TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Vietnam - The Cheaper China
Pages (3): « 1 2 [3]

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Customer's yea, their own people, hell no. If they have the choice of cheap labor in Vietnam to keeping people in America, they don't care. The bottom line is all that matters in that case. They don't care about the "Made in America" label.

while profits are number one, in a service economy a company's product (or generator) is normally its talent. without treating its employees well, the company will not succeed.

as for your other comments, you have a lot to learn. a company that doesn't lay off workers may not survive, in which case everyone loses. while layoffs hurt individuals the greater good is served by layoffs.

also, a company can't just pick up and leave a country. if coca cola decided it wanted to pick up and leave atlanta, georgia for vietnam it would be hit with a 10 year inversion tax. many other countries have exit taxes to prevent the companies from moving overseas.

lastly, a corporation is an amalgamation of its people. therefore, if a corporation acts in a way contrary to your morals, it is really the executives that are being objectionable. a corporation is not a person, therefore, it can't take actions. only the people who run the corporation can take actions. stop talking about corporations as if they act because they don't, the people who run the corporation act.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Customer's yea, their own people, hell no. If they have the choice of cheap labor in Vietnam to keeping people in America, they don't care. The bottom line is all that matters in that case. They don't care about the "Made in America" label.

Well, to be honest, if all American companies were making all their products in America, the American consumers would be the worst off. Everything would be really expensive and the purchasing power would go down significantly (so you would have a well paid manufacturing job which would make you afford nothing). Really, there's a lot to earn from trading and outsourcing, but that doesn't mean companies don't care shit about the country they come from (the best jobs are mostly kept in the country they come from, while the "bad ones" are shipped abroad).

How much did Halliburton pay in "inversion taxes"? Jez, you basically enforced my premise that corporations are amoral, since they are not people, and also, their sole purpose of existence is for profit. This is why many corporations would rather America be in a perpetual state of war. We can call this the military-industrial complex, or we can call them military contractors. Either way, they don't care how many people die or become refugees. As long as they get that $1 billion no-bid contract, who cares!? I stand by my conclusion that corporations are amoral, and hold no loyalty to their country. Sure, the executives might have a personal national loyalty, and they usually have morals, but when it comes down to it, the company's profits come first, no matter nation or morality.

a

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton How much did Halliburton pay in "inversion taxes"? Jez, you basically enforced my premise that corporations are amoral, since they are not people, and also, their sole purpose of existence is for profit. This is why many corporations would rather America be in a perpetual state of war. We can call this the military-industrial complex, or we can call them military contractors. Either way, they don't care how many people die or become refugees. As long as they get that $1 billion no-bid contract, who cares!? I stand by my conclusion that corporations are amoral, and hold no loyalty to their country. Sure, the executives might have a personal national loyalty, and they usually have morals, but when it comes down to it, the company's profits come first, no matter nation or morality.

halliburton didn't actually enter into an inversion transaction. the top management actually picked up and moved to UAE. Most executives aren't willing to move to the UAE to avoid corporate taxes. but that wasn't a decision by 'the corporation' rather it was a decision of the corporate executives to uproot their lives and make a start in the UAE. In most cases, executives are people who are grounded in an area like other people, most of whom are unwilling to upend their lives to 'screw' the little people.

as for your amoral comment, corporations aren't immoral, amoral, or moral. since a corporation is a legal fiction, it is just an extension of those who run the show. corporations don't do anything but exist on paper!

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 the spanish american war the US claimed the phillipines, cuba, and puerto rico. In the mexican-american war the US took from mexico practically the entire western US including arguably our most important state - california. the US is not much different than western europe in that territorial colonialism effectively stopped at the beginning of the 20th century.

I mentioned this earlier (yet it was ignored) and let's not forget how the Americans basically murdered their way across the western frontier in the conquest of the Indians.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Dude, the Dems get more of their funding in corporate donations now than the Republicans. This isn't 1984. You keep blasting out these comments that have no validity, like "unemployment is at its highest level in US history, Iraq is completely unwinable, nobody can afford their mortgages anymore (because of Bush), backdoor drafts are the only way to keep people in the military..." ALL of which can easily be refuted. LOL.. and you question other people on here where they get THEIR news from? I know they get Al Jazeera in Canada but you can check out other sources too Donation link below. I already debunked your other falsehoods earlier but if you want links for those too, I'll provide. http://liberalpro.blogspot.com/2007...w-favoring.html

Some of your points have been contested by myself and others already though and you just ignore them. I don't watch Al Jazeera and it's not broadcast on our news networks as far as I know (CBC, CTV, printed press, etc).

