Economics v. business --The Huck incident

[no1tovote4]

Well, let me say it this way.....What ability does a person have to start a business in a low profit margin environment in direct competition with existing businesses?

And as I said before, why are they attempting to do it in that particular niche? It is filled, they are poor business people indeed if they cannot see that.

rightwinger brings up "brown" people, but it seems to me anyone could take what I've said and apply it to developing nations. Developing nation's mostly have the ability to produce a uniform, generic product which inherently is low in price, providing little profit. If developing nations could produce a unique product, they would receive a premium price for that product. But, of course, they would have to find the capital and develop the knowledge. Coffee bean producers in South America is an example. Would the solution to their problem be "find a niche". They don't have the capital. Besides, anything they can do will put them into direct competition with an existing business.

"They don't have capital" is simply incorrect. They can get business loans from many people willing to make money too. Just as they can in the US. And I said that improving the quality is one way to compete as well. Simply saying they cannot compete is disingenuous. Clearly when one small island can sell a coffee been that has been eaten then expelled by rodentia for 100 dollars a pound they can find their niche if they are observant enough.

Luck and timing has a lot to do with successful business ventures.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I do? I kind of had the impression that supply-sider neocons, like yourself, wanted to do that.

Kerry was the one talking about punishing corporations who outsource. Right?

 

[shadrack]

Kerry was the one talking about punishing corporations who outsource. Right?

yeah, and I'm not kerry. I didn't care for his rhetoric on outsourcing.

Offshore outsourcing occurs when some or all business functions are performed in a country other than the one where the product will be sold or consumed....which may or may not be in the U.S.

As unskiled workers become more abundant in supply, the real incomes of low-skilled workers will decline, which will result in lower standards of living.

Different nations laws artificially benefit or penalize certain groups.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

yeah, and I'm not kerry. I didn't care for his rhetoric on outsourcing.

But kerry is a Dem, idjit.

Offshore outsourcing occurs when some or all business functions are performed in a country other than the one where the product will be sold or consumed....which may or may not be in the U.S.

As unskiled workers become more abundant in supply, the real incomes of low-skilled workers will decline, which will result in lower standards of living.

Different nations laws artificially benefit or penalize certain groups.

Thanks for stating basic facts we all know, einstein. It is immoral to lock the third world out of the economy to prop up the standard of living of Western Whites. You're a racist.

 

[shadrack]

But kerry is a Dem, idjit.


Thanks for stating basic facts we all know, einstein. It is immoral to lock the third world out of the economy to prop up the standard of living of Western Whites. You're a racist.

and you're a dipstick

the U.S. is working toward eliminating their low-skilled work force, so who will suffer?.....those countries with a low-skilled work force

different nation's laws may benefit certain low-skilled workers (although computer engineers accept call center jobs) but penalize local business investors who can build infrastructure and sustainable economies within their own nation

what kerry suggested (along with the populist rhetoric that I didnt' like) is to ensure standards of trade to ensure corporations don't use monopolistic or razor and blades business models and to prevent American corporations from externalizing cost to other nations

Do you really think NAFTA was as successful as claimed it would be? Wealthy American business owners build factories in Mexico and sell the products to Canada.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

and you're a dipstick

the U.S. is working toward eliminating their low-skilled work force, so who will suffer?.....those countries with a low-skilled work force

YOu make no sense. Our jobs are GOING TO those countries WITH a low skilled workforce.

different nation's laws may benefit certain low-skilled workers (although computer engineers accept call center jobs) but penalize local business investors who can build infrastructure and sustainable economies within their own nation

may?

what kerry suggested (along with the populist rhetoric that I didnt' like) is to ensure standards of trade to ensure corporations don't use monopolistic or razor and blades business models and to prevent American corporations from externalizing cost to other nations

ANd when you take out the bullshit, that means punishing outsourcing.

Do you really think NAFTA was as successful as claimed it would be? Wealthy American business owners build factories in Mexico and sell the products to Canada.

Yes. Without doubt.

You never have a good point SHadman.

 

[sagegirl]

This would only happen if there was competition that was setting those low prices. You would not make something and set the price lower than production cost except to kill competition.

If you produce it overseas for less and sell crap....and keep salaries and benefits for workers low ..........WAL MART!!!!!

 

[shadrack]

YOu make no sense. Our jobs are GOING TO those countries WITH a low skilled workforce.

and THOSE companies PROVIDING those jobs WITHOUT regulation ARE PART of the problem OF LOWERING standards THAT RESULT in LOW WAGES and NO BENEFITS, YoU SeE nOw?

may?

oh, you didn't know? Yes, and the opposite is quite obvious true in the U.S.....While American workers may be penalized, outsourcing generally benefits American investors.

ANd when you take out the bullshit, that means punishing outsourcing.

no, it means punishing exploitation, but you don't believe exploitation can occur. And you obviously marginalize the value of human labor so that YOU can consume goods at lower prices.

 

[freeandfun1]

and THOSE companies PROVIDING those jobs WITHOUT regulation ARE PART of the problem OF LOWERING standards THAT RESULT in LOW WAGES and NO BENEFITS, YoU SeE nOw?
oh, you didn't know? Yes, and the opposite is quite obvious true in the U.S.....While American workers may be penalized, outsourcing generally benefits American investors.
no, it means punishing exploitation, but you don't believe exploitation can occur. And you obviously marginalize the value of human labor so that YOU can consume goods at lower prices.

so shad, what do you think of all the jobs that are in-sourced TO America? Should the Europeans, Japanese, etc. stop hiring Americans? I mean, isn't it wrong for them to hire us when they have workers in their countries?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

and THOSE companies PROVIDING those jobs WITHOUT regulation ARE PART of the problem OF LOWERING standards THAT RESULT in LOW WAGES and NO BENEFITS, YoU SeE nOw?

oh, you didn't know? Yes, and the opposite is quite obvious true in the U.S.....While American workers may be penalized, outsourcing generally benefits American investors.
no, it means punishing exploitation, but you don't believe exploitation can occur. And you obviously marginalize the value of human labor so that YOU can consume goods at lower prices.

And you want to keep the third world out of the modern economy so it doesn't effect your spoiled western lifestyle. It's selfish.

 

[shadrack]

so shad, what do you think of all the jobs that are in-sourced TO America? Should the Europeans, Japanese, etc. stop hiring Americans? I mean, isn't it wrong for them to hire us when they have workers in their countries?

I have no problem with liberalization of markets between equally developed states.

 

[shadrack]

And you want to keep the third world out of the modern economy so it doesn't effect your spoiled western lifestyle.

wrong again

I just don't want multinational corporations using sophisticated legal and financial means to circumvent the bounds of standards in order to leverage the labor of unequally developed regions.

 

[Said1]

wrong again

I just don't want multinational corporations using sophisticated legal and financial means to circumvent the bounds of standards in order to leverage the labor of unequally developed regions.

Your statement assumes leaders in "unequally developed regions" are just innocent sheep, not capable of stopping multi-nationals ,or understanding the deals they are making. Everyone is out to get rich quick, mulinationals corporations are not the only guilty party.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I have no problem with liberalization of markets between equally developed states.

So you want to NOT trade with less developed states. Trade is what develops states.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

wrong again

I just don't want multinational corporations using sophisticated legal and financial means to circumvent the bounds of standards in order to leverage the labor of unequally developed regions.

It's not that sophisticated.

You're still saying you want to keep the third world out of the modern global economy. There is no way to morally justify this.

 

[shadrack]

So you want to NOT trade with less developed states. Trade is what develops states.

Trade under any conditions develops states? Or implemented in any way? Does your concept of free trade only center around the free movement of products and employers?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Trade under any conditions develops states? Or implemented in any way? Does your concept of free trade only center around the free movement of products and employers?

Do you have a point, or a case to make?

For instance, would you like to make the case that trade ISN'T what develops nations economically? If so, continue please, if not, STFU!

 

[shadrack]

Your statement assumes leaders in "unequally developed regions" are just innocent sheep, not capable of stopping multi-nationals ,or understanding the deals they are making. Everyone is out to get rich quick, mulinationals corporations are not the only guilty party.

yes and no

What often happens is a free trade "zone" is set up inside a third world country to attract foreign cash. Ordinary citizens, businesses, and manufacturers of this nation face being wiped out by the new more powerful competitor. Because the multinationals are able to choose between many underdeveloped nations, a bidding war erupts between governments. The winning government often pays part of the initial cost of factory setup, loosens environment protections and rules regarding negligence and the treatment of workers, and agrees to not ask for payment of taxes for a period of time. If the host government does ask for taxes or tightens rules the corporation threatens to set up operations elsewhere, giving leverage at the bargaining table with more demands.

 

[shadrack]

Do you have a point, or a case to make?

For instance, would you like to make the case that trade ISN'T what develops nations economically? If so, continue please, if not, STFU!

Trade with the U.S. may not develop nations. It ranks among the highest on the list for tariffs in the areas that developing nations have a comparative advantage.

 

[Said1]

What often happens is a free trade "zone" is set up inside a third world country to attract foreign cash.

Free trade zones are not designed for sole for the purpose of foreign trade, they are also set up to encourage trade amongst member nations. It isn't part of some sneaky plan designed by "the man" to keep them down. Third world countries have been helped an coddled enough, if they want to be part of a larger world market, they have to have something to offer, if the aren't "ready" they need to get out of the game and set their aims a little lower.

Ordinary citizens, businesses, and manufacturers of this nation face being wiped out by the new more powerful competitor.

In third world countries, businesses and manufacturers tend to do business with multinationals more often than not.They are also the people who have the best chance of adapting, since ordinary citizens tend to be excluded from the benefits of foreign development because they lack the skills or education to acquire those skills. They already face being wiped out by their own governments. The fact that you try to pass the blame onto your own country for this is VERY pathetic.

Because the multinationals are able to choose between many underdeveloped nations, a bidding war erupts between governments. The winning government often pays part of the initial cost of factory setup, loosens environment protections and rules regarding negligence and the treatment of workers, and agrees to not ask for payment of taxes for a period of time. If the host government does ask for taxes or tightens rules the corporation threatens to set up operations elsewhere, giving leverage at the bargaining table with more demands.

Paying initial factory setup costs protects developing nations from foreign ownership, they own the land, and the building, this is a good thing. Most third world countries do not have standard labor practices, and very little environmental restrictions that can't be abided by. Can you can show me one fairly recent case where a third world government has agreed to loosen any existing labor and environmental policies in order to do business with a multinational?