http://www.technewsworld.com/story/36877.html

Tell it to the guy whose job was outsourced.

Shelly

Mine was. I found another job.

>http://www.technewsworld.com/story/36877.html
As Shelly said. If someone else can do my job for cheaper just because they live in another part of the world, that means I lose my job and I can only compete if I leave my current residency to work where they stole my job.

Outsourcing is not a good thing. And its media bs like this that just tries to calm people down about it and blind fold them to the true problems that will be coming soon because of outsourcing. The media expects people to be like sheep in a herd.

It's a worldwide market these days. To be competitive, you have to compete on a worldwide basis. That is reality, and no complaining about it is going to change it, and no legislation is going to change it. Government cannot solve this problem. Only people and industry can. By adapting to the changes and being competitive.

Right now our government is encouraging outsourcing through tax policy. Therefore the government can do something about it. Instead of exacerbating the problem, it can switch the tax benefits to companies that do not outsource.

Shelly

I agree with both Shelly and Al on this one. I grew up in western PA in the 50's and 60's and watched all of my friends lose their jobs because the steel mills became fat, lazy and obsolete when they didn't adapt to cleaner more eficient electric furnaces. The reality is that the unions ruined the mills by alllowing too many unproductive workers to stay employed. At the same time, we taught the Germans and Japanese how to build and run the electric furnaces as part of the Marshall rebuilding efforts (yes it still went on that long, into the fifties). Point for Al.

However at that time, corporate America paid a higher percentage of taxes than the middle income man. Point for Shelly.

Today the corporations pay very little of the tax burden and still have become less efficient and give too much away in bonuses to exectutives, who then pay very little in taxes. Another draw.

We are only getting a different version of the wake up call that we got in the 70's when the auto industry got stupid and built even more junk than they did in the 60's. The problem now was that the Japanese had the steel mills under control and used that manufacturing expertise to build cars faster and better than us, so we in essence outsourced our car industry to Japan by buying a better product from them.

We must again become better and more innovative in what we do. I see it all day long in Kaizan events by medical companies, lean manufacturing being implemented by their suppliers and constant call for workers to become more productive in everything that they do. Sadly there are still workers out there who feel that because they have worked for a company for 15 years that they are entitled to a job for life. It doesn't work that way any more. Each and every employee of a company must become more efficient and try to find ways to lower the cost fo doing business in order to allow the company to be more competitive in the market that they serve.

Only then will the battle be won, but it will never be static again. The future of business is purely dynamic and constantly changing and so must the workforce be if it is to survive.

I don't know enough about the tax structure, but I'm sure that there could be a way to reward efficiency and keeping jobs here versus outsourcing. If we can put a man on the moon, someone can figure it out.

Paul

'Each and every employee of a company must become more efficient and try to find ways to lower the cost of doing business in order to allow the company to be more competitive in the market that they serve.'
My experience was that an employee must provide more value to the company than it costs to keep them on the payroll otherwise there is no reason to keep them.

A very good analysis!

Being in sales, if we don't produce, we don't eat. And every year the bar gets raised based on a new forecast and market conditions, but no company allows us to go backwards and staying even is going backwards, so........

Paul

Please explain what part of the tax policy encourages outsourcing, and how it accomplishs this.

Ray

Here's the loophole:

...the ability to defer and often never pay taxes on foreign-earned profits. The result: foreign profits of U.S. companies end up taxed at a lower rate than their U.S. income, creating an incentive to invest overseas in factories. The jobs are where the factories are.
And here's how it works

The tax code is written in a way that allows companies not to pay the full 35% U.S. corporate tax rate on foreign income when that money remains invested overseas.
Backing up a step, here's how it works before the loophole: A company earns $100 million abroad in Lowtaxistan where the corporate tax rate is 20%. The foreign subsidiary pays that money to the U.S. parent. The parent then pays $35 million to the U.S. government and takes a credit for the 20% (or
$20 million) payment to the Lowtaxistan government. So the net to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service is $15 million.

But here's how it works with the loophole: The U.S. subsidiary simply keeps the money offshore and certifies to its accountants that the money is invested overseas. It never remits the money to the parent and so never pays the $15 million extra to Uncle Sam.


The buzzword for people in the know in big corporations is "unrepatriated earnings" i.e. money you make off shore that doesn't come home to the US. Apparently, its getting to be more and more prevelent.

These are called "unrepatriated earnings" and they are increasingly commonplace. ...
What we know is that the amount of unrepatriated foreign earnings is growing substantially. The non-partisan Congressional Research Service in a report last year said it had increased to $639 billion in 2002 from $403 billion in 1999....


If you look into the issue on companies balance sheets

What you'll find is something like this from Pfizer.
"As of December 31, 2003, we have not made a U.S. tax provision on approximately $38 billion of unremitted earnings of our international subsidiaries. These earnings are expected, for the most part, to be reinvested overseas. It is not practical to compute the estimated deferred tax
liability on these earnings."

Pfizer says it added 15,000 U.S. workers through its recent purchase of Pharmacia. Still, only 37% of its work force is in the U.S.

Note that the $38 billion total of unremitted earnings is cumulative over the years. In 2002, Pfizer had $29 billion, so the increase was $9 billion in the past year, helping the company substantially shave its tax bill.

Shelly

Thanks for the explanation that a layman can understand. I have heard of the hidden earnings from abroad, but never learned how it was done.

Paul

Shelly,

That is just plain dumb. Take that "loophole" away and the companies move lock, stock and barrel out of the United States because they can't afford not to. The US is one of four countries in the world that tax the earnings of their citizens overseas (In the US's case, taxing earning above $80,000... Kerry wants to change it to tax every dime earned overseas). That little item alone reduces Americans ability to compete on a worldwide market.

Remember, Corporations DO NOT have to stay in the United States. It is not smart to make it advantageous for them to leave.