Are you really trying to suggest to me that the Democrats get more funding from the oil and energy private sector than Bush or McCain?

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 a halliburton didn't actually enter into an inversion transaction. the top management actually picked up and moved to UAE. Most executives aren't willing to move to the UAE to avoid corporate taxes. but that wasn't a decision by 'the corporation' rather it was a decision of the corporate executives to uproot their lives and make a start in the UAE. In most cases, executives are people who are grounded in an area like other people, most of whom are unwilling to upend their lives to 'screw' the little people. as for your amoral comment, corporations aren't immoral, amoral, or moral. since a corporation is a legal fiction, it is just an extension of those who run the show. corporations don't do anything but exist on paper!

I'm amused that you find sympathy with corporate executives who have no trouble moving to UAE. They can fly back any time they want...hint...private jet...vacation home... Corporations are completely amoral because morality is not their primary concern. Profit is. At anyone's expense. Corporations are wrongly humanized, by government, by you... They are given the status of a human, yet, these "humans" have more resources at their disposal than most countries in the world! That is a blatant imbalance of power because they have billions at their disposal for lobbying and influence in government. I don't have that kind of power. Why does an amoral corporation have more influence than I do on government? Corporations are not people, and shouldn't be treated as a person. If it were up to me, I'de strip all corporations of their "personhood" status.

quote:

Originally posted by Dj Smitty20 Some of your points have been contested by myself and others already though and you just ignore them. Are you really trying to suggest to me that the Democrats get more funding from the oil and energy private sector than Bush or McCain?

I stated facts to you. For example, that there were months in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 with higher unemployment than we have now, which you say are at the highest levels ever... (totally untrue). A couple of months percentages do not reflect an entire year's trends. Not sure if you realize, but stats existed before Bush became president. Under Jimmy Carter, this was the yearly average unemployment:
1977: 6.9%
1978: 6.0%
1978: 5.8%
1980: 7.0% (and inflation at a whopping 13%... to go against your claim that the dollar is weaker than ever).

Under Bush it has remained in the 4% and low 5% average range for the past 4 years, and only in the last few months did it jump to over 5% for those specific months. Clinton was handed an expanding economy during peace time, and with the disintegration of the Soviet Union, defense spending could come down, which encouraged Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan to cut interest rates. Then Clinton got a Republican Congress in 1995 that was also eager to bring the budget into balance.

So, when I give the facts, you argue a perspective unrelated to the facts I present, and call that a win... and wonder why I ignore you?

And, I'm not suggesting the Dems get more contributions from oil and energy, I'm saying that OVERALL, from all corporations combined, the Dems get more funding than Republicans now and all the data from the last couple of years point to that trend continuing to grow in the Dem's favor.

quote:

Originally posted by Dj Smitty20 I mentioned this earlier (yet it was ignored) and let's not forget how the Americans basically murdered their way across the western frontier in the conquest of the Indians.

im still waiting for you to provide examples of american imperialism since WW2.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Under Bush it has remained in the 4% and low 5% average range for the past 4 years, and only in the last few months did it jump to over 5% for those specific months. Clinton was handed an expanding economy during peace time, and with the disintegration of the Soviet Union, defense spending could come down, which encouraged Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan to cut interest rates. Then Clinton got a Republican Congress in 1995 that was also eager to bring the budget into balance.

Ha! That's because they calculate inflation differently than in the 1970's. They don't include fuel and food! The most important commodities in all of the economy. Is it no wonder they can say inflation is just 2-3%? They're cooking the books man...

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Ha! That's because they calculate inflation differently than in the 1970's. They don't include fuel and food! The most important commodities in all of the economy. Is it no wonder they can say inflation is just 2-3%? They're cooking the books man...

"Ha" what? who said anything about 2-3% inflation??? I said between 4 and 5%. I was using data directly from the bureau of labor statistics, not a republican press release (see link below). You always try to baffle people with economic and financial jargon... but underneath all that I know you're the same guy who was asking TA readers (and thinking it was realistic) if they thought starting a 'server broker' business with $2000, or a portfolio consulting firm having no experience or contacts was possible.


http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Eco...aspx?Symbol=USD

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss "Ha" what? who said anything about 2-3% inflation??? I said between 4 and 5%. I was using data directly from the bureau of labor statistics, not a republican press release (see link below). You always try to baffle people with economic and financial jargon... but underneath all that I know you're the same guy who was asking TA readers (and thinking it was realistic) if they thought starting a 'server broker' business with $2000, or a portfolio consulting firm having no experience or contacts was possible. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Eco...aspx?Symbol=USD

I wasn't using your stat. It was off the top of my head. CNBC, wall street journal, the inflation I remember reading about was like 2-3%, which is totally unrealistic.

I'm not trying to baffle anyone, just speaking my mind. Server broker? Get it right..SERVICE broker. And to be a successful entrepreneur, you have to think outside the box, and think about ALL options. It's ok, I'm not expecting you to understand that.. Let me guess, you work a static 9-5 job? If you want to get personal, we can get personal..

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I'm not trying to baffle anyone, just speaking my mind. Server broker? Get it right..SERVICE broker. And to be a successful entrepreneur, you have to think outside the box, and think about ALL options. It's ok, I'm not expecting you to understand that..

Starting a business that someone else has done before is not thinking outside the box my friend.

As an entrepreneur myself I wish you all the luck, but I can tell you one thing. Sitting here and arguing with people all day will not get you far in business. Maybe I am wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I'm amused that you find sympathy with corporate executives who have no trouble moving to UAE. They can fly back any time they want...hint...private jet...vacation home... Corporations are completely amoral because morality is not their primary concern. Profit is. At anyone's expense. Corporations are wrongly humanized, by government, by you... They are given the status of a human, yet, these "humans" have more resources at their disposal than most countries in the world! That is a blatant imbalance of power because they have billions at their disposal for lobbying and influence in government. I don't have that kind of power. Why does an amoral corporation have more influence than I do on government? Corporations are not people, and shouldn't be treated as a person. If it were up to me, I'de strip all corporations of their "personhood" status.

it's quite presumptuous that you think i find sympathy with halliburton execs. to the contrary, i think it's an awful practice. However, if a company has central operations outside of the US it shouldn't be stuck to operate its HQ in the US because it is incorporated here. Halliburton, on the other hand, is being manipulative and the government should severely restrict the contracts it gives to the company.

How the hell did i humanize corporations? i said corporations are an amalgamation of its executives and other stakeholders. that is quite opposite to humanizing a corporation. rather, it is disregarding the corporation and holding accountable the people who run the company. You, on the other hand, keep insisting corporations act. clearly, as a legal fiction, a corporation can't take actions; its execs and shareholders act on behalf of the corporation. thus, the execs are the ones weilding the power. that power is not all in one person, but spread over the BOD and its shareholders, with the CEO acting on behalf of them. while government allows actions in the name of a corporation, it is not the corporation that acts, it is the people running the corporation. since you can't grasp the distinction this converstaion will go nowhere.

quote:

Originally posted by Kapedano Starting a business that someone else has done before is not thinking outside the box my friend. As an entrepreneur myself I wish you all the luck, but I can tell you one thing. Sitting here and arguing with people all day will not get you far in business. Maybe I am wrong.

I've never heard of a service broker. Anyways, I'm planning an analytics/holding company. Also, classes don't start until late August. I'm still waiting for my stuff (including cloths, furniture, etc.) to get here in El Paso, so until then, I've got all day to lolly-gag. No school, no job (yet)..Hell, the computer I'm using is rented from Rent-a-Center!

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 it's quite presumptuous that you think i find sympathy with halliburton execs. to the contrary, i think it's an awful practice. However, if a company has central operations outside of the US it shouldn't be stuck to operate its HQ in the US because it is incorporated here. Halliburton, on the other hand, is being manipulative and the government should severely restrict the contracts it gives to the company. How the hell did i humanize corporations? i said corporations are an amalgamation of its executives and other stakeholders. that is quite opposite to humanizing a corporation. rather, it is disregarding the corporation and holding accountable the people who run the company. You, on the other hand, keep insisting corporations act. clearly, as a legal fiction, a corporation can't take actions; its execs and shareholders act on behalf of the corporation. thus, the execs are the ones weilding the power. that power is not all in one person, but spread over the BOD and its shareholders, with the CEO acting on behalf of them. while government allows actions in the name of a corporation, it is not the corporation that acts, it is the people running the corporation. since you can't grasp the distinction this converstaion will go nowhere.

Ok, I see. Wouldn't you agree that corporations, "which don't act", should not be classified as "persons", because people act?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Ok, I see. Wouldn't you agree that corporations, "which don't act", should not be classified as "persons", because people act?

a corporation is considered a person in a notional sense. Post-enron, there are many laws that hold CEO's, CFOs, directors, and other execs directly liable for actions of the corporation. for instance, if fraud is perpetrated by a corporation, through the actions of the CFO, the CFO is the one who is going to jail. On top of that, the shareholders will be punished by fines and other sanctions. in small corporations, the shareholders can be directly liable for the corporate actions.

without corporations our economy would not be as large and diverse as it is today. corporations allow people to develop products with less worry about personal liability (which is immensely important). it also allows people to pool funds more easily and spread risk more widely.

our system wouldn't work without a corporate entity of some sort. most people aren't willing to accept full risk when forming a business. therefore, we need corporations to have a separate existence from its owners. Imagine if every single GE shareholder had to sign off on actions of the company. it would be absolutely unworkable!

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton And to be a successful entrepreneur, you have to think outside the box, and think about ALL options. It's ok, I'm not expecting you to understand that.. Let me guess, you work a static 9-5 job? If you want to get personal, we can get personal..

Personal it shall be. And I hope this doesn't totally ruin your belief that you can read people accurately... but I have never in my life had a 9-5. I'm not built for that kind of monotony. At age 24 I finished grad school and within 9 months I used 10K I had saved up to start a consulting engineering company. 6 years later, with plenty of outside the box thinking, I have 3 offices in the U.S. (Charlotte, Lakeland FL, and Hilton Head, SC), and another in Kuala Lumpur Malaysia. Here, I've employed my business plan so well that we've helped the companies we consult for increase their volume to the tune of half a million dollars profit a year. It's so successful that we are now selling our business model to the 75th largest franchise in the world [profit wise] (a construction conglomerate called DKI) by way of seminars where they pay us to teach them how to replicate the same model of success we have done for the people in Charlotte. My Malaysia based company has 3 partners and formed a joint venture with Antah Holdings, which is owned and operated by the Royal family of Malaysia and worth over $650 million. My stake is just a small piece of that, but the joint venture added instant massive value to my business because of who we are in business with, and put us on the Malaysian Stock Exchange a few months ago. In less than a year in Malaysia, we've locked up deals with the Emir of Qatar, the communications giant Telekom, and the 2nd largest hotel in the world (The 1st World Hotel at Genting Highlands- 6100 rooms)... and that's just the tip of the iceberg. I don't want to break my arm patting myself on the back, but at just 30 years of age, when you're sitting at the dinner table inside the King and Prince of Malaysia's house and they're asking what they can do for you, I'd say there's nothing static about that. But, I'm DEFINITELY not expecting you to understand that

By the way, if you need real advice, I'm open for questions

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 On top of that, the shareholders will be punished by fines and other sanctions. in small corporations, the shareholders can be directly liable for the corporate actions.

but historically such punishments have been spectacularly ineffective at preventing future crime. if the fine is less than the potential payoff, then they dont care.

as luck might have it I was watching the frontline doco on enron et al last night. congress went out of their way to ensure corporate accounting firms could/would skate on charges of fraud.

that being the case still today, how can anyone be convinced that there are adequate protections from corporate greed?

edit: sorry, not charges of fraud, but liability to shareholder legal action.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Personal it shall be. And I hope this doesn't totally ruin your belief that you can read people accurately... but I have never in my life had a 9-5. I'm not built for that kind of monotony. At age 24 I finished grad school and within 9 months I used 10K I had saved up to start a consulting engineering company. 6 years later, with plenty of outside the box thinking, I have 3 offices in the U.S. (Charlotte, Lakeland FL, and Hilton Head, SC), and another in Kuala Lumpur Malaysia. Here, I've employed my business plan so well that we've helped the companies we consult for increase thier volume to the tune of half a million dollars profit a year. It's so successful that we are now selling our business model to the 75th largest franchise in the world [profit wise] (a construction conglomerate called DKI) by way of seminars where they pay us to teach them how to replicate the same model of success we have done for the people in Charlotte. My Malaysia based company has 3 partners and formed a joint venture with Antah Holdings, which is owned and operated by the Royal family of Malaysia and worth over $650 million. My stake is just a small piece of that, but the joint venture added instant massive value to my business because of who we are in business with, and put us on the Malaysian Stock Exchange a few months ago. In less than a year in Malaysia, we've locked up deals with the Emir of Qatar, the communications giant Telekom, and the 2nd largest hotel in the world (The 1st World Hotel at Genting Highlands- 6100 rooms)... and that's just the tip of the iceberg. I don't want to break my arm patting myself on the back, but at just 30 years of age, when you're sitting at the dinner table inside the King and Prince of Malaysia's house and they're asking what they can do for you, I'd say there's nothing static about that. But, I'm DEFINITELY not expecting you to understand that By the way, if you need real advice, I'm open for questions

bravo bravo.. Don't hold it against me because I haven't "made it" yet..

quote:

a corporation is considered a person in a notional sense. Post-enron, there are many laws that hold CEO's, CFOs, directors, and other execs directly liable for actions of the corporation. for instance, if fraud is perpetrated by a corporation, through the actions of the CFO, the CFO is the one who is going to jail. On top of that, the shareholders will be punished by fines and other sanctions. in small corporations, the shareholders can be directly liable for the corporate actions. without corporations our economy would not be as large and diverse as it is today. corporations allow people to develop products with less worry about personal liability (which is immensely important). it also allows people to pool funds more easily and spread risk more widely. our system wouldn't work without a corporate entity of some sort. most people aren't willing to accept full risk when forming a business. therefore, we need corporations to have a separate existence from its owners. Imagine if every single GE shareholder had to sign off on actions of the company. it would be absolutely unworkable!

Laws to hold CEOs accountable huh? How can those laws have jurisdiction over a multinational corporation which has most of its business in foreign markets? One example being, isn't it illegal to convict a company for bribing political officials? Africa is rife with political bribes from multinationals. I don't see an American company being convicting of bribing, say, an official in Nigeria, or Angola.

I very much support the ideal of corporations, capitalism. But I believe unrestrained capitalism, or unrestrained corporate power is very dangerous.

Nah man I'm not holding anything against you in that regard... I hope to god you find entrepeneurial success because there is NOTHING better than making your own schedule and not having to answer to anyone. It's just that you made such a huge assumption about me, and in a way that suggested I don't have the business like understanding you have when you haven't made it yet. That's what rubbed me the wrong way. But you're a good sport and I like you anyway I've had a couple of lucky breaks along the way too. You'll need them too and I hope you get them.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Nah man I'm not holding anything against you in that regard... I hope to god you find entrepeneurial success because there is NOTHING better than making your own schedule and not having to answer to anyone. It's just that you made such a huge assumption about me, and in a way that suggested I don't have the business like understanding you have when you haven't made it yet. That's what rubbed me the wrong way. But you're a good sport and I like you anyway I've had a couple of lucky breaks along the way too. You'll need them too and I hope you get them.

What's the name of your company listed on the Malaysian stock exchange? I'm gonna place a value on it.. Where you at in the investor's club??

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN but historically such punishments have been spectacularly ineffective at preventing future crime. if the fine is less than the potential payoff, then they dont care. as luck might have it I was watching the frontline doco on enron et al last night. congress went out of their way to ensure corporate accounting firms could/would skate on charges of fraud. that being the case still today, how can anyone be convinced that there are adequate protections from corporate greed? edit: sorry, not charges of fraud, but liability to shareholder legal action.

fortunately, or unfortunately (depending on how you look at it), the shareholders have a high threshold to convince a court of exec liability for breach of duty. Essentially, the courts defer to the judgement of the executives in belief that the executives have better business judgement. For your personal knowledge (in case you didn't know) it's called the 'business judgement rule.'

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton bravo bravo.. Don't hold it against me because I haven't "made it" yet.. Laws to hold CEOs accountable huh? How can those laws have jurisdiction over a multinational corporation which has most of its business in foreign markets? One example being, isn't it illegal to convict a company for bribing political officials? Africa is rife with political bribes from multinationals. I don't see an American company being convicting of bribing, say, an official in Nigeria, or Angola. I very much support the ideal of corporations, capitalism. But I believe unrestrained capitalism, or unrestrained corporate power is very dangerous.

sarbanes oxley is one of the newer laws holding CEOs and CFOs liable.

if a corporation does not violate US law then the US has no gripe and there is no need to apply US laws to the corporate officers. however, if the corporation operates within the borders of the US (even remotely) the US has a right to enforce its laws against the executives of the company. For example, the US has brought charges against UK and Carribean executives of online sports gaming websites. The issue then becomes whether US courts can exert jurisdiction over that person. At that point, it is as simple as stepping on US soil or in a terrority with an extradition treaty with the US. there are many instances when the US applies its laws to people who have never stepped foot in the country. the US does it all the time for south american drug smugglers importing drugs into the US.

you don't see american companies being convicted of bribing foreign officials because it is hard to prove. the foreign official isn't going to admit to doing so, and the corporation can likely launder the money by paying bogus government fees that are funneled to the official.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton What's the name of your company listed on the Malaysian stock exchange? I'm gonna place a value on it.. Where you at in the investor's club??

Sent you a private message with all the requested info... it's a little off topic for the subject in this thread.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.