Timebuilder
Entrepreneur
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 4,625
Kathy, with respect, if this was true:
then you would not say:
because this isn't abpout corporate greed at all. It is about corporate competition and the responsibility that these corporation have to their American stockholders to be profitable. A great many people find it convenient to confuse greed with profit. Mostly, they are socialists. We, here in the US, are capitalists. There is a world of difference, and it is what has made us a great nation.
The pay of CEO's is determined by their maket value. In other words, how valuable the board thinks they are to the survival and success of the company. CEO's taking pay cuts makes for a great soundbite, but it has nothing to do with the ability of the company to "save the jobs of workers". The number of jobs, the "when and where" of it, is determined by need, not the actions of a CEO. The CEO and the board merely respond to the need.
On an individual basis, this is exactly what would happen. I grew up on a farm. However, this is American in the non-government way of caring that people took on tasks like this as rugged individuals. When you mandate caring, it becomeds welfare. Has that helped us remain strong, and grounded in our values? No, instead it has made people dependent and weak, since there is no accouuntability to one's neighbor's when their economic value is represented by a faceless government check.
The farmer you mentioned had already helped his neighbors in similar situations. Sometimes, he hired extra help. But, he only hired that help AS NEEDED. If he did not need the help he had, he released them to seek work elsewhere. That's what is happening here. He has a farm someplace else, where the crops are growing better, and with less effort. He can afford to plant more crops there at his other farm, and those who have invested in his farm now have more to eat and money to spend because he was a wise farmer, and optimized his ability to grow that crop. The money his investors receive is now being invested in other farms. Some are here, and some are there, depending on a host of economic influences.
I did not say that things are "so wonderful in other countries." I suggested that those who are in other countries are ready to compete, and compete heartily, and they also seek the freedom an opportunity that we offer here in America. He was working here becuase he wanted to.
Suit yourself. I suppose if this isn't an area of intrerest for you, you find it difficult to understand why someone would prefer working on cars to working in a office. His sister has a pharmacy. She likes that, and he fixes her car when it breaks. Different strokes, you know? My point was that he can CHOOSE what he wants to do, because he CAN choose. He has sufficient education to make that choice and to compete where he likes.
That's the freedom offered by America. My friend and I were the only ones out of 15 mechanics with any college at all. Kinda says something about American education according to MTV and the NEA, doesn't it?
Yes. If you were as well versed in economics as you claimed in your reply, you would know that employment is ALWAYS a lagging indicator. That hasn't changed.
Now I see where you are coming from. The article you posted is one of those democrat support articles that someone from the Post or the Associated Press writes to stir the election pot. Here is what the article is trying to accomplish: making the president look bad, and pretend that Kerry has some "wonderful solution."
Fetilizer, my resume writing friend.
It is only a "sensitive issue" because the article fails to shed any light on the economics of job creation. Instead, it relies on the emotional reaction of people like you, those who feel more than they think. That's not an attack, it is a fact of life for many folks. You have to power to change that, if you will not allow yourself to be manipulated by these pieces.
The ecomony has lost 2.2 million jobs because of an economic bubble that burst at the end of the Clinton administration. Was Clinton responsible for the creation of those jobs? Of course not, any more that GWB is responsible for their loss. You see, president's don't actually HAVE a "job creation record" they are only able to stimulate or hobble an economy using taxes. Here's what the article does not say: "because George Bush insisted on lowering our taxes, the economy responded to the added investment of hundreds of thousands of individuals, and avoided slipping into a second Great Depression in 2002."
Of course, if the article said that, where would that leave the friends of John Kerry, or the people who want to return to power in Washington, raise taxes, and increase social programs to keep people beholden to them?
They would be SOL if more people understood that businesses create jobs, not goverenments.
That, my friend, is a prudent, wait-and-see approach that would be good for ANY presiident.
You gotta love a reporter with an axe to grind!! This is where all of the dems pile on saying "look how far the sky has fallen!!"
What I found particularly interesting is how you started out saying you are a republican. That's a nice touch. But I wasn't taken in for long. I'll be it will work in a high school, or a seminar, though. The young or the desparate are always easily manipulated by a lack of understanding.
The democrats are counting on that principle.
then you would not say:
because this isn't abpout corporate greed at all. It is about corporate competition and the responsibility that these corporation have to their American stockholders to be profitable. A great many people find it convenient to confuse greed with profit. Mostly, they are socialists. We, here in the US, are capitalists. There is a world of difference, and it is what has made us a great nation.
The pay of CEO's is determined by their maket value. In other words, how valuable the board thinks they are to the survival and success of the company. CEO's taking pay cuts makes for a great soundbite, but it has nothing to do with the ability of the company to "save the jobs of workers". The number of jobs, the "when and where" of it, is determined by need, not the actions of a CEO. The CEO and the board merely respond to the need.
On an individual basis, this is exactly what would happen. I grew up on a farm. However, this is American in the non-government way of caring that people took on tasks like this as rugged individuals. When you mandate caring, it becomeds welfare. Has that helped us remain strong, and grounded in our values? No, instead it has made people dependent and weak, since there is no accouuntability to one's neighbor's when their economic value is represented by a faceless government check.
The farmer you mentioned had already helped his neighbors in similar situations. Sometimes, he hired extra help. But, he only hired that help AS NEEDED. If he did not need the help he had, he released them to seek work elsewhere. That's what is happening here. He has a farm someplace else, where the crops are growing better, and with less effort. He can afford to plant more crops there at his other farm, and those who have invested in his farm now have more to eat and money to spend because he was a wise farmer, and optimized his ability to grow that crop. The money his investors receive is now being invested in other farms. Some are here, and some are there, depending on a host of economic influences.
I did not say that things are "so wonderful in other countries." I suggested that those who are in other countries are ready to compete, and compete heartily, and they also seek the freedom an opportunity that we offer here in America. He was working here becuase he wanted to.
Suit yourself. I suppose if this isn't an area of intrerest for you, you find it difficult to understand why someone would prefer working on cars to working in a office. His sister has a pharmacy. She likes that, and he fixes her car when it breaks. Different strokes, you know? My point was that he can CHOOSE what he wants to do, because he CAN choose. He has sufficient education to make that choice and to compete where he likes.
That's the freedom offered by America. My friend and I were the only ones out of 15 mechanics with any college at all. Kinda says something about American education according to MTV and the NEA, doesn't it?
Yes. If you were as well versed in economics as you claimed in your reply, you would know that employment is ALWAYS a lagging indicator. That hasn't changed.
Now I see where you are coming from. The article you posted is one of those democrat support articles that someone from the Post or the Associated Press writes to stir the election pot. Here is what the article is trying to accomplish: making the president look bad, and pretend that Kerry has some "wonderful solution."
Fetilizer, my resume writing friend.
It is only a "sensitive issue" because the article fails to shed any light on the economics of job creation. Instead, it relies on the emotional reaction of people like you, those who feel more than they think. That's not an attack, it is a fact of life for many folks. You have to power to change that, if you will not allow yourself to be manipulated by these pieces.
The ecomony has lost 2.2 million jobs because of an economic bubble that burst at the end of the Clinton administration. Was Clinton responsible for the creation of those jobs? Of course not, any more that GWB is responsible for their loss. You see, president's don't actually HAVE a "job creation record" they are only able to stimulate or hobble an economy using taxes. Here's what the article does not say: "because George Bush insisted on lowering our taxes, the economy responded to the added investment of hundreds of thousands of individuals, and avoided slipping into a second Great Depression in 2002."
Of course, if the article said that, where would that leave the friends of John Kerry, or the people who want to return to power in Washington, raise taxes, and increase social programs to keep people beholden to them?
They would be SOL if more people understood that businesses create jobs, not goverenments.
That, my friend, is a prudent, wait-and-see approach that would be good for ANY presiident.
You gotta love a reporter with an axe to grind!! This is where all of the dems pile on saying "look how far the sky has fallen!!"
What I found particularly interesting is how you started out saying you are a republican. That's a nice touch. But I wasn't taken in for long. I'll be it will work in a high school, or a seminar, though. The young or the desparate are always easily manipulated by a lack of understanding.
The democrats are counting on that principle.
Last edited:
