Author Topic: Someone tell me how "Free Trade Agreements" are a good thing? (Read 6394 times)

Urchin · « **Reply #45 on:** November 10, 2003, 08:03:04 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
You know Urchin I just gotta laugh at that, being insulted on
economic issues by an ignorant communist like yourself... as for inmdependanyt thought yoiu are the one sputtering back drivel from yiour communist profhesors, tell me again how evil are those corporations? Anyway dont be too hard on Wal-Wart or McDonalds, they will always be there for you when you need them because frankly you have no chance in the real world if you continue to think as poorly as you do on economics and business. >

Still urchin I think your hostility towards me fully demonstartes that I was right and that you really arent willing to learn from these responses. In fact I dont even know why i bother responding to this thread.

But I'm kinda ticked because I did try to give you a real life example of where tarrifs such as you prposed did great harm - but then you come back with insults..

Why ask in the first place if you intend to insult people who respond?

Lemme see...
"Are you still going to school?"
"Its the EVIL corporations fault, because they are EVIL."

Looks like typical Grunherz idiocy to me.

Then I think you attempt to "redeem" yourself with

"No it wouldnt work well, for example tarrifs would simply destroy the US economy as other nations would simply deploy counter tarrifs to protect their workers. In fact protectionist tarrifs and retalitory prptectionist tarrifs were enourmously responsible for the Great Depression of the 1930s getting as bad as it did - and the motive was the same - to protect domestic jobs. "

Which would be untrue in the United States anyway, possibly it was true in Europe, I've never studied the depression of the 1930's in Europe. The depression in the 1930's was touched off by the stock market crash of 1929, which was the result of a "bubble" similar to what we had with tech stocks in the 1990's (the crash of which could be seen as causing the economic slump we are experiencing today). The situation was exacerbated by CORPORATE MANAGEMENT (yea, those friendly folks you get all dressed up and cheer for every Sunday, Monday, and Thursday night) who got the economy into a downward spiral by cutting production and jobs and "waiting it out". The more people that got laid off, the less money there was to spend, which in turn led to decreased sales, leading to decreased production, and more lay-offs. Now, were the corporate managers wrong? Of course not. They had a responsibility to their stockholders to not lose money, and everyone assumed that the situation would solve itself as it had in the past. Of course it didn't, but that isn't their fault. "Protectionist Tariffs" didn't have a whoopee thing to do with it. Better luck next time.

And finally,
"And it's really a bad idea to learn your economics from english proffesors..."

Yes, but I'm somewhat proud of the fact that I apparently learned something from my English professors. I, personally, think it is a bad idea to try to learn history from your corporate manager, even if you could find one that wasn't busy pulling his head out of his ass.

And enjoy your career in corporate management- maybe if you are really lucky you'll get to go over to one of the countries your corporation outsources all of its jobs to. If you get a chance, maybe take a quick 15 minute break from beating them to keep the production level high, go check out what your corporate largess is doing for their lives. Personally speaking, I'm of the opinion that "trickle-down" economics is fundamentally flawed... but then again I'm just a dirty communist.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #46 on:** November 10, 2003, 08:03:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Animal
How am I changing the subject? I am unable to answer your question. If Nike is not profitable it may be because of their own stupid business tactics - certainly not because they are paying their workers too much, or using expensive materials for their products.

So if Nike has such poor business tactics why havent they been killed by the other shoe companies, why havent their shareholders abandoned them?

The fcat is Niki is profitable, but far far less so than you imagine in your wild fantasies of worker exploitation and evilness.

In fact I'm curious where did you get this info?

"For $.75, that worked made Nike aproximately $3,000 in pure profit."

Urchin · « **Reply #47 on:** November 10, 2003, 08:10:51 PM »

Where can you look up information on profit margins and stuff? Do you have to pay to get it?

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #48 on:** November 10, 2003, 08:16:37 PM »

I asked you if you were still going to school because IIRC last time we talked about it you said you had trouble with your tution or somthing and I was curious if it all worked out ok for you- I'm sorry if you took it wrong way.

Though the evil corporations thing is my usual sarcastic grunherz crap, yes - just learn to expect it - no harm is intended just a sarcasm...

As for the depression it was touched off by the crash, however protectionist tarrifs imposed after the crash (to protect home grown indiustries and jobs just like yu ask for) contributed significantly to making the dpression worse and a truly global phenomenon. Why? Because all nations responded in kind and this hurt trade, less trade means less production output and leess jobs which means less money which means more poverty which means global depression.

And again there is no point learning economics from english proffesors. I liked most of mine and they were great people, kind funny intelligent but they did not understand econmincs as they did not study it and the defibte hard science nature of it did not suit them. I learned to examine literature and compose essays from my english teachers, economics and finance I left to my economics proffesors...

Again I'm not really sure why you posted this thread if you are simply ignoring the answers we are giving you and also insulting me at every turn. Why waste your time, why waster other peoples times?

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #49 on:** November 10, 2003, 08:17:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Urchin
Where can you look up information on profit margins and stuff? Do you have to pay to get it?

Go ask your english proffesor...

JOKE JOKE JOKE JOKE JOKE

Animal · « **Reply #50 on:** November 10, 2003, 08:18:02 PM »

What is so surprising about a worker producing $3,000 in product value each day? That is normal in companies in the US, why is it hard to believe if its the same with a US company elsewhere? is it hard to believe because they get paid so little? believe it. That is how much a worker gets paid in a Nike factory on Indonesia.
I may have been wrong, those $3,000 are not profit, they are product value. If Nike cant move their products well enough to make ends meet that is their problem - they certainly could during the nineties, when they were at their prime.
If Nike is not profitable now its their own damn fault, and I'm damn glad they are going down.

By the way:

Quote

In September, representatives of 57 organizations from around the world met in Germany to discuss codes of conduct, the role and responsibilities of transnational corporations, and strategies and campaigns to protect workers' rights worldwide. A prime topic of discussion was campaigns in support of workers in the sports shoe industry. In June, the National Organization of Wornen (NOW) passed a resolution condemning the global sweatshop; Nike was the only company mentioned by name.

If you think such a company is contibuting to the global economy in any way, you are sadly mistaken, and if you feel the need to defend such a company then it says a lot about your morals.
Nike is drowning on their won piss - they overgrew and now they are goung down because of their greed. Well deserved. As to why all the other companies are also failing? simple. They follow the same business model.

Grungerz, I clearly see you as an exec in a company such as Nike. You'd do fine in there.

Hooligan · « **Reply #51 on:** November 10, 2003, 08:21:20 PM »

Animal wrote:

Quote

They dont follow miko's economical model at all.

But they have to. The laws of economics like the laws of gravity don't care. If you want workers you have to pay them. If you raise the demand for labor, the price goes up. That is all there is to it.

According to the last news story I read on the subject Nike actually pays its workers more than the prevailing local wage. This may be altruism on Nike's part (which I doubt), but most likely it is calculated as a wage to give them the best return for the money spent. i.e. better wages get them better employees, better publicity, etc...

I did a quick web search and found this:

http://www.mndaily.com/daily/2000/02/28/editorial_opinions/o0228/

Maybe it sucks to work for Nike in Indonesia. But apparently it sucks a lot less than working for the textile factory across the street.

Urchin:

quote.yahoo.com nke is the symbol, you might want to click on the "key statistics" and "competitors" links.

Hooligan

Animal · « **Reply #52 on:** November 10, 2003, 08:22:40 PM »

What great justification...

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #53 on:** November 10, 2003, 08:22:42 PM »

So now you admit your info is wrong, where did you get it? And you were ademant that it was PURE PROFIT, now its merely product value? I'm sorry Animal your argument is falling apart.

Would people employed by nike in 3rd world areas benefit if nike pulled out and moved production elsewhere?

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #54 on:** November 10, 2003, 08:25:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Animal
What great justification...

So even if Nike pays there people comporably high wages it does not matter to you? I guess you would preffer that nike pays them no wahes at all and just leaves them with no income - in fact thats exactly what you want. What a strage form of kindness...

Urchin · « **Reply #55 on:** November 10, 2003, 08:25:49 PM »

One of my professors told me something interesting (well, to everyone except Grunherz anyway, he'll find it admirable). Back in the 1970s, the average CEO made something like 25 times what your average worker was making.

I did manage to find some neat stuff about Walmart, so lets compare H. Lee Scott, Jr, with some random Walmart employee.

Starting wage at Walmart is $8.00 an hour in Maryland, its probably lower elsewhere in the country since the cost of living is very high out here. This'll skew the results some, but I'm sure they'll remain a lofty goal for Grunherz to shoot for.

$8.00 x37.5 (no 40 hour workweeks at Walmart, might accidentally hit OT.. which they can get around by simply not paying you for some hours you worked... Yea, Grunherz, I'm embellishing. Go look it up somewhere, if you can pry your head away from your bosses ass.)

$8.00 X 37.5 = $300 a week. $300 X 4 = $1200 a month. $1200 X 12 = $14,400 a year. Before taxes.

Sorry I can't break it down all at once for you Grun, try to keep something around your mouth so you can keep from getting drool all over the place when you see how much this gentleman makes in a year. Also, I've got no idea if this is total pay, or if he gets stock options and such on top of it, although I'd bet on the latter.

$17.69 Million a year... so if I wanted to see how many times 14.4K would go into that.... 12,284.72 times.

So the CEO of Walmart makes ~12,285 what your average hourly worker makes in America... I have very little doubt that Walmart employees in foreign countries are paid much less. Awesome. Anyone else got any neat figures handy for other companies?

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #56 on:** November 10, 2003, 08:30:07 PM »

CEO pay is out of control, especially when such high pay is not met with peformannce. This is a serious corporate governance issue these days...

Urchin · « **Reply #57 on:** November 10, 2003, 08:33:19 PM »

Oh and Grunherz, I've got nothing against you personally. I despise what you stand for, and typically find what you hold to be admirable to be abhorrant, but as a person I think you are OK. I was just responding in kind, as I saw it. You keep it clean, and I will to.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #58 on:** November 10, 2003, 08:34:26 PM »

Thanks Urchin.

What do you think I stand for, what do you think my motives are?

Hooligan · « **Reply #59 on:** November 10, 2003, 08:36:26 PM »

Urchin:

Honestly what has that got to do with anything?

If the closest walmart to you has a job opening and they offer $8.00 an hour are you going to take it? What about $50.00 an hour? $100.00? At some point you are probably going to be interested. If the money is worth more to you than the freedom to use your time as you see fit, who should anybody have the power to prohibit you from taking the job? I don't think anybody should, anymore than anybody should be able to tell you you MUST work for walmart for some specified wage. Likewise I don't think anybody should have the power to tell walmart what pay they may or may not offer you for your employment services.

As far as what the CEO makes, that is the business of the company's owners and nobody elses. If the guy isn't worth what they are paying him they always have the option of looking for someone who can do a better job and will do it for less pay.

Nobody else gets to come into your house and tell you how to run things there so why should anybody besides walmart's owners have anything to say about who is their CEO and what they are paid?

Hooligan