stevendedalus stevendedalus

Values Displaced

▼

Values Displaced

from JoeUser Forums
 

Raising the standard of living of the poor cannot be done without reducing the ridiculously high standards of the very wealthy to make room for a wider middle class. Top corporate executives continue to receive perks and bonuses for unremarkable structuring of its production plants and rather remarkable for their eye on the bottom line to please stockholders while having little concern for their employees’ well-being by mergers, increasing outsourcing of labor and cutting benefits. When $10 million birthday parties and $700K watches become common among the most affluent means the country is reincarnating the Court of Louis XIV. When athletes spend more time buying jewelry and outlandish fashion than Willie Mays used to spend time playing stickball with the kids in Harlem, it is time to rollback the absurd contracts that relentlessly pilfer from loyal fans. When the entertainment industry pampers and lavishes astronomical pay and royalty to its stars, it is time to reassess the validity of allowing the moguls hands-off decision-making.

     That a company like Wal-Mart, which produces nothing and a major distributor of imported goods, yet becomes the biggest employer in the country, is indicative of a nation losing its will to industrialize and modernize its infrastructure. That powerhouses like GM and Ford are on the decline owing to the government’s irresponsibility in not providing universal health care in which foreign makers luxuriate is another sign that the nation is unwilling to come to grips with reality. And why the poor will always be slighted because of the nation’s expertise in muddling through as substitute for vision.

Copyright © 2005 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: December 31, 2005.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com

politics
24,511 views 76 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
You want to know what is killing GM and Ford -- blame unions, the bastions of liberalism that they are. They refuse to give back benefits, and refuse to recognize economic reality when it hits them in the face. They worry about the short term, and near term, and ignore the long term. In doing so, they kill the host that they parasite on and then cry because it's gone and someone should have saved it.
Some good points but overstated. Unions are no longer liberal, if ever. Their motive has always been bread and butter issues, no more so than corporations. Because most of their generous gains were made in the euphoric decades following WWII, they have since lost much ground by conceding to cuts in wage and fringes. Negotiated settlements in health care were made during a time when health costs were under control. The same for retirement when actual workers were at tenfold ratio to retirees. But here too there have been concessions. It just seems to me to be against the working stiff in favor of corporations tells me a good deal about the rugged individual psyche prevalent today of those who think they are too proud to join fellow workers to sustain the middle class.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
U.S. auto makers are saying they must move their operations overseas in an effort to reduce costs, namely wages, health care and retirement benefits, in order to be able to compete in the global economy.
Yes, very un-American.

The loss of good manufacturing jobs and hi-tech jobs makes it difficult for the poor to break out of poverty. The middle class is filling the decent jobs that are available. Student financial aid has been cut under the Bush administration and with the higher cost of living, it is much more difficult for the poor to get a college education now than it was in the 90s.
Good!

I think it's an excellent benefit, and I couldn't be more grateful for it.
I'm happy for you. As I said earlier negatives about military health care is minimal.

No one "made" Wal Mart what it is. We demanded it.
But we didn't demand they undermine small American suppliers by creating an empire in China. Moreover, Wal-Mart did not invent cheap prices--A&P, Sears, K-Mart, etc., showed them the American way--unfortunately Sam chose the China way.
Galactic Civilizations III
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
So what you are saying is, unless our laws are set up to pity poor and show contempt for the rich, we will never have equality?
No one is talking about "equality" but a fair shake would go along way in lifting people.

No harm intended.
It's okay; I'm thick-skinned.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
No one is talking about "equality" but a fair shake would go along way in lifting people


You forgot the second half of the axiom... "fairness is NEVER fair".

For example, two people are trying for the same job. Which is "fair", giving the job to the person who needs it more, or the one who deserves it more?
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
The boys and I have a family doctor that we see every time we go in. She's excellent...very thorough...and she knows our medical history, and we are typically seen the day we call.


That is a very different experience than what we had for most of our time in the military. Of course, I had private insurance before my husband joined the military. It was like pulling teeth to get an appointment. We rarely saw a doctor, it was always a nurse practioner which is fine but my oldest son has special needs and I prefer him to see a MD. We definately didn't see the same health care provider every time. I know when I was PG, I had a different doctor sticking his fingers in my cootchie every week, checking to see if I was dilated. Not exactly pleasant in the best circumstances. Getting a referral for a specialist was difficult.

Now that we are Tricare Prime Remote and see a "real" doctor, it is a huge difference in the quality of our medical care. I never realized just how poorly we were treated until I started going out in the civilian world again. Not mistreated, just very much rushed in, rushed out with very little time being taken and no continuity of care. Maybe it was the bases we were on, maybe it was the difference between the different services. I just wouldn't want everyone in the country to have to deal with the system that I had to use.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
But we didn't demand they undermine small American suppliers by creating an empire in China. Moreover, Wal-Mart did not invent cheap prices--A&P, Sears, K-Mart, etc., showed them the American way--unfortunately Sam chose the China way.


This is true...to a extent. The privious companies didnt really hurt smaller businesses, they were a competition. WM comes in and its no competition at all as the smaller companies can not match the buying power that WM has. Go in to your local WM at 9 - 10 at night and you will see them bringing out the merchandise for the overnight crews to work out to the shelves. The boxes are all made in China and are all color coded for the various departments. The boxes are packaged and shipped from China. You can have an American made item, its shipped overseas, packaged and sent back to the US. Granted, most of the grocery stuff is made in America...but the general merchandise is mostly....not. ALONG with that is the fact that WM has its own various lines for a cheaper alternative to brand name product. It has Kids Connection in the toys department which is a very incredibly cheap product...all made in China...so much stuff that they have an entire isle (both sides) devoted to that one line. On the grocery side, they have the Great Values line...who knows where that is manufactured. The labels say it is packaged for Wal Mart in Bentonville, Ark. There is no packaging plant...its just packaged for WM...which happens to be headquartered in Bentonville...so that makes me wonder where much of their own grocery line is packaged.

Like their Meat? Well...Im willing to bet that beef you get from WM is not American beef. They get everything else from overseas....why not some meat as well? All it needs to do is pass inspection....conveniently at one of WMs 2 or 3 butcher shops.

The greedy-ness of Americans wanting to save a buck overpowers their desire to buy an american made product. By buying stuff at WM, you are giving tons of money to other countries (mainly china) for the product you buy.

The reason WM is so popular is because it is concerned only about the bottom line. Ask anyone and they will tell you otherwise, but it is true. IF you are shopping around and you hear them say "attention wal mart associates...code (whatever number) to layaway please, thank you"...that means they are having a meeting. What happens in the meeting is a rundown of sales from yesterday...how they are up or down (almost always up) from the day before, week before...year before. They talk about WM stock which you can buy so you can help the company out and make some money on your own. Then...they say a line or two about what you need to do that day...like make stuff look pretty, etc. If you go in and ask an associate to scan something with their Telxon (Tal Zon)...ask them to scan for its price...on their hand held unit is a % sign on the screen. That is how high the product has been marked up from the price that they got it for. Much of their product is marked up 30-40%.

Also....American car manufacturers are currently in a slump, because they have no incentive for change. They respond to things way too late. Overseas manufacturers constantly make a safer, cheaper, better product that has much better gas mileage than their American counterparts. They can see the need we have and they do something about it.
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
Malls did more to hurt downtown areas than Wally World could ever hope to. I'm still searching for the city, town or hamlet that is nothing but a business wasteland, with Wally World standing tall in its midst, but I have seen many a downtown area devastated after a mall was put in (usually with a huge taxpayer subsidy).

~~~~~

Me and my family had some great experiences with Army medical and a some horror stories, then again, my current disability was made much worse by a few civilian doctors with great reputations. A good or bad doctor isn't a product of the system, it product of the doctor.

Socialized medicine is a mistