UPS sees FDX/USPS deal as Antitrust

[AV80R]

no no no , you misread what I was saying. You and I are saying the same thing. When I say they are forcing the devaluation, I am speaking of the Chinese government forcing the value down. Most economists say it should be valued higher which makes it stronger than what the value represents. When I said ask an economist, I was saying ask what benefit China has by keeping their currency under valued. It is kind of scary if you go as far as conspiracy theorists reasons since so much of our debt is being bought by China.

It's early in the morning. Sorry if my post was confusing.

Well, you're simplifying the facts to support your "everyone's out after American jobs" theory. I hate to be defending the Chinese here but bear in mind that their switch to market economy is a fairly new phenomenon (~20 years or so).

Here’s the irony - when the last currency crisis hit Asia (Thailand, Korean, Indonesian, etc. devaluations which spread to Mexico, etc) the US had to loan out tons of money to different countries, Mexico among others, in order to stabilize their economies (in effect to protect our trade). At that time the US was praising China for protecting their peg to the US dollar and not devaluing the Yuan like everyone else did.

Fast-forward 10 years or so and now we are blaming the Chinese for doing what we praised them for when Clinton was in power. Remember, only recently did they remove their peg to the dollar and now their currency is gaining strength albeit slowly. If their currency gains strength too fast it'll cause many lost jobs in China and create severe food shortages in that communist dictatorship – remember their government cannot afford a public dissent. I’m not defending their actions but explaining as to why they chose the “slow” approach to strengthening the Yuan.
I can however guarantee you that 10 years or so from now, we’ll be regretting that their currency has gotten that strong – you think many American business are getting bought out by Middle Eastern, and other ‘less reliable” governments? Just wait until the Chinese try to decide what to do with the loads of their suddenly super strong “Yuans.”

You say that you're against the China -US trade but for the mutually beneficial trade between Europe and the US. Well, I got news for you, that "beneficial trade" between the US and Europe has been despised in the past by many European workers (and very often it still is) because they felt like the US was ‘stealing’ the European jobs - sounds familiar?

It took several generations before Europeans learned that those jobs weren't really "theirs" but rather belonged to the company providing them and if their governments didn't keep the taxes and business costs in check, those jobs wouldn't stay there too long.

You're basically experiencing what European workers have been experiencing since the early 60s. Nothing new here and we will keep loosing some jobs and gaining others; it’s part of the business cycle and it's our government’s job to keep the business conditions here in the US good enough for more businesses to keep moving here or simply staying here than from moving out of here.

Your theory of anti-American job conspiracy is simply untrue but if it makes you fell better to have someone or something to blame for the demise of many American jobs please go ahead, I’m not going to hold that against you...

 

[shooter]

Well, you're simplifying the facts to support your "everyone's out after American jobs" theory. I hate to be defending the Chinese here but bear in mind that their switch to market economy is a fairly new phenomenon (~20 years or so).

Here’s the irony - when the last currency crisis hit Asia (Thailand, Korean, Indonesian, etc. devaluations which spread to Mexico, etc) the US had to loan out tons of money to different countries, Mexico among others, in order to stabilize their economies (in effect to protect our trade). At that time the US was praising China for protecting their peg to the US dollar and not devaluing the Yuan like everyone else did.

Fast-forward 10 years or so and now we are blaming the Chinese for doing what we praised them for when Clinton was in power. Remember, only recently did they remove their peg to the dollar and now their currency is gaining strength albeit slowly. If their currency gains strength too fast it'll cause many lost jobs in China and create severe food shortages in that communist dictatorship – remember their government cannot afford a public dissent. I’m not defending their actions but explaining as to why they chose the “slow” approach to strengthening the Yuan.
I can however guarantee you that 10 years or so from now, we’ll be regretting that their currency has gotten that strong – you think many American business are getting bought out by Middle Eastern, and other ‘less reliable” governments? Just wait until the Chinese try to decide what to do with the loads of their suddenly super strong “Yuans.”

You say that you're against the China -US trade but for the mutually beneficial trade between Europe and the US. Well, I got news for you, that "beneficial trade" between the US and Europe has been despised in the past by many European workers (and very often it still is) because they felt like the US was ‘stealing’ the European jobs - sounds familiar?

It took several generations before Europeans learned that those jobs weren't really "theirs" but rather belonged to the company providing them and if their governments didn't keep the taxes and business costs in check, those jobs wouldn't stay there too long.

You're basically experiencing what European workers have been experiencing since the early 60s. Nothing new here and we will keep loosing some jobs and gaining others; it’s part of the business cycle and it's our government’s job to keep the business conditions here in the US good enough for more businesses to keep moving here or simply staying here than from moving out of here.

Your theory of anti-American job conspiracy is simply untrue but if it makes you fell better to have someone or something to blame for the demise of many American jobs please go ahead, I’m not going to hold that against you...

What you say may be true, but until the evidence supports it I will have to disagree. The EU workers unions were screaming because they wanted trade in their favor. We wanted fair trade and there is the difference. Now we are addled with the same uneven exchange with China. Sure it supports cheap goods in America but at what cost? I do agree with your stance that we wil regret the gaining strength of the Yuan. Just like we are regret their fast growth that has them buying up every lump of coal and gallon of crude they can get their hands on. We will see, I guess. And thanks for not holding it against me that I don't like the changes and strains this world economy is putting America through. Lets hope a WW never breaks out against us and China. We would need them to build out ships for us.

 

[AV80R]

... The EU workers unions were screaming because they wanted trade in their favor. We wanted fair trade and there is the difference...

Do you really believe in what you’re saying? So basically they, European workers, were “screaming” because they wanted trade but only if it was in their favor, however we only wanted trade that’s fair to both sides because we are... so much better and honest and like to hug and sing kumbaya together?

C'mon, get real... We can discuss this all night long but the minute you start believing in this superior and philanthropist desire of ours to be kind and gentle and fair to each other the discussion turns pretty pointless…

 

[shooter]

Do you really believe in what you’re saying? So basically they, European workers, were “screaming” because they wanted trade but only if it was in their favor, however we only wanted trade that’s fair to both sides because we are... so much better and honest and like to hug and sing kumbaya together?

C'mon, get real... We can discuss this all night long but the minute you start believing in this superior and philanthropist desire of ours to be kind and gentle and fair to each other the discussion turns pretty pointless…

I never said it was "gentle and fair". I said they were placing demands on the agreements that we (the working public) do not/would not accept as fair and its far from free. When you have different styles of government, there would be different demands. When the labor groups of a socialized nation places demands on trade to support that, what do we (th public not the corporations) get in return? And yes, that is EXACTLY what was asked for and demanded by the European Union. If you think differently you are misinformed. I think it was last year sometime India's leaders told the EU to F--- off when they tried to force their social issues into the trade agreements. It is a cultural difference. Something they must not have considered when looking into "free trade" in this new global economy and how our system works. Unless you want to socialize America, which I doubt (I hope). I say we have trade agreements that support American labor, not a socialized government handout. I have no problem with the American way of life that you can work for what you have. But when they (our politicians) allow trade agreements that only support corporate gains, we (the workers) suffer. When you look at the problems with the "other" trade agreements, it is the lack of human rights and labor laws we have they they are skirting such as child labor. What chance do the workers in America have? None, at this rate of trade agreements.

 

[AV80R]

“…When you have different styles of government, there would be different demands. When the labor groups of a socialized nation places demands on trade to support that, what do we (th public not the corporations) get in return? And yes, that is EXACTLY what was asked for and demanded by the European Union. If you think differently you are misinformed.”

I see; I disagree with you so I must be misinformed. Interesting, since when did you become an authority on the European Union? I’m born and raised in one of EU countries and I still do not consider myself an authority and I'm sure I never will.

What is this socialist EU nation you speak of? Last time I checked there were 27 member nations in the EU and they all have vastly different forms of governments, from monarchies (yes, Kings and Queens) of Sweden, Denmark and the UK to the "old Europe" democracies of Germany and France to former communist nations of Poland, Estonia, Latvia, etc.

One could argue that ironically the former communist states are now the most ‘capitalist’ of them all (especially the Baltic states, Poland and the Czech Republic) while some “old” European nations such as France and Italy have the most socialist features of them all…

That being said to say “…When the labor groups of a socialized nation places demands on trade to support that, what do we (the public not the corporations) get in return…?” is simply illogical. First of all, EU is not a single nation and never will be, it’s simply an organization for European democracies where they can improve mutually beneficial trade amongst the member nations; help each others’ economies by using a single currency (in many but not all the member states) so they can, once and for all, end the constant devaluations of the former numerous European currencies; a norm in the past. After all, there’s a reason as to why it took some 2000 Italian lira to buy a single dollar before the switchover.

The US has never signed any major trade deal with EU (open sky agreement for the whole block is new phenomenon for the EU block as well). The majority of the “unfair” trade agreements you speak of were all signed when EU wasn’t even in existence.

It was the European Coal & Steel Community consisting of 6 nations that started pushing for a wider trade with the US. The majority of mine workers in those nations lamented that idea arguing that their jobs would disappear to the lower paying jobs in America (sounds familiar?). Guess what, they’re right, the mining industry in Europe was decimated and today the mining industry in the US is vastly larger than in Europe.

Later, the European Coal and Steel Community transformed itself into the European Community (predecessor to the European Union) and more states became members. The whole idea behind the organization was to avoid future wars in Europe at all costs and mainly by expending trade amongst the member states but also with other allied countries. The thinking was that the more you trade with other nations the less likely you are to find yourself in a war against those nations.

Trust me; the general public in most European nations was vehemently against those, in your view “fair” trade agreements. You consider them fair because the US gained more than it lost and thus it’s ‘fair’ to you (and most Americans). However, the European population in most European states felt about those agreements the very same way you now feel about us trading with China. The individual European governments (not EC or EU) pushed thru those trade agreements looking for a more peaceful Europe in the future.

When you say “…the labor groups of a socialized nation…” and imply all of Europe to me it’s the same as if a European talked about the “socialized nation of North America” when actually talking about Canada, the US, Mexico and maybe even Cuba, Nicaragua, Honduras, etc… Such a country simply does not exist and I hope never will.

What amazes me is how contradictory you are in your belief that our trade policies are “anti-American.” You say that you don’t want socialism yet your “buy American only” etc protectionist policies are the favorite weapon of trade for most socialist governments.

Also, you said that our trade with China (and India I assume) is not fair and I agree with you to a certain degree however I don’t know the solution to this problem. Then however, you say that India told EU to “F… off” in your own words because they tried to force some ‘social issues’ on them? Social issues? Really? How about they’re asking for the very same thing you keep repeating - a “fair trade” with India (and other nations).

The EU told India that if they wanted to trade with the many European nations they’d have to adhere to some basic EU working rules but before you scream “socialism” – realize that what they asked off India were some very basic human rights issues; you know stuff that we made illegal here in the US and in Europe many generations ago. Specifically, they forbid any sweat shops from selling to Europe, would not allow child work force (kids under the age of 12, not even 18!), requested a max limit of working hours to be no more than 12 hours a day, at least 1 day off a week and access to basic health care.

They told India that if they wanted to trade - the businesses who wanted to participate in this trade with Europe had to comply with those rules.

I believe the main reason our trade with China is so unfair is because that country is full of child laborers, kids who work for food and shelter, if that. How can we, or Europeans, ever compete with that?

What EU asked of India was not some kind of socialism (which I’m an absolute opponent of); instead they tried to create some simple ‘fair trade’ rules, something that you seem to advocate so much. You even stated that “… problems with the "other" trade agreements, it is the lack of human rights and labor laws we have they are skirting such as child labor…”

Yet when other countries try to do just that, you vilify them as being anti-American and for creating unfair trade?

My point is – trade is good for us and although there are lots and lots of details that could be changed and improved with those agreements, your notion of this anti-American unfair trade conspiracy is simply untrue.

 

[shooter]

“…When you have different styles of government, there would be different demands. When the labor groups of a socialized nation places demands on trade to support that, what do we (th public not the corporations) get in return? And yes, that is EXACTLY what was asked for and demanded by the European Union. If you think differently you are misinformed.”

I see; I disagree with you so I must be misinformed. Interesting, since when did you become an authority on the European Union? I’m born and raised in one of EU countries and I still do not consider myself an authority and I'm sure I never will.

What is this socialist EU nation you speak of? Last time I checked there were 27 member nations in the EU and they all have vastly different forms of governments, from monarchies (yes, Kings and Queens) of Sweden, Denmark and the UK to the "old Europe" democracies of Germany and France to former communist nations of Poland, Estonia, Latvia, etc.

One could argue that ironically the former communist states are now the most ‘capitalist’ of them all (especially the Baltic states, Poland and the Czech Republic) while some “old” European nations such as France and Italy have the most socialist features of them all…

That being said to say “…When the labor groups of a socialized nation places demands on trade to support that, what do we (the public not the corporations) get in return…?” is simply illogical. First of all, EU is not a single nation and never will be, it’s simply an organization for European democracies where they can improve mutually beneficial trade amongst the member nations; help each others’ economies by using a single currency (in many but not all the member states) so they can, once and for all, end the constant devaluations of the former numerous European currencies; a norm in the past. After all, there’s a reason as to why it took some 2000 Italian lira to buy a single dollar before the switchover.

The US has never signed any major trade deal with EU (open sky agreement for the whole block is new phenomenon for the EU block as well). The majority of the “unfair” trade agreements you speak of were all signed when EU wasn’t even in existence.

It was the European Coal & Steel Community consisting of 6 nations that started pushing for a wider trade with the US. The majority of mine workers in those nations lamented that idea arguing that their jobs would disappear to the lower paying jobs in America (sounds familiar?). Guess what, they’re right, the mining industry in Europe was decimated and today the mining industry in the US is vastly larger than in Europe.

Later, the European Coal and Steel Community transformed itself into the European Community (predecessor to the European Union) and more states became members. The whole idea behind the organization was to avoid future wars in Europe at all costs and mainly by expending trade amongst the member states but also with other allied countries. The thinking was that the more you trade with other nations the less likely you are to find yourself in a war against those nations.

Trust me; the general public in most European nations was vehemently against those, in your view “fair” trade agreements. You consider them fair because the US gained more than it lost and thus it’s ‘fair’ to you (and most Americans). However, the European population in most European states felt about those agreements the very same way you now feel about us trading with China. The individual European governments (not EC or EU) pushed thru those trade agreements looking for a more peaceful Europe in the future.

When you say “…the labor groups of a socialized nation…” and imply all of Europe to me it’s the same as if a European talked about the “socialized nation of North America” when actually talking about Canada, the US, Mexico and maybe even Cuba, Nicaragua, Honduras, etc… Such a country simply does not exist and I hope never will.

What amazes me is how contradictory you are in your belief that our trade policies are “anti-American.” You say that you don’t want socialism yet your “buy American only” etc protectionist policies are the favorite weapon of trade for most socialist governments.

Also, you said that our trade with China (and India I assume) is not fair and I agree with you to a certain degree however I don’t know the solution to this problem. Then however, you say that India told EU to “F… off” in your own words because they tried to force some ‘social issues’ on them? Social issues? Really? How about they’re asking for the very same thing you keep repeating - a “fair trade” with India (and other nations).

The EU told India that if they wanted to trade with the many European nations they’d have to adhere to some basic EU working rules but before you scream “socialism” – realize that what they asked off India were some very basic human rights issues; you know stuff that we made illegal here in the US and in Europe many generations ago. Specifically, they forbid any sweat shops from selling to Europe, would not allow child work force (kids under the age of 12, not even 18!), requested a max limit of working hours to be no more than 12 hours a day, at least 1 day off a week and access to basic health care.

They told India that if they wanted to trade - the businesses who wanted to participate in this trade with Europe had to comply with those rules.

I believe the main reason our trade with China is so unfair is because that country is full of child laborers, kids who work for food and shelter, if that. How can we, or Europeans, ever compete with that?

What EU asked of India was not some kind of socialism (which I’m an absolute opponent of); instead they tried to create some simple ‘fair trade’ rules, something that you seem to advocate so much. You even stated that “… problems with the "other" trade agreements, it is the lack of human rights and labor laws we have they are skirting such as child labor…”

Yet when other countries try to do just that, you vilify them as being anti-American and for creating unfair trade?

My point is – trade is good for us and although there are lots and lots of details that could be changed and improved with those agreements, your notion of this anti-American unfair trade conspiracy is simply untrue.

Sorry, I'm going to have disagree with you again. You keep trying to twist this into your little "zone" which in turn keeps driving it off track with each and every post. So I'm going to stop you right here since it does nothing but you arguing if I say the sky is blue, and look for the answer to what the supply and demand outlook is for your job when/if open skies lets foreign carries in to compete within the US? You seem to be so great in explaining away everyone else’s job, lets hear it when its yours?

Yet when other countries try to do just that, you vilify them as being anti-American and for creating unfair trade?

You're darn right I do. And please post my WHOLE thought which points our that American labor does not stand a chance against such practices, which are 1. morally wrong and 2. makes it impossible for America to compete. Please don't pick and choose simple lines, that is how people are misqupted and you should be smarter than that. I personally know a business owner that can't compete with a Chinese firm because his supplies alone cost more than what the Chinese company can provide the finished product for. You stay blind to everything and argure in your perfect WalMart world and not know what the workers in America are up against. It is painfully obvious you are out of touch with working America and the small business owner.

My point is – trade is good for us and although there are lots and lots of details that could be changed and improved with those agreements, your notion of this anti-American unfair trade conspiracy is simply untrue.

Much of our free trade agreements are unfair, but I will agree that other parts of our trade is good too. Like it or not, believe it or not, maybe someone will show you the light one day. I'm done with you until the blinders come off.

 

[AV80R]

I will not quote your entire reply because it does not make sense to quote 500 words when I am specifically talking about just one item. I will quote the thoughts I disagree with and explain why I disagree with them. The way you reply to me is no different than the way I reply to you. Looks like you divided your reply in three different sections to clarify your position; that’s exactly what I’m doing and I don’t see how that “misquotes” you?

Sorry, I'm going to have disagree with you again. You keep trying to twist this into your little "zone" which in turn keeps driving it off track with each and every post. So I'm going to stop you right here since it does nothing but you arguing if I say the sky is blue, and look for the answer to what the supply and demand outlook is for your job when/if open skies lets foreign carries in to compete within the US? You seem to be so great in explaining away everyone else’s job, lets hear it when its yours?

What zone am I twisting you into??? I have no illusions here and have never claimed that the outlook for my profession is great or that my job is safe; today it’s here but tomorrow it might be gone. That’s one of the reasons I’m against the DHL deal altogether, today it’s them but tomorrow it could be us.

What I’ve been saying all along is that trade agreements hit workers on both sides of the agreement yet a fair agreement to you means the only jobs that were lost all came from the “other” side of the agreement. It’s not my “little zone” bur rather your little it’s all about me-me-me-zone.

Throughout our discussion you’ve changed your position several times, whatever takes to support your idea that only the American workers suffer in current trade agreements, that this is an anti-American trade conspiracy.

At first you made it clear that you feel the US – Europe trade agreements are good for both sides.

“…Please don’t confuse my hatred toward China trade policy and NAFTA for that which we have had with Europe since our country was founded. (A certain cup of tea excluded ).Big difference in trade agreements there and what I see as a mutual benefit between Europe and America unlike the others…”

Yet as soon as I pointed out that Europeans saw it very differently when thousands of higher paying jobs were migrating from the “Old World” to the lower paying jobs in the “New World,” then you slam all of Europe as this socialist entity that forces their rules on others.

“…When the labor groups of a socialized nation places demands on trade to support that, what do we (th public not the corporations) get in return? And yes, that is EXACTLY what was asked for and demanded by the European Union. If you think differently you are misinformed. I think it was last year sometime India's leaders told the EU to F--- off when they tried to force their social issues into the trade agreements…”

What social issues? You mean not trading with businesses/countries that employ child labor? But wait a second, didn’t you ask for the very same thing?

“… When you look at the problems with the "other" trade agreements, it is the lack of human rights and labor laws we have they they are skirting such as child labor…”

Is your “anti-American” conspiracy theory really making you blind to the fact that we are saying the same thing here? My point is that the sweat shops, the child labor, the lack of very basic working rules, etc, etc are the main reason we can’t compete with China and India, etc.

Yet when Europe tried to force the Indians to outlaw all forms of child labor if they wanted to trade you condemned them for imposing their “social issues” on India?

Well, isn’t that the part of fair trade you’re talking about? You are asking for one thing but when someone does just that you’re still unhappy.

I’ll be the first one to admit that there’re lots of problems in Europe and overall I think we have a much better system here in the US and in the long run we'll always win any serious competition. However, when they do things right and try to achieve goals that are important to us as well, such as abolishing child labor in the third world, they deserve praise and not scorn from us.

“…Like it or not, believe it or not, maybe someone will show you the light one day. I'm done with you until the blinders come off…”

The only blinders here are your own – you refuse to realize that there’s no anti-American trade conspiracy here; trade agreements overall hit workers on both sides of the agreement.

You know, it was interesting to discuss with you but when you go personal like this well it simply takes the joy out of the discussion. Take care and make sure you see an ophthalmologist - you don’t have any blinds on, you are simply selectively blind.

 

[shooter]

Yet when Europe tried to force the Indians to outlaw all forms of child labor if they wanted to trade you condemned them for imposing their “social issues” on India?

Social issues are not labor laws.

Don't confuse my agreement in EU trade with the practices within it. This is how I said you twist the conversation. A)I do have a hatred toward NAFTA and our China trade policy. B)Our EU trade policies do support social programs, but they comply with labor laws similar to what our country has. That makes it "more fair" than the NAFTA and China agreements. C)Even though I do not agree with social programs being drawn into the agreements (just because I think the American way is better for those that actually work and our health care does not cover everyone) does not mean I am arguing for or against it, rather the differences each side could place into the agreements. I would rather see Americas stipulations be more geared toward pro-labor, rather than toward corporate bottom lines. How that can be done? I don't know, if I did I sure as heck would not be working in aviation. But I do think a good place to start would be to eliminate tax breaks and incentives for companies that take jobs overseas. Why should tax payers pay up for a corporation already reaping rewards of a foreign country that does not support the laws we find basic for humanity all for the sake of the bottom line?

I can't believe you sucked me back into this conversation. I think you and I will just not see the same story, even though we see the same words. Been a good chat though. THANKS!