There is not a major company that does not have divisions in multiple countries. That's why they're called multi-nationals. They are still in the US not because they want to be, but because they need to be here. This is still the financial, research, and productivity center of the world. This is the wealthiest, most secure, and powerful nation on Earth. There is no reason we can't offer tax advantages for companies to employ American workers, instead of offering tax advantages to move jobs out of this country. It's the same money better spent, and by the way, it's our tax money. German, Japanese, and other companies have found it advantageous to build factories and hire workers in this country, so don't sit there in Thailand and try to tell me that this country is not competitive with the rest of the world. These companies are outsourcing for two reasons, tax savings, and the ability to exploit workers in third world countries that have no laws protecting their citizens from predatory practices.

Shelly

>There is not a major company that does not have divisions in
>multiple countries. That's why they're called
>multi-nationals. They are still in the US not because they
>want to be, but because they need to be here. This is still
>the financial, research, and productivity center of the world.
> This is the wealthiest, most secure, and powerful nation on
>Earth. There is no reason we can't offer tax advantages for
>companies to employ American workers, instead of offering tax
>advantages to move jobs out of this country. It's the same
>money better spent, and by the way, it's our tax money.
>German, Japanese, and other companies have found it
>advantageous to build factories and hire workers in this
>country, so don't sit there in Thailand and try to tell me
>that this country is not competitive with the rest of the
>world. These companies are outsourcing for two reasons, tax
>savings, and the ability to exploit workers in third world
>countries that have no laws protecting their citizens from
>predatory practices.


Out of touch, aren't you? Deal with multinationals regarding this issue much? So, let's take it point by point. The US is the financial and research center of the world. Productivity? No, hasn't been in a long time. Nor is it necessarilly the most secure (you do remember 9/11, don't you?).

I deal with multinationals on a daily basis in regards to these issues. Here are the facts:

1. Yes, other countries are significantly more attractive than the US, primarily because of tax reasons. The primary tax problems in the US occur at state level, not Federal level (with the exception of the Income Tax point already noted), although if John F. Kerry is elected, it can be expected that it will be worse at Federal level.

2. "No laws protecting their citizens from predatory practices" - Bullshit. You have a law degree valid in SE Asia? Or anywhere in Asia? Have you visited the factories? Done business in Asia? Not only are there laws protecting workers, there is a much stronger cultural norm to take care of those who are injured.

The Germans and Japanese have found it advantageous to build factories in America because the tax burden is less than in their country, and the labor costs are also less. Of course, neither Germany or Japan tax the earnings those factories make in the United States or the earnings made by their citizens working in the United States. The savings in tax, labor costs and shipping of the final product make it worthwhile to those corporations. Plus, they don't deal with US Unions. When most of those factories were set up, quality control to match Japan and Germany was not available many places in the world, even the United States' workers needed extensive training to maintain the standards. That is no longer true. Today; China, Thailand, Vietnam, Mexico, Canada and many other nations are capable of maintaining that quality.

Compete or die. The US is still competitive in R&D, in financial services, in some other areas. But if they don't keep moving ahead, other nations will catch them in those areas (already pressing) as well as the areas that they have been caught already. Can't show a Return on Investment? Corporations will find somewhere else to invest.

The US is steadily losing ground because of an unwillingness to face change and adapt to it. Something that the United States has traditionally done well, but which is showing all too much reluctance to do today, primarily (in my opinion) because of the failure to recognize what globalization really means and the pressure from the Unions (not all, just the big ones) and Democratic Party who are focused on "protectionism" instead of solutions.

No longer does it take a lifetime to have a profession become obsolete. Today, it might happen in a generation. Adapt. There is no other choice.

There are countries that have a flat 3% as their corporate tax rate. That is what the United States has to compete with.

Oh, maybe it is because I am running a company in Thailand that I can actually see what is going on. Why don't you try looking at the problem from the outside, instead of trying to denigrate those who are?

Al,

Outsorcing has nothing to do with America. It has to do with increased profits for transnational corporations whose loyalty is not to any country but only to increased profits, and not just profits, but ever increasing profits, a difference you cannot comprehend. It's your bureaucratic, top to bottom order taking military mind that compels you to defend the greedy bastards who are turning this country into another Third World.

Chief executives at US companies that outsourced jobs overseas received a 46 percent salary hike last year, more than five times the average CEO raise. Meanwhile, ordinary workers' paychecks remained largely unchanged.

The Institute for Policy Studies, a progressive Washington, DC-based think tank, and United for a Fair Economy, a Boston labor advocacy organization released a report Tuesday called "Executive Excesses 2004." Their study found that CEOs of companies that outsourced jobs received large award packages from company boards, but on average, regular workers saw pay boosts of only two percent in 2003.

In dollar terms, the study found that the average pay of CEOs at the top 50 outsourcing companies was $10.4 million last year, compared with the $26,899 salary earned by the average American production worker in those same companies.

The report also found that CEOs of the companies studied make on average 3,348 times the mean income of Indian call center workers at outsourced shops.

The debate over the impact of outsourcing on the US economy has been skewed by election-year politics, playing largely along partisan party lines.

Republicans have largely seen outsourcing as a way of cutting company costs by hiring cheap, white collar labor in developing countries such as India and China. They have argued that the flight of jobs overseas has not contributed to a net loss of jobs in the US because corporate productivity has increased, since the economy emerged from recession in late 2001.

Democrats have largely taken a nationalistic stance, asserting that "American jobs should be for Americans first," and that people in the developing world should not have access to those jobs. Moreover, Democrats argue that sending jobs overseas is detrimental to the economic recovery in the US because new jobs have not been created in replacement.

Outsourcing has been a boon for the small groups of white collar workers in developing countries hired by US firms, but the nature of the debate there too has been politically and socio-economically charged.

The groups' findings, however, point to the corporate effects of outsourcing on income distribution more than the macroeconomic effects. "The fact that leading outsourcers make more money than average CEOs is one more reflection of a perverse system that rewards executives for making decisions that may improve their bottom line while hurting workers and communities," the authors write in the 11th annual survey.

http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=919

HAL,

Your position just means that companies fail. Maybe you didn't notice, but American consumers do not buy from American companies, they buy from whoever gives them what they perceive as the best value. So, enforce your concepts and watch American companies fail because they cannot compete (as those Executives that you think are so overpaid go and work for foreign corporations that will pay them for their ability to lead and manage).

It's capitilism, plain and simple. And no government has a way to control it, as the Soviet Union found out, as China has found out, as Vietnam has found out, as Cuba and North Korea illustrate and as Germany is finding out. Compete or die. You, it seems, would prefer to die.

Do the math. Electrolux left Greenville, Michigan, where its UAW-represented workers earned $15 an hour, for Juarez, Mexico, where the company's new workers will earn $1.57 an hour.

How much profit is enough? It's never enough. Profit to these people is like a drug, they can never get enough.

And what happens if they don't? They can't compete and they close. Jesus. How dumb do you have to be?

>And what happens if they don't? They can't compete and they
>close. Jesus. How dumb do you have to be?

LOL! Haven't you heard? The tax payer bails them out. I've missed you buddy.

Take the auto industry. All was fine, until the 70s where the combination of low gas supplies, poor quality, and the much increased importation of vehicles from Asia stuck it in the U.S. car makers ass. They were not building what the American public wanted to buy. After all those years, the swing is coming around. Competition almost wrecked the auto industry here, and competition has also given it a much needed kick in the pants. And to be competitive here, outsourcing is a necessary evil. Competition forced the Big Three into a "Do or Die " situation. It worked in this case.

Nightly Reader

>Take the auto industry. All was fine, until the 70s where the
>combination of low gas supplies, poor quality, and the much
>increased importation of vehicles from Asia stuck it in the
>U.S. car makers ass. They were not building what the American
>public wanted to buy. After all those years, the swing is
>coming around. Competition almost wrecked the auto industry
>here, and competition has also given it a much needed kick in
>the pants. And to be competitive here, outsourcing is a
>necessary evil. Competition forced the Big Three into a "Do or
>Die " situation. It worked in this case.

All that's required to be competitive is creative thinking not greedy thinking at the expense of paying decent wages to a working man. It wasn't the line workers decision for the American car manufactuers to built cheap gas guzzling hogs to maximize profits.

You say "Competition almost wrecked the auto industry here", well, much of that auto industry isn't here. It's in Mexico where they pay beans for wages.

>
>You say "Competition almost wrecked the auto industry here",
>well, much some of that auto industry isn't here. It's in Mexico
>where they pay beans for wages.
>
>

Nightly Reader

>It's capitilism, plain and simple. And no government has a
>way to control it, as the Soviet Union found out, as China has
>found out, as Vietnam has found out, as Cuba and North Korea
>illustrate and as Germany is finding out. Compete or die. You,
>it seems, would prefer to die.

Almost the entire world is capitalist and almost the entire world is poor: Capitalism isn't working for the people in Indonesia, India, Thailand, Nigeria, El Slavador, Hatai, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Russia, Poland, Bulgaria. All these countries are getting poorer while the corporations get richer.

Sure there's a way to control "it". Real simple: an equitable distribution of wealth from the profits. This is all about greed, monopoly and the consolidation of wealth in the hands of a few, not competition. Wake up.

Getting poorer, huh? Come visit, Hal. Thailand isn't getting poorer, and neither are most of those countries. They are getting wealthier.

>Getting poorer, huh? Come visit, Hal. Thailand isn't getting
>poorer, and neither are most of those countries. They are
>getting wealthier.

Haiti, second oldest democracy in the western hemisphere, is dirt poor. Explain Haiti and all of the Caribbean, at our backdoor, getting poorer?


I get it done with high-speed DSL!

Been to Haiti, Ed? I have a bunch of friends who have been there...in an effort to help the people of Haiti. What they found was a nation that doesn't want to be helped.

This is unfortunately true. Haiti is its own worst enemy.

Shelly

>This is unfortunately true. Haiti is its own worst enemy.

Are you referring to when Clinton invaded Haiti to restore "democracy" after he decided that the military junta which he had supported - just as Bush supported - had tortured the population enough so that now they wold liberate them from that torture and return the elected president who's overthrow the US supported to begin with on the condition that they accept the economic program that was going to destroy the country and open it up to western and US exploitation. You call that restoring democracy.

Many of the men that led the most recent invasion worked with the death squads which terrorized Haiti in the early 90s. People like Louis Jodel Chamblain, the former number 2 man in FRAPH, Guy Philippe, a former police chief who was trained by US Special forces in Ecuador and Jean Tatun, another leader of FRAPH.

>>This is unfortunately true. Haiti is its own worst enemy.
>
>Are you referring to when Clinton invaded Haiti to restore
>"democracy" after he decided that the military junta which he
>had supported - just as Bush supported - had tortured the
>population enough so that now they wold liberate them from
>that torture and return the elected president who's overthrow
>the US supported to begin with on the condition that they
>accept the economic program that was going to destroy the
>country and open it up to western and US exploitation. You
>call that restoring democracy.
>
>Many of the men that led the most recent invasion worked with
>the death squads which terrorized Haiti in the early 90s.
>People like Louis Jodel Chamblain, the former number 2 man in
>FRAPH, Guy Philippe, a former police chief who was trained by
>US Special forces in Ecuador and Jean Tatun, another leader of
>FRAPH.

You are suffering from a condition referred to as "blowback", you have spread some many half-truths and outright lies you don't even know what is true any more.
Guy Phillippe was the police chief and acting mayor in Cap Haitien the last time I was there, while not exactly Thomas Jefferson in his view of governing, his attitude was par for the course in Haiti, and that has nothing to do with anything Ameicans have done there. BTW, Phillipe was formerly Aristide's ally and actively worked to get him back in the presidency, when Aristide turned on his former supporters he was one of the most powerful, and one of the first to go.

And don't forget those quotation marks next time and a reference or link, or did you want people to actually think you know what you are talking about, and don't just repeatedly copy and paste facts you know little or nothing about.



Taken from http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/02/1671447_comment.php

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

If he used quotes properly there wouldn't be much more except the sig and avatar in his posts.

> If he used quotes properly there wouldn't be much
>more except the sig and avatar in his posts.

In your case, there's nothing but the sig and avatar.

Another outright lie. He's got a UD badge, I can see it

LOL! And...So what! Your post is totally irrelevant and has nothing to do with the fact that Clinton and Bush both backed FRAPH, a terrorist organization involved in hundreds of murders which they tried to cover up. You've been everywhere haven't you big man.

>LOL! And...So what! Your post is totally irrelevant and has
>nothing to do with the fact that Clinton and Bush both backed
>FRAPH, a terrorist organization involved in hundreds of
>murders which they tried to cover up. You've been everywhere
>haven't you big man.

No, not everywhere, at least not yet. But I have been to Haiti three times, in Port au Prince, Cap-Haitien and throughout what we affectionately called "Dinosaurland". Unlike you I rarely talk about stuff I haven't experienced firsthand, but then if you followed that rule you would have the problem Bob H mentioned in post #78.
The police compound and Guy Phillipe's office is just to the left in the first picture, the building with the antenna.

Attachment #1, (jpg file)
Attachment #2, (jpg file)

>Unlike you I rarely talk about stuff I haven't experienced
>firsthand

Good for you. Then you should know that Bush and Clinton are thugs, and support murderers like your friend Guy Philippe. Prove me wrong.

"Many of the men that led the most recent invasion worked with the death squads which terrorized Haiti in the early 90s."

Uh-huh, Hal. Hal, you are an idiot. Truly and completely. None of the men who took part in the operation in Haiti, including those of the 3rd Special Forces Group, had anything to do with death squads. Stop using Noam Chomsky and his ilk as sources. They make stuff up.

Hal,
you mentioned a country called Tiland in your post, I presume that this should have read Thailand.
I won't get into the argument about the politics of this post but I can assure you that Thailand is definitely getting poorer.
The (locally owned) company that I am working for is over twenty years old.
However in the last three years I have seen my Export market increase from 11 countries to 37 countries and the workforce has gone from 100 to 300 strong in the same period,This also seems to be the trend with all of the companies that I interface with.
In the last six years I have seen the completion of the new sky train (monorail), the new subway system (underground train) 1,000s of kilometers of elevated roadways, multi million dollar bridges and roads and numerous state of the art buildings hotels/office buildings.
As I write this, Suvarnabhumi airport (the new national airport) is under construction at an estimated cost of 1 billion dollars (that's not including the infrastructure).
Car sales hit a record high every month (honestly we don't ride buffaloes to work).
The majority of health care and education is private (and usually of a fairly good level).
Most families are home owners (often with two or more properties).
And the list goes on..
I wish that I was getting poorer in the same way as Thailand is.


I can't vouch for the other countries that you mentioned but I think that you should re-check your sources before you dig yourself in too deep.

Also I would not class Nigeria as a poor country, I've been offered countless millions by Nigerian nationals (a new e-mail every day)

>Hal,
>you mentioned a country called Tiland in your post, I presume
>that this should have read Thailand.

Thailand now has one of the biggest gaps between the rich and poor in the world. There's no doubt that Thailand's booming ten year economy before 1997 increased the living standard for many famlies, but it also increased pollution, deforestation and commercial land seizures caused farmers to lose their farms, leave their villages and migrate to the slums in Bangkok.

The only reason any of the poor had health care after the recession of 1997 was becasue the people struggled through a populist movement to get it.

What we're talking about here is the dynamic interrelationship between wealth and poverty. It is avarice and excessive wealth that creates poverty.

Geez you realy are off the rails on this one.

Yes there are slums in Bangkok, just the same as there are slums in every country in the world.
However instead of quoting from a second hand source, why don't you visit Thailand and show me these slums.
They are very few in number and I doubt if you would be able to find then they are that small.

You said that Thailand now has one of the biggest gaps between the rich and poor in the world, by what comparison do you make that assumtion?
Why don't you try comparing Bill Gates to someone on welfare in America, small gap eh?

You then went on to say "deforestation and commercial land seizures caused farmers to lose their farms, leave their villages and migrate to the slums in Bangkok".
Where in Thailand did this happen, how come Thai people know nothing about this but you do.

As for the health care, please tell me who this populist movement is, again the Thais or anyone else living here is unaware of this.
The health care that we enjoy today was already in place during and before the recession (which was an Asian-Wide recession and not just confined to Thailand).

Hal, you really need to update your sources (The King and I is no longer an accurate depiction of life in Thailand).
Or better still, step away from the computer and see some of this world that you think that you know so much about.

>As for the health care, please tell me who this populist
>movement is, again the Thais or anyone else living here is
>unaware of this.

The health care you "enjoy" you pay for because it's private. Go back and read my post again. I'm talking about the poor.

Thailand Constitution

Section 52 []
A person shall enjoy an equal right to receive standard public health service, and the indigent shall have the right to receive free medical treatment from public health centres of the State, as provided by law.

The public health service by the State shall be provided thoroughly and efficiently and, for this purpose, participation by local government organisations and the private sector shall also be promoted insofar as it is possible.

"The indigent shall have the right to receive free medical treatment from public health centres of the State, as provided by law." Got that? That's called Univeral Health Care for the poor and it was written into the constitution because of democratic lobbying to get it there. That's commonly done with the aid of a populist movement. A populist movement (in case you don't know) is a any group who advocates democratic principles. You can bet Section 52 wasn't sponsored by the private business sector.

http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/th00000_.html

Well Hello Hal, I caught your name on the front page saying you were here. I actually thought maybe we would see you again with WorldStart closing their RP&C forum, having withdrawals?? That’s too bad but it’s nice to see you again Hal. *smiles*

I don’t know why these guys have to start name calling when just debating a subject but I know you can handle it. *winks* Just seems a bit uncalled for IMHO.... Oh well, I just wanted to find you and say Hello. As always, I did enjoy your post..... Hope to see you sticking around. *smiles*

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thanks for the Kind words, Kiwi. Whipat posted yesterday at WS which reminded me of ol' 911, so I just stopped by to ruffle a few feathers.

Hal well done on your web seach for the Thai constitution.
Yes this was written in 1997.
However health care is covered under section 41 in the 1991 version.
Section 41. Person shall have the right to receive
standard public health services and the poor person shall receive
free medical treatment according to the provisions of law.
http://www.parliament.go.th/files/library/b05-b.htm

The provision for free health care was in the Thai constitution in 1991 (and probably earlier than that) and was not a result of some populist movement of the 1997 recession.

Hal please check Al's user profile and after you have done that please check my user profile, notice any pattern?
Oh, you already knew that we both live in Thailand.
Do you think that we might know a little more about the country that we live in that you do?
We read the Thai daily newspapers and watch the local television news, we walk the local streets, we meet, talk to and work with the Thai people on a daily basis.

As Al has informed you there is a larger gap between the richest and the poorest but that is also true in every country (especially the US).
As for slums, do you not have those in the US, You really need to explore your own back yard.

Your collective knowledge of Thailand has come from a few (selective) links.
You live in a computer Hal, get out and see the real world.

First off, just because your Thai or live in Thailand, doesn’t mean you know specific sections of the constitution. There are plenty of Americans that haven’t a clue what rights are inherit in the 4th Amendment to their own constitution. Based on what I’ve read, the provision for free health care included in the 1991 constitution wasn’t being enforced; it wasn’t until 1997 that legislative efforts were taken to enforce those health care provisions.

But that aside, I listed several countries with a capitalist economies to illustrate my point, not just Thailand. Haiti for example, the poorest nation in the hemisphere, with 80 percent of the country’s population living on less than $150 a year. I don’t think I have to tell you what’s happening in Indonesia, Mexico, Nigeria and the rest I listed. My point is that capitalism has failed all over the world. The only reason Americans and Canadians don’t work for Fifteen cents an hour is because of democratic class struggle. In the 1900, before strong unions, Americans use to work for meager wages. There was rampant child labor, 14 hour work days, poverty, unemployment, no social services, no benefits. There was typhoid epidemics. People fought for the right to have labor unions, public health programs, disability insurance, and old age pensions. These things weren’t handed to them by big businesses. In fact big businesses fought against these rights every step of the way. Don’t take my word for it, look it up. It’s all a matter of historical record. Read about people like the Wobblies, and Industrial Workers of the World, Mother Jones, and on and on.

You know, there’s really no need to take cheap shots at me with condescending, disparaging and unoriginal comments. Why attack me personally. Just deal with the issues. My only intent here is to express my point of view. I suggest you try and do the same.

Thank you for amplifying my points.
You start your reply by jumping to another conclusion with “just because you’re Thai”, I’m not Thai and I didn’t say I was anywhere in my posts.

You then go on to say “Based on what I’ve read”, that is exactly my point, what you have read does not come close to substituting what is actually happening.
Both Al and myself have tried to explain this to you but you won’t listen to what is being said.

Yes I did notice that you listed several countries in your post but in my first reply I informed you that I couldn’t vouch for the other countries that you mentioned.
My reply was relating to the first hand knowledge that I have for one of those countries (Thailand).
I then went on to inform you that you should re-check your sources, as you were very wrong on Thailand, maybe your other (selected) sources might need looking at closer.

There was no intention of taking ‘cheap shots’ at you, I was merely pointing out that you should not believe everything that you read and there is more to the real world than a network of links written by pessimists.
I certainly did not attack you personally, instead I took the time to reply to you in the effort to educate you with (on the ground) facts to which you replied to with absolute (and inaccurate) trash.
I then suggested that you try to find your sources first hand, where is the personal attack there?

As for unoriginal comments, you live in a world where the only life you see is a few selective sites on a computer that you believe to be gospel.
You have been proved wrong on this occasion (and on many earlier occasions) but you still won’t back down from your point, you choose instead to stand by these unreliable links/sources.
Just how many ways can that be said with originality?

>Yes I did notice that you listed several countries in your
>post but in my first reply I informed you that I couldn’t
>vouch for the other countries that you mentioned.

Indeed. In fact you haven't really done much of anything but express your pedantic concern for my having misspelled "Thailand".

No Hal, Again you’re reading what you want to read and nothing more.
I mentioned the misspelling of Thailand, as I really wasn't sure if you were talking about the same country that I live in.
It's quite funny really to learn of the other Thailand that you have a (secret) knowledge of (sort of a tale of 2 countries).

The latest vehicle to be released in Thailand (Toyota Hilux Vigo) has a 10 month waiting list to buy one, this is a pick-up, which is driven by normal average working people (Showroom price 21,250 US dollars).
This vehicle is made here and at the moment is only available in the Thai market as Toyota are unable to meet the Thai demand for this vehicle to be able to sell it to other countries yet.
In fact Toyota, Isuzu (GM), Ford and Nissan have all decided to debut their latest globally available models in this (poor???) country.
New passenger car sales in Thailand for the first 8 months of this year were 387,800 (not too bad for a working population of about only 40,000,000 people) and the end of year figures are expected to come in much higher with the launch of about 5 new vehicles.

My wife's family have a similar income to Al's wife and so do their neighbours and there neighbours and there neighbours and so on......
I live in a street where every house is owned by normal Thai working people.
The streets in my entire village are the same (the houses are owned by the Thai working class).
To get a table at any expensive Thai restaurant, I have to book well in advance.
The average Thai family owns a mobile phone (each), at least one house (fully furnished to include a computer, a DVD player, a decent sized TV, a stereo system, etc.), at least one car, a private health scheme, private education, etc.

Please advise where all these poor people live.
Please explain your interpretation of the word poor.

Hal have you ever admitted that you were wrong about anything, even when it has been proved to you?
Are you really so dense that you continue to believe even after the real facts are put in front of you?

I just looked at the CIA World Fact Book on Thailand for 2004. Lots of interesting tidbits, especially this one:

Population below poverty line: 10.4% (2002 est.)


Compare that to the U.S.

Population below poverty line: 12% (2003 est.)

How they establish those numbers wasn't given, but I can guess that it's dictated by each individual nation, and not comparative to the U.S. only, i.e., we don't use U.S. poverty lines to measure Thailand's poverty rate. I would think that's indicative of a fairly stable economic system that is at least no worse than the U.S. and quite possibly better.

>Compare that to the U.S.
>
>Population below poverty line: 12% (2003 est.)

Well, Ok, let's take a look at some recent stats regarding the US.

The number of Americans living in poverty increased by 1.3 million last year, while the ranks of the uninsured swelled by 1.4 million, the Census Bureau reported Thursday.

It was the third straight annual increase for both categories. While not unexpected, it was a double dose of bad economic news during a tight re-election campaign for President Bush.

Approximately 35.8 million people lived below the poverty line in 2003, or about 12.5 percent of the population, according to the bureau. That was up from 34.5 million, or 12.1 percent in 2002.

The rise was more dramatic for children. There were 12.9 million living in poverty last year, or 17.6 percent of the under-18 population. That was an increase of about 800,000 from 2002, when 16.7 percent of all children were in poverty.

The Census Bureau's definition of poverty varies by the size of the household. For instance, the threshold for a family of four was $18,810, while for two people it was $12,015.

Nearly 45 million people lacked health insurance, or 15.6 percent of the population. That was up from 43.5 million in 2002, or 15.2 percent, but was a smaller increase than in the two previous years.

Uninsured rates for children, though, were relatively stable at 11.4 percent, likely the result of recent expansions of coverage in government programs covering the poor and children, such as the state Children's Health Insurance Program, analysts said.

Meanwhile, the median household income, when adjusted for inflation, remained basically flat last year at $43,318. Whites, blacks and Asians saw no noticeable change, but income fell 2.6 percent for Hispanics to nearly $33,000. Asians had the highest income at over $55,000, while whites made $47,800 and blacks nearly $30,000.

Census Bureau analyst Dan Weinberg said the results were typical of a post-recession period. He said the increase in people without insurance was due to the uncertain job picture.

"Certainly the long-term trend is firms offering less generous (benefit) plans, and as people
lose jobs they tend to lose health insurance coverage," he said.

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20040826/D84N3TMG0.html

Are we still talking about Thailand or are we talking about something else now? Don't confuse me, it's late.

P.S. Hi Hal. You never call

>Are we still talking about Thailand or are we talking about
>something else now? Don't confuse me, it's late.
>
>P.S. Hi Hal. You never call

LOL! Are you still in school? You can talk about Thailand if you want to. But my point is that capitalism privatizes health care, forces cutbacks on human services, housing, etc. while corporations plunder the natural resources, then underpay for production costs through monopoly and markets. Sure, over the last 50 years financial investments increase, profits increase, but so does poverty. It wasn't capitalism that gave everyone a good standard of living, it was the democratic struggle against capitalism.

>LOL! Are you still in school? You can talk about Thailand if
>you want to. But my point is that capitalism privatizes health
>care, forces cutbacks on human services, housing, etc. while
>corporations plunder the natural resources, then underpay for
>production costs through monopoly and markets. Sure, over the
>last 50 years financial investments increase, profits
>increase, but so does poverty. It wasn't capitalism that gave
>everyone a good standard of living, it was the democratic
>struggle against capitalism.


Yeah, 1 year left for both degrees. My last year will be cake because I've already done my upper division requirements. I took Humanities 101 last semester; it was a riot because everyone was born in the 80's, they don't even remember Reagan's first term, disco, or when SNL was funny.

As far as your theory about the destructive nature of capitalism, you'll have to forgive me for saying that economics is not my best field. Mergers and Acquisitions? I'll take Murders and Executions!

What is your major?

English, where my focus is on gothic novels, Sherlockian studies, and the works of Heinlein; and History, with a focus on 20th century genocide, Stalinist-era prison administration, and historical geography.

Told you I'd take Murders and Executions

>English, where my focus is on gothic novels, Sherlockian
>studies, and the works of Heinlein; and History, with a focus
>on 20th century genocide, Stalinist-era prison administration,
>and historical geography.
>
>Told you I'd take Murders and Executions

Excellent. Congrats. I just bought a hard copy of The Gulag Archipelago from Goodwill for a 1$.

Which volume? There are 3. The translation by Harry Willetts (I think he did volumes 2 adn 3) is absolute crap, it's actually a huge distraction if you are used to the first book, which I think was done by Thomas Whitney.

You should pick up Gulag by Anne Applebaum, that won the Pulitzer Prize. And Journey into the Whirlwind by Eugenia Ginzburg, I'm reading that one right now.

>Which volume? There are 3. The translation by Harry Willetts
>(I think he did volumes 2 adn 3) is absolute crap, it's
>actually a huge distraction if you are used to the first book,
>which I think was done by Thomas Whitney.
>
>You should pick up Gulag by Anne Applebaum, that won
>the Pulitzer Prize. And Journey into the Whirlwind by
>Eugenia Ginzburg, I'm reading that one right now.

Thanks for those two suggestions. The copy I have contains Volumes I & II, translated by Thomas Whitney. I also picked up In Russian and French Prisons by Peter Kropotkin.

>>Which volume? There are 3. The translation by Harry
>Willetts
>>(I think he did volumes 2 adn 3) is absolute crap, it's
>>actually a huge distraction if you are used to the first
>book,
>>which I think was done by Thomas Whitney.
>>
>>You should pick up Gulag by Anne Applebaum, that
>won
>>the Pulitzer Prize. And Journey into the Whirlwind
>by
>>Eugenia Ginzburg, I'm reading that one right now.
>
>Thanks for those two suggestions. The copy I have contains
>Volumes I & II, translated by Thomas Whitney. I also picked up
> In Russian and French Prisons by Peter Kropotkin.


I don't think I've read Kropotkin, although I may have since the name sounds somewhat familiar. I managed to come across a first edition print of Varlam Shalamov's Kolyma Stories (sometimes entitled Kolyma Tales) a few weeks ago, but I couldn't afford what the seller was asking. He's holding it for me and I'll pick it up for Christmas.

Oddly enough, my wife picked up Gulag from our personal library and just started reading it. Now she's going on to a lot of the other stuff, but I still don't have an answer every time she asks "Why do you study this stuff?"

I don't think I've read Kropotkin, although I may have since
the name sounds somewhat familiar.

Doc,

This is kind of an obscure publication that I bought at Goodwill. The book was first published in London, in 1887, with a follow-up publication in the states in 1971.

Funny thing, Hal.

In Thailand we have both private healthcare and private schools. I can afford the very best of both, something I likely could not afford in the United States. That is thanks to capitalism.

>Funny thing, Hal.
>
>In Thailand we have both private healthcare and private
>schools. I can afford the very best of both, something I
>likely could not afford in the United States. That is thanks
>to capitalism.

So you're thanking capitalism for having to pay for healthcare. Why don’t you work for 15 cents a hour like they do in capitalist Haiti and capitalist Indonesia? The goal of international corporate finance is the Third Worldization of everywhere. That’s why Wal-mart has 6 factories in China.

>>Funny thing, Hal.
>>
>>In Thailand we have both private healthcare and private
>>schools. I can afford the very best of both, something I
>>likely could not afford in the United States. That is
>thanks
>>to capitalism.
>
>So you're thanking capitalism for having to pay for
>healthcare. Why don’t you work for 15 cents a hour like they
>do in capitalist Haiti and capitalist Indonesia? The goal of
>international corporate finance is the Third Worldization of
>everywhere. That’s why Wal-mart has 6 factories in China.

China has 34 Walmart stores and employ 18,000 people. Walmart has 100 million customers a week, world wide. They employ 1.2 million in the United States.

Walmart in China

Walmart International

U.S. Fact Sheet

Nightly Reader

NR,

Here's an interesting article related to Wal-mart...

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html

>NR,
>
>Here's an interesting article related to Wal-mart...
>
>http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html

From the article:

Wal-Mart wields its power for just one purpose: to bring the lowest possible prices to its customers. At Wal-Mart, that goal is never reached. The retailer has a clear policy for suppliers: On basic products that don't change, the price Wal-Mart will pay, and will charge shoppers, must drop year after year. But what almost no one outside the world of Wal-Mart and its 21,000 suppliers knows is the high cost of those low prices. Wal-Mart has the power to squeeze profit-killing concessions from vendors. To survive in the face of its pricing demands, makers of everything from bras to bicycles to blue jeans have had to lay off employees and close U.S. plants in favor of outsourcing products from overseas.

$12,015

That's poverty?

How much is that $150 dollars worth in Haiti, Hal? There's the rub, isn't it? You toss out a figure in US dollars when that figure has no real meaning without understanding the cost of living in that locality. I can (and have) made a lot more money working in the United States than I do in Thailand. But the amount of money I make in Thailand allows me to have a nice home, send my little girl to top private schools, afford superb medical care and live a very pleasant life. I couldn't afford much of that on 3 times what I make here if I lived in the United States.

Until Laura was born, my wife worked as a Nurse's aide at a government hospital. Total monthly wages were a bit over $140 a month. And that was more than enough to afford an apartment, food, transportation and have some left over to save (her best friend still works there and has no difficulty having a pleasant lifestyle including a mobile phone). My wife's family would probably be considered poor in your eyes. They farm rice. They each earn about $500 a year. Of course, they own a huge tract of land the family has lived on for over 2000 years. They grow rice, pigs, chickens, shrimp, fruits and vegetables on that land. They fish in the local klong. Their money goes for buying gasoline for their motorcycles and one pickup truck (family consists of about 200 members) occassional treats, buying the occassional refrigerator and television, and paying their electricity bill (about $20 a month for all the households). You might tell them they are poor, but they won't believe you.

No rub, Al. No matter what the exchange, Haiti continues to be the poorest nation in the hemisphere and that's speaks for itself. And life since the US-backed coup has deepened the poverty and continued brutality at the hands of the right-wing paramilitaries.


BTW, I would consider your wife's family rich.

"Btw, I would consider your wife's family rich."

But the statistics you use don't. According to them, those 200 or so are below the poverty line.

Which is it, Hal?

You're wrong about Capitalism, Hal. It has not failed at all, but some countries have failed to properly implement it. Capitalism is not perfect, but has been successful many places. What we have in the US is not pure Capitalism, we n=have a structure of law that places controls on unbridled Capitalism. The pendulum of power often sways too far in one direction or another, but the system has been self correcting when excess has developed on one side or the other. No other economic system has proved superior over the long haul.

Shelly

>You're wrong about Capitalism, Hal. It has not failed at
>all, but some countries have failed to properly implement it.
>Capitalism is not perfect, but has been successful many
>places. What we have in the US is not pure Capitalism, we
>n=have a structure of law that places controls on unbridled
>Capitalism. The pendulum of power often sways too far in one
>direction or another, but the system has been self correcting
>when excess has developed on one side or the other. No other
>economic system has proved superior over the long haul.

Shelly,

We're talking about global corporate capitalism, not Mom and Pop stores. While it's true there were corporations as far back as the 18th century, they were public bodies; they had no rights of individual persons, but all that's changed.

Corporations have been given the rights of persons, meaning they have the right of free speech so they can advertise massive propaganda; they have the right to buy elections. Internally, corporations are tyrannies. They are dictatorship run from the top down like a fascist state and the public has nothing to say about what they're doing, so they're not accountable to anyone. And current international agreements give them even more power. And since corporate power and state power are very closely linked, government officials are bought and sold to the highest bidder.

So for example, take what was reported just the other day about a FDA Administration medical officer being told by top agency officials to delete material on the risks of antidepressant drugs from records he was submitting to Congress and then to conceal the deletions. This kind of thing goes on all the time. The White House is corporate occupied territory.

Take Enron. They used the law, the regulatory agencies, and the Supreme Court doctrine that money is a form of speech. They spread their money around to Congress, to state legislators, to think tanks, and to the the press. They lobbyied in the Federal Trade Commission, and that was all legal.

Corporations are held accountable in this country, as many corporate officers learned the hard way and got a new mailing address in a federal prison, or hefty fines. Corporations are legal entities and always have been. That is a major reason for incorporation. A corporation can sue and be sued in its name, and is theoretically immortal, able to outlive its management. Corporations are not inherently evil, although their management and personnel can be, or not. The legal controls on public corporations are far more stringent than on partnerships or sole proprietorships. What kind of economic system would you prefer to live under? Total state ownership of business, or anarchy? It seems what you consider corporate greed is to me competition and incentive to grow and prosper. This country's prosperity has been built upon it.

Shelly

>Corporations are held accountable in this country, as many
>corporate officers learned the hard way and got a new mailing
>address in a federal prison, or hefty fines.

You mean like Halliburton and Bechtel or Brown and Root. How can they be held accountable when corporate controls are shaped and molded by the very corporations in question. State legislators don't even know the extent to which they have authority to write the state corporate codes in ways that make corporations subordinate. And you won't find the proper name of a misbehaving corporation in a public textbook.

You mentioned corporations being legal entities and that's not the issue. They are private entities now and have the rights of persons, that's whole different issue of which I addressed in my previous post.

Even Lincoln was concerned about corporations.

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of the war."

-- President Abraham Lincoln, November 21, 1864

Corporations are responsible to their shareholders, Hal. Generally the same people that Politicians are responsible to.

>Corporations are responsible to their shareholders, Hal.
>Generally the same people that Politicians are responsible
>to.

Precisely. And whose interest do you think the sharelholders have in mind.

LOL

Actually it was sponsered by Thaksin Shinawatra. Why don't you look him up?

LMAO

Damn, you're an idiot, Hal.

Is there a larger gap between the richest and the poorest? Yep. But the poorest are still wealthier than they were 10 years ago.

As for your comments about 1997, don't bother. You have no idea of what you are talking about, and should stop trying to shove your class warfare Marxist bull down our throats.

....and (a) Democratic Party who are focused on "protectionism" instead of solutions....

Gee, so it's all the fault of the evil Democrats. There's a surprise.

In fact protectionism is just as big a plank in the Republican platform as it is in the Dems - sugar, steel, drugs, entertainment, primary industries in general..., and that's just the sectors in which the current Republican administration has shafted Australia in the recent "free trade" agreement.

LOL, like Australia never shafted anyone in their trade agreements, huh, Paul?

Not China, or Malaysia, or Indonesia, or New Guinea, or Cambodia, or Thailand...

Come now, Paul. Is it only a problem when you get the shitty end? Is it OK otherwise?

The only people that shafted you were your elected officials who agreed to the terms you don't like.

>The only people that shafted you were your elected officials
>who agreed to the terms you don't like.

LOL!

That may well be true. In fact it is - what Australia is currently trying to do to East Timor over oil is an international disgrace.

Doesn't alter the truth of what I posted one iota. The current Republican administration is protectionist. But as usual when you have no argument you try to change the subject.

And don't blame me for the current Australian administration - I didn't vote for them either.

>Doesn't alter the truth of what I posted one iota. The
>current Republican administration is protectionist. But as
>usual when you have no argument you try to change the
>subject.

Paul,

Seems to me every country in the world has developed by imposing high levels of protectionism with low imports and restricting outbound capital – which is precisely what the west has prevented Third World countries from doing with forced trade.

Ok, what are we to do with those who are over educated in the wrong fields or just have a simple skill set? Pre-determined career paths and access to higher education based off governmental sorting systems? So, at 12 how do you handle being told your going to spend the rest of your life in trailer, working as xyz, start liking it!

Tough balancing the needs of the stockholder against the taxpayers, so the next few decades will be intertesting to be around. Assuming ol'Ben or some dang hurricane don't get me.

Under Construction

'Ok, what are we to do with those who are over educated in the wrong fields or just have a simple skill set?'
We? Do you have a **** in your pocket?
It is not my problem if you are over educated ( whatever that means). Find a job doing something else. I personally have had four distinct careers due to changes in the job market in my area.
As far as simple skill sets maybe one should consider performing the job that 'Americans will not do'. Beats wrinkles in the belly.

"Pre-determined career paths and access to higher education based off governmental sorting systems? So, at 12 how do you handle being told your going to spend the rest of your life in trailer, working as xyz, start liking it!"

If you haven't figured out before senior year that you are getting a lousy education from public education, and that YOU need to do something about it, then you belong in the rut that YOU have assigned for yoursellf. I taught my kids that education really begins the day you finish school, and that you begin to train for your next job the first day that you start the present one, and I tried to live that credo.

I've had about five careers since college, earning from a modest to a very good living. Retired now, but I have picked up enough skills and credentials to start another on if I decide to or have to. I'm thinking computer software trainer; history or political science professor, or Chairman of the Republican National Committtee (the latter partly to pi$$ off Shelly, lol, the first two I have the credentials, but the State of FL says I need to get a teaching cert too; I'm thinking it).

Ray.

I was advised by a career counselor that a person's most important job is looking for your next job.