonesia
HEINZ UFC PHILIPPINES - Manila, the Philippines
HEINZ HONG KONG LIMITED - Wanchai, Hong Kong
H. J. HEINZ (Botswana) (Proprietary) LTD. - Gaborone, Botswana
KGALAGADI SOAP INDUSTRIES (Pty) LTD. - Gaborone, Botswana
REFINED OIL PRODUCTS (Pty) LTD. - Gaborone, Botswana
OLIVINE INDUSTRIES (Private) LIMITED - Harare, Zimbabwe
CHEGUTU CANNERS (Pvt) LTD. - Chegutu, Zimbabwe
HEINZ SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD. - Johannesburg, South Africa
HEINZ WELLINGTON'S (PTY) LTD. - Wellington, South Africa
HEINZ EUROPE - Hayes, Middlesex, England
H. J. HEINZ COMPANY LIMITED - Hayes Park, Hayes, Middlesex, England
H. J. HEINZ COMPANY LIMITED - Rovereto, Italy
H. J. HEINZ COMPANY LIMITED - Telford, England
JOHN WEST FOODS LIMITED - Liverpool, England
H. J. HEINZ FROZEN & CHILLED FOODS LIMITED - Hayes, Middlesex, England
H. J. HEINZ COMPANY (IRELAND) LIMITED - Dublin, Ireland
H.J. HEINZ COMPANY OF CANADA LTD - North York, Ontario, Canada
OMSTEAD FOODS LIMITED - Wheatley, Ontario, Canada
ALIMENTOS HEINZ C.A. - Caracas, Venezuela
DISTRIBUIDORA BANQUETE, S.A. - San José, Costa Rica
HEINZ ITALIA S.r.l. - Milan, Italy
FATTORIA SCALDASOLE, S.p.a. - Monguzzo, Italy
COPAIS FOOD AND BEVERAGE COMPANY, S.A. - Athens, Greece
HEINZ POLSKA Sp. Z.O.O. - Warsaw, Poland
PUDLISZKI S.A. - Pudliszki, Poland
WODZISLAW, S.A. - Wodzislaw, Poland
ETS. PAULET S.A. - Douarnenez, France
H. J. HEINZ FROZEN S.A.R.L. - Paris, France
HEINZ IBERICA S.A. - Madrid, Spain
IDAL (Industrias de Alimentacã, Lda.) - Lisbon, Portugal
MIEDZYCHOD S.A. - Miedzychod, Poland
HEINZ C.I.S. - Moscow, Russia
HEINZ GEORGIEVSK - Georgievsk, Russia
CAIRO FOOD INDUSTRIES SAE - Cairo, Egypt
HEINZ REMEDIA LIMITED - Tel Aviv, Israel
STAR-KIST FOOD DÂ'OR LIMITED - Haifa, Israel
H. J. HEINZ GMBH - Dí² í³¥ldorf, Germany
SONNEN BASSERMANN - Seesen, Germany
KONINKLIJKE DE RUIJTER BV - The Netherlands
HAK BV - The Netherlands
FOODMARK - The Netherlands
HONIG MERKARTIKELEN BV - The Netherlands
DRUKKERIJ DE GROENBOER - The Netherlands
H. J. HEINZ B.V . - Elst, The Netherlands
H. J. HEINZ BELGIUM S.A. - Brussels, Belgium
SERV-A-PORTION - Turnhout, Belgium
Arimpex Industrie Alimentari S.R.L. - Rovereto, Italy
Comexo S.A. - Chateaurenard, France
HEINZ EUROPE - UK and IRELAND - Factories: Chorley, Fakenham, Grimsby,
Kendal, Kitt Green, Leaminton, Luton, Okehampton, Telford, Westwick
-
Yo, ignorant person. Neither Kerry or wife have day to day control of Heinz--and as an addendum, most of those charters are company subsidiaries. Notice all the foreign words?
h
-
Wtf?
Having a ketchup distribution operation, in say, Britain... and owning a bottling company in Italy does not equate to outsourcing.
And focusing on the wifey's company has what to do with Kerry's role wrt to its business?
'Nuther lame, lame try... Unless you wanna flesh this out a bit.
-
Originally posted by Nash
'Nuther lame, lame try... Unless you wanna flesh this out a bit.
Its been done, but not from a particularly US company.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=125643&referrerid=3203
Good read.
-
Rip - what does this list and that post have to do with eachother?
I heard Bush robbed a bank.
To demonstrate that, here is a link to information about how robbing banks is against the law.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Rip - what does this list and that post have to do with eachother?
I heard Bush robbed a bank.
To demonstrate that, here is a link to information about how robbing banks is against the law.
"o-u-t-s-o-u-r-c-i-n-g"
-
k-e-r-r-y
Read the top of this post again, read your link, then provide some relationship between the two.
-
Originally posted by Nash
k-e-r-r-y
Read the top of this post again, read your link, then provide some relationship between the two.
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Its been done, but not from a particularly US company.
Good read.
If you can't see the parallel, then I'm not the one that can point it out to you.
-
When I said "flesh this out", I didn't mean give me some explanation on outsourcing. I meant explain the relationship between outsourcing and the list this that was posted here.
That's all...
I don't want some guy's opinion on outsouring from another thread, unless it talks about the claim of Kerry's dubious role in the Heinz corp's alleged outsourcing.
-
This "outsourcing/keep good jobs in America" stuff is BS from both parties. You can't espouse "free trade" and "protectionism" at the same time. Well, not if you're honest, anyway, so there you go.
But then, politicians build successful careers on dishonesty don't they? And they have an electorate to lazy to educate themselves to work with.
Does Heinz "outsource"? Absolutely. Does Mz. Kerry have influence with Heinz? Absolutely. Does Mz. Kerry appear on the platform with Mr. Kerry. Absolutely. Will any of this stop Heinz outsourcing? Absolutely not.
Bottom line though is that it doesn't matter.
-
Yeah.... Kerry woke his wife up in the middle of the night with an incredible thought: "Instead of shipping tomatos all the way to Europe, why doesn't Heinz just buy an Italian tomato farm!!!"
"Hmm.... I don't know... Do you think it will work?"
"It's just crazy enough - it might."
A bunch of backroom deals are made et voila! KERRY CREATED TEH EVIL KETCHUP OUTSOURCING!"
-
You miss both points.
It's amusing that Kerry blames Bush for outsourcing while his apparent bedmate is so intimately involved with an "outsourcing" company/empire.
OTOH, just about ALL major US countries outsource, will continue to outsource, probably HAVE to outsource to remain viable so it doesn't matter in the least.
Unless we get that protectionism going to help boost free trade here, of course.
-
Originally posted by Toad
It's amusing that Kerry blames Bush for outsourcing while his apparent bedmate is so intimately involved with an "outsourcing" company/empire.
And I'm disputing that there is ANY "intimacy" involved with his wife and the day to day operations of the Heinz corporation. She chairs a TRUST and a FOUNDATION and is not a member of the Heinz corporation board itself, ergo she has nothing to do with companies' outsourcing or lack thereof. She merely inherited incredible wealth.
h
-
As you like.
I think most view Terry Kerry and Heinz as "linked at the hip". Either way, she's an heiress that derives her income and importance from an "outsourcing" US company while her hubby decries that sort of company from the stage.
It's an inconsistency.
However, as I said, I think this whole "outsourcing" thing is beyond reality as an election issue when coupled with the "free trade" issue.
I can't believe people fall for it, actually.
Well, OK... I can believe it.
-
I think the whole thing will move towards something to be known as "free-ish" trade. :D
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
If you can't see the parallel, then I'm not the one that can point it out to you.
The parallel is obvious if you actually take the time to read the link, othwise it will excape them...
-
Originally posted by Toad
. Does Mz. Kerry have influence with Heinz? Absolutely.
The Kerry's have none at all Toad, as a matter of fact, the company gives big money to Bush.
-
Like it or not there are voters that will eat this garbage up like trailor trash eat velveta cheese on wonder bread....
I really couldn't care that Heinz outsources! But it is a funny list when your a conservative!
IKON
-
heh...
-
Originally posted by Toad
As you like.
I think most view Terry Kerry and Heinz as "linked at the hip". Either way, she's an heiress that derives her income and importance from an "outsourcing" US company while her hubby decries that sort of company from the stage.
...and generally "most" are idiots. the only "link" they share is from having the same name as the founder. If you don't believe me or won't do the legwork yourself, how about Snopes?
http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/heinz.asp
She does not derive income (or importance??) from the company, nor does she have anything close to controlling shares nor does she partcipate in any way with the corporation on business matters.
She is chair of trusts and foundations based on her father's past earnings from the company. Just wanted to clear that up.
h
-
From their site they claim to be non-partisan.
"Over the past seven years, the Heinz Company PAC has contributed $96,000 to Republican candidates and $54,000 to Democratic candidates, largely reflecting the party affiliation of the candidates representing the states where we have facilities"
-
Here is a more interesting link http://www.hollandsentinel.com/stories/042104/new_042104050.shtml
"The Republicans are accepting the cash even as they criticize the Pittsburgh-based company's job cuts and overseas moves -- part of an effort to taint the presumptive Democratic nominee with the conglomerate's business practices."
-
Originally posted by Horn
[BShe is chair of trusts and foundations based on her father's past earnings from the company. Just wanted to clear that up.
h [/B]
Her father?
I thought she married Heinz and inherited the loot when he died. Is that not correct?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Her father?
I thought she married Heinz and inherited the loot when he died. Is that not correct?
My bad. Husband.
h
-
OK, then.
She married Henry John Heinz III, who was a member of the founding family of the H.J. Heinz Company.
After plane crash in 1991, Mrs. Kerry inherited a Heinz family fortune estimated at over $500 million.
So from where would you say that her wealth/income is derived?
-
Originally posted by Horn
...and generally "most" are idiots. the only "link" they share is from having the same name as the founder. If you don't believe me or won't do the legwork yourself, how about Snopes?
http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/heinz.asp
She does not derive income (or importance??) from the company, nor does she have anything close to controlling shares nor does she partcipate in any way with the corporation on business matters.
She is chair of trusts and foundations based on her father's past earnings from the company. Just wanted to clear that up.
h
Another "I'm a victim!" kill has been recorded.
WTG Toad! :)
-
Originally posted by Toad
OK, then.
She married Henry John Heinz III, who was a member of the founding family of the H.J. Heinz Company.
After plane crash in 1991, Mrs. Kerry inherited a Heinz family fortune estimated at over $500 million.
So from where would you say that her wealth/income is derived?
You said:
"I think most view Terry Kerry and Heinz as "linked at the hip". Either way, she's an heiress that derives her income and importance from an "outsourcing" US company while her hubby decries that sort of company from the stage."
Linked at the hip--implying an ongoing relationship, no? There isn't any "link"-- She inherited her wealth (wouldn't really matter if were father or husband) and has no day to day contact or business relationships with the Heinz company apart from her trust and foundation philanthropic chairs. Read Snopes.
Here, so mental midgets like Ripsnort can understand:
She does not have any present business contacts with the Heinz company. Get it? You may, I'm sure Rip won't.
h
-
the government stopping a company from outsourcing is more socialist than public healthcare.
-
Originally posted by Horn
You said:
"I think most view Terry Kerry and Heinz as "linked at the hip". Either way, she's an heiress that derives her income and importance from an "outsourcing" US company while her hubby decries that sort of company from the stage."
h
Yeah, I said it and I stand by it.
I DO think most of the electorate views her that way.
In short, I believe the Kerry campaign needs to spread the "Snopes" word if they want to change what I believe to be a widespread perception.
Note that I am not arguing the truth of the perception; rather that it is how most of the electorate views her. I think that's because that's pretty much how the mass media presents her.
-
Well...seems to me Heinz could just as easily hire AMERICANS to bottle their ketchup and then ship it overseas.
Isn't that what they want to force other American companies to do in order to stop "outsourcing?"
Ketchup has a pretty long shelf life. Instead of hiring foreign workers to bottle it we could keep the jobs here. The only reason for setting up bottling plants in foreign countries is to SAVE MONEY.
What the ell is the difference? The type of product shouldn't matter.
By the way, if our government starts taking measures to prevent our companies from outsourcing other countries may retaliate. There are quite a few foreign companies that have built automotive plants and other factories in the United States. The call to stop outsourcing is a sop given by Kerry to the American labor unions. It is pure, unadulterated election year rhetoric. If elected it will be dropped like a hot potato because he knows it isn't workable. Canada and Mexico would not sit still for any changes in NAFTA, to site one example.
The campaign contribution statements are a non-issue. A lot of companies hedge their bets during an election year by contributing to BOTH parties.
-
AMAZING, heinz has nothing to do with heinz becuz of trust
chaney has everything to do with halaburton trust or no
Kerry says any company that outsources is a benedict arnold.....except us of course we do it to help the poor american people
can anyone spell....S..P..I..N..
-
First, Teresa Heinz Kerry married into the Heinz family. Her first husband, the actual heir to the Heinz fortune, was a Republican senator from Pennsylvania.
Second, she runs the Heinz Foundation Trust, a charitable organization. She does not run the Heinz companies. Her sons do; and they both support John Kerry, even though their father was a Republican.
Third, outsourcing of American jobs refers to closing down American operations and moving them overseas solely for the purpose of saving on labor costs, typically where the product isn't intended for an overseas market. For example, outsourcing call center jobs to India when the call center is for U.S. tech support. Outsourcing does not refer to foreign subsidiaries doing business in other countries.
Fourth, because someone brought up NAFTA, the problems with the current trade agreement are not entirely due to the agreement itself. Many concerns result from lack of enforcement of the regulatory provisions in the agreement - particularly the environmental and labor standards portions as applied to Mexico. Canada only agreed to NAFTA after the inclusion of much tougher standards; and they are quite likely to pull out of NAFTA if the U.S. doesn't start pressuring Mexico to abide by the standards as agreed.
Finally, I find it appalling that people can allow themselves to become so misinformed about simple facts. At least make an attempt to gather information from more than the usual biased news sources; whether those sources are to the left like the Nation or to the right like Fox. Getting information from one biased source in an election year is a sure way to become just another sheep in the herd.
-
For many manufacturers outsourcing is only way to stay in business; they can't stay competitive with other manufacturers if these are importing products from countries where cheap labour is available.
That's capitalism; if you don't like it move to NK or Cuba.
-
It's not capitalism; it's corporate capitalism which is a beast of an entirely different color. An example of capitalism is an entrepreneur creating a business. An example of corporate capitalism is Microsoft, or one dear to the hearts of old Air Warrior players, Electronic Arts. Big difference between plain old capitalism and what corporations (and the misinformed) refer to as capitalism. In capitalism, a free market is a good thing. In corporate capitalism, a free market is a bad thing unless you're being watched by a government anti-trust task force or you're the underdog trying to compete with a corporate giant. In capitalism, under a free market, if you want to move your operations overseas to save on labor costs, then don't expect to receive tax breaks and corporate welfare for doing so. In corporate capitalism, if you want to move jobs overseas to save on labor costs, then you convince the gullible public it's really about old-fashioned capitalism, make sure you've bought enough public servants to keep your tax breaks, claim your American workers are overpaid, ship the jobs somewhere that doesn't have environment laws and where you can use cheap child labor chained to their looms so they won't run away (has happened, folks, as recently as just 10 years ago in Pakistan), then ship the completed and often inferior product back to the U.S. where you sell it at the same price you were selling it when the "overpaid" Americans were making it, and which, sadly, some of them now can't afford because you laid them off, but who cares because the boardroom is still done in expensive mahogany, the board members with their multi-million dllar compensation packages will all be dead before anyone really figures out that this is entirely unsustainable economically, and besides the gullible public believes it was all done in the name of good ol' American capitalism. Uh huh.
If you want to discuss capitalism, then I'm all for it. Just don't refer to what corporations do as capitalism; because it isn't. Try reading some Smith and Keynes and von Mises. Then read some Bakunin and Proudhon and Kroptkin. And if you get you opinions about capitalism from Fox News, then beware; because it's owned by one of the poster children for corrupt corporate "capitalism" and by the name of Rupert Murdoch.
-
G H E Y
That is what this thread is.
And St. Drunky said, "Go bugger yourselves, each and every one!"
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Well...seems to me Heinz could just as easily hire AMERICANS to bottle their ketchup and then ship it overseas.
Isn't that what they want to force other American companies to do in order to stop "outsourcing?"
Ketchup has a pretty long shelf life. Instead of hiring foreign workers to bottle it we could keep the jobs here. The only reason for setting up bottling plants in foreign countries is to SAVE MONEY.
Disagree , it's not to save money it's because a bottle made in the US won't be competitive compared to a local production
-
Originally posted by Sceadu
blaah blaah blaah blaah
Corporations are responsible to their shareholders, not to the country they come from.
Shareholders invest money to the corporation and they also expect to get slice from the profit, bigger the better, and if this means moving to Mexico then so be it.
Too bad if Joe from the neighbourhood loses his job, house and health; I'm not here for helping them to prosper but to make my own life a bit more comfortable :)
Of course this may not be the best option in a long run but who cares; I want my money RIGHT NOW when I'm still alive!
-
You know what they call animals that can't or won't think for the long term?
Lemmings.
-
Originally posted by Sceadu
You know what they call animals that can't or won't think for the long term?
Lemmings.
14 posts in one day, definatly not who he seems.
Weasle it is.
-
I was talking with someone in the game who clued me in about this weasel thing. Sorry to disappoint you; but nope. I'm not that person. I just don't like Bush. I think he's a sock puppet in a president's suit. I haven't liked him since he ran for governor here the first time. I was glad to see him leave Texas. Won't be thrilled about it when he's sent back here on a permanent vacation up the road in Crawford; but I'd rather have him here than in the White House. At least when he's on his "ranch" (even though the pinhead reportedly can't even ride a horse) the only people hurt will be the ones who get in the way when he falls off his mountain bike - again.
Now if this weasel person is also a retired, disabled vet from Texas who hates Bush, then good for him. I hope he's not a Rangers fan though. The Rangers have sucked ever since Bush was a minor owner and sitting in the front row picking his nose. Someone caught that one on film. Too funny.
-
Originally posted by Sceadu
It's not capitalism; it's corporate capitalism which is a beast of an entirely different color. An example of capitalism is an entrepreneur creating a business. An example of corporate capitalism is Microsoft, or one dear to the hearts of old Air Warrior players, Electronic Arts. Big difference between plain old capitalism and what corporations (and the misinformed) refer to as capitalism. In capitalism, a free market is a good thing. In corporate capitalism, a free market is a bad thing unless you're being watched by a government anti-trust task force or you're the underdog trying to compete with a corporate giant. In capitalism, under a free market, if you want to move your operations overseas to save on labor costs, then don't expect to receive tax breaks and corporate welfare for doing so. In corporate capitalism, if you want to move jobs overseas to save on labor costs, then you convince the gullible public it's really about old-fashioned capitalism, make sure you've bought enough public servants to keep your tax breaks, claim your American workers are overpaid, ship the jobs somewhere that doesn't have environment laws and where you can use cheap child labor chained to their looms so they won't run away (has happened, folks, as recently as just 10 years ago in Pakistan), then ship the completed and often inferior product back to the U.S. where you sell it at the same price you were selling it when the "overpaid" Americans were making it, and which, sadly, some of them now can't afford because you laid them off, but who cares because the boardroom is still done in expensive mahogany, the board members with their multi-million dollar compensation packages will all be dead before anyone really figures out that this is entirely unsustainable economically, and besides the gullible public believes it was all done in the name of good ol' American capitalism. Uh huh.
If you want to discuss capitalism, then I'm all for it. Just don't refer to what corporations do as capitalism; because it isn't. Try reading some Smith and Keynes and von Mises. Then read some Bakunin and Proudhon and Kroptkin. And if you get you opinions about capitalism from Fox News, then beware; because it's owned by one of the poster children for corrupt corporate "capitalism" and by the name of Rupert Murdoch.
Please read and reread until what Sceadu has written sinks in, and compare it to what Staga has written:
Corporations are responsible to their shareholders, not to the country they come from. Shareholders invest money to the corporation and they also expect to get slice from the profit, bigger the better, and if this means moving to Mexico then so be it.
Too bad if Joe from the neighbourhood loses his job, house and health; I'm not here for helping them to prosper but to make my own life a bit more comfortable .
To me, it sheds light on which politics and policies are really "anti-American".
-
sceadu.......animals
You say you are a vet. Ok fine...just wondering if you live in us because you want to or have to.
-
lol man.. Sceadu sure does kickass! Very refreshing too see.. Excellent post on corporate capitilism.... 8)
You guys can attempt to label him anyway you want that will help you to sleep at night.. What ever makes you feel better, but he is not hurling insults and telling spun (lies) truths.. I guess you guys deep down know this hence none of you attempt to challange.. lol
-
And so? What do you guys espouse in the way of government action? Shall Congress pass laws forbidding the outsourcing of jobs?
Okay, let's say Kerry is elected and that is done. We all know what happens next. The jobs are brought back to American shores, and American workers are hired to fill them. The price of these marketable goods goes up, and the companies that manufacture them find it much harder to compete against similar products on the global market.
Sales drop...the value of the company's stock begins to drop. Falling sales forces the companies effected to lay-off workers. The foreign trade imbalance becomes greater. The dollar loses some of its value against foreign currency.
A ripple effect is set in motion, which eventually touches every part of the American economy.
When America begins to close it's overseas factories and bring the jobs home, foreign governments retaliate. The negative effects of our new policy deepen.
As I said in my first reply, this makes a good campaign issue for Kerry, but in reality is just a sop for the labor unions.
By the by...how did Kerry vote on NAFTA? How do you think the governments of Canada and Mexico would feel about a move on our part to axe that agreement?
With U.S. unemployment rates hovering at 5.6 percent, and actually declining...this appears to be a toothless Democratic bogey-man.
Why should major changes in business policy be forced on our corporations when the population of the U.S. enjoys one of the highest standards of living in the world? Why should we give serious consideration to such proposals that are made by highly educated people who have made careers out of learning all the wrong lessons from life?
The disdain exhibited towards our corporations is an extension of the class-warfare hostility traditionally manifested by the left towards the rich. Not all corporations are evil and greedy. To suggest otherwise is cynical and arrogant.
-
The problems you describe Shuckins are what I think make this problem such a sticky one. It sounds like either way, American workers will lose, and how can that be good for our country?
Personally I'm not in favor of such legal restrictions or prohibitions. Usually when barriers are thrown up, some way is found around or underneath them. I'd rather see incentives than barriers. Or maybe a combination of both.
I asked in a different thread, but got no response: Why are many Hondas and Toyotas made in the USA? (Marysville, OH has a Honda plant and I think Toyota has one in Kentucky, and there are probably others-Nissan?). If the cost of manufacturing is cheaper elsewhere, why are these plants here? And how has in affected local economies? Has it been beneficial for consumers and workers? Honda and Toyota seem to be doing well.
Given how great this country is, and I do mean its a great country - think about our accomplishments just in the last 50 years - why don't we have the absolute top, highest standard of living in the world? What is misfiring in our system that we can only make it into the top 10, and not place first, given everything else we have going for us?
Also I think a persistent 5.6% unemployment rate is no toothless bogeyman - its a serious problem, and add to that the fact that the method may undercount the people who are out of work, and also doesn't reflect the people who take lower paying jobs out of necessity. And it doesn't help to have the administration take about reclassifying frying burgers or running the till at McDonald's as manufacturing jobs.
I agree that all corporations can't be evil, I am sure there are some ethical ones out there somewhere. Just have to look harder maybe. The traditional disdain of corporations from the Left may be gaining ground in the Middle - as more and more items in the news about skyrocketing CEO pay at corporations doing poorly, scandals like Martha Stewart-OMClone, Enron, Tyco, Adelphia, etc. It ain't right, so why is it happening so often?
I think I read somewhere recently that Canada is considering pulling out of NAFTA itself - can anyone confirm that?
-
Originally posted by oboe
I asked in a different thread, but got no response: Why are many Hondas and Toyotas made in the USA? (Marysville, OH has a Honda plant and I think Toyota has one in Kentucky, and there are probably others-Nissan?). If the cost of manufacturing is cheaper elsewhere, why are these plants here?
Research VER under Reagan. That stands for "Voluntary Export Restrictions".
The interesting thing to note is that these "Voluntary Export Restrictions were pretty much forced on the Japanese auto makers.
Building the plants in the US allowed them to sell more cars here.
In short, it was simply protectionism that caused the plants to be built here.
Free trade, anyone?
-
Thanks, Toad. I'm surprised to see that this occurred during the Reagan adminstration. I had guessed powerful auto unions had something to do with it but may be wrong.
Anyway, it seems to have worked out, has it not? The US customer gets his Japanese import, while the US retains workers skilled in auto manufacturing. By Shuckins logic, Honda and Toyota should've had to raise prices, watched their sales fall, then lay off workers. So could this be a protectionism success story?
-
Dammmm ...... an I created the Tomato... I should have gotten a patent...
Well, time is not lost... I got this stuff off a moldy bread fungus that cures ..umm welll... I'll just call it.
"Clap On?, Clap Off"
Think it'll spread?
:rofl
Sorry all I'm just coming off some serious meds for a back fracture. Where in the Hell did July go to?
:rolleyes:
Fells good to be ... ummm Back?
:rofl
-
Sceadu........appalling...... ..
My dear Sceadu, I find it appalling that you would compare yourself to a lemming. It was my belief that your writing showed a higher level of education,perhaps an elite professor from a well known collage. I am sure many found them to be desideratum, and they certainaly were not desultory.
I had hoped for at least one contrariwise idea of capitalism for balance. I suppose that would not be desideratum to accomplish your intent. After the fall of communism I understood the works of kroptkin and von Mises to be kaput.
I do hope your next post will be of a interdisciplinary nature,yet either way I eagerly await there posting
-
Making laws that prevent American cooperations from outsourcing work or sending their manufacturing business abroad is not the point made by Sceadu and others. Rather, remove the laws in the tax code that would allow said cooperations from taking advantage of loop holes in the system should they choose to move their business outside the US..
Honda and Toyota are perfect examples of what is being preached by American cooperations of competition and rising labor cost not always being perfect truth. Just recently Toyota opened a new plant building Toyota engines here in Alabama.. Both are thriving companies on the world market. For many years the #1 built American car was the Honda Accord.
Its a shame really but our cooperate capitalist have bought and paid for our government many times over and have entirely too much influence over laws and tax codes. Producing laws that forbid American cooperations from outsourcing is not the answer, but at the same time, keeping laws in place that make it easy with the same tax breaks/incentives as business in the homeland is certainly not the answer either..
-
Dude de vant.....consider this...
Sceadu would want to do that and more much more.That type of doctrine and writing always is full of nuances.[ NO I WONT, say anything more about ,wont explain nothing and I will say it for some of you....I am a moron that knows nothing and get everything from comic books]
Are corporations evil ,no,are they greedy ,yes as are all insitutions,and yes even you and me.
Does anyone remember what happen to the luxury boat industry after the dems taxed hell out of them.We had one of the largest boat building industry around. Above avg pay for even just a high school ed. 2 years later we only had 1 boat builder left. After all the hoop la on pasing of bill ,it was quietly repealed.Oh ya Italy sends her thinks, industry never came back as it was.
Im,just saying be carefull it is not as easy to mess with as you think. And like it or not a lot of you make a living working for the corps.
-
Originally posted by demaw1
Sceadu........appalling........
My dear Sceadu, I find it appalling that you would compare yourself to a lemming. It was my belief that your writing showed a higher level of education,perhaps an elite professor from a well known collage. I am sure many found them to be desideratum, and they certainaly were not desultory.
I had hoped for at least one contrariwise idea of capitalism for balance. I suppose that would not be desideratum to accomplish your intent. After the fall of communism I understood the works of kroptkin and von Mises to be kaput.
I do hope your next post will be of a interdisciplinary nature,yet either way I eagerly await there posting
demaw1, how sad that you didn't understand my post.
First off, Kropotkin and von Mises are at opposite ends of the economic spectrum, so please explain your comment regarding the fall of communism. In fact, von Mises is most well-known for writing a scathing debunking of socialism. But then, you'd know that if you knew much of anything. Nice post, though. Do you have no idea of who Smith and Keynes and von Mises are? How about Mikhail Bakunin or Pyotr Kropotkin or Proudhon?
Too funny. Do you understand the term non sequitur, sport?
-
While I'm on the subject of corporations, I'd like to point out a little known fact of U.S. history. During the writing of the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson (you know who those two are, right, demaw1?) proposed an 11th amendment. The proposed amendment would have severely restricted corporations. It would have made it illegal for corporations to own other corporations, to exist more than one generation, to attempt to influence the political process by monetary or any other means and many other restrictions besides. The amendment failed. Not because it wasn't popular; but because the other delegates considered it redundant since all of the states already had similar laws on their books. Within 100 years, all of those laws disappeared, through backdoor lobbying by corporations. By the time of the Civil War, the state laws which made the proposed 11th amendment redundant were all gone.
-
Originally posted by oboe
So could this be a protectionism success story?
Probably not. Protectionism is essentially defending what the market would view as inefficiency.
As for the plants here, don't forget that Honda, Toyo, et al lobbied for and got HUGE tax abatements and other incentives to locate in those places. Since these "gifts" are not given to all, they can be viewed as subsidies.
So once again, this not a "free trade" example.
I suggest to you that a car company from other than Japan that is not offered these "gifts" will view that as an playing field that is most certainly not "level" as both of our candidates espouse.
-
I'm not sure anyone is trying to characterize the domestic Honda and Toyota plants (I think Merecedes SUVs are built now in NC also) as free trade. I agree with you, it's not an example of free trade. But on the whole, it has been more beneficial than not, wouldn't you say?
My research on Reagan and VERs lead to this article, which claims Reagan, by his actions, was the most protectionist President since Herbert Hoover:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa107.html (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa107.html)
I am surprised to learn this, I always thought of Reagan as a free trader.
-
Originally posted by oboe
. But on the whole, it has been more beneficial than not, wouldn't you say?
Beneficial to whom? Generally, any sort of protectionism means higher prices for consumers.
If, for example, these plants had not been built, would the US makers become more competitive, selling cars for less in order to survive? Would that have put further downward pressure on the price of Japanese imports?
As for the plants and their actual cost per job, this article is a good place to get an overview of some of the issues:
CASE: ALABAMA AND THE MERCEDES-BENZ PLANT (http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/ppa735/TAXINCEN.htm)
The incentive package involves $77.5 million to improve water, sewer, gas, and electrical services, $92.2 million to improve and develop the factory site, and $60 million to train Mercedes-Benz employees, suppliers, and workers in related industries. Mercedes-Benz also will receive tax breaks, including an exemption from all property taxes for 20 years. Total cost of the package could be as high as $300 million, which comes to $200,000 per direct job created
-
Beneficial to the US auto workers who go jobs at the plants, beneficial to the local economies and governments who benefit from employed workers in their districts, beneficial to Honda and Toyota buyers, and beneficial to Honda and Toyota themselves.
If these plants had not been built, Toyotas and Hondas would have been limited in their imports, thus driving their prices higher. Making their competitors' products more expensive does not provide US auto manufacturers with the incentive to produce better or less expensive cars- I would think it has the opposite effect. It's just a nice break from competition and reason for them to keep doing business as usual.
Can't speak to any incentives which may have been offered to Honda or Toyota, although I suspect they were more motivated by pressure from the VER, and I doubt Mercedes' position of a few years ago is comparable - they are in completely different industry segments.
I think incentives are useful but local governments have to be careful. I live near the town that gave all sorts of tax breaks and incentives to the reborn Excelsior-Henderson Motorcycle company, which was using the resurgent popularity of Harley-type cruisers to start up again. Short story, bad management sunk the company (by the looks of the manufacturing plant they built, they spent a great deal of their money on architecture and lawncare- it was the most palatial manufacturing plant I've ever seen) and left the local governments holding the bag.
Back to free trade, I'm beginning to doubt there really IS such a thing as free trade.
-
More beneficial to US workers than restricting the Japanese imports and NOT allowing them to get around the deal by opening US factories? After all, perhaps more US "Big Three" workers would have stayed employed / earned more with a more straight forward form of protectionism than VER.
:D
I think you see the point.
It's still protectionism of one sort or another. Which is why I usually LOL when either Bush or Kerry start spouting about free trade and keeping US jobs at home all in the same speech (or even paragraph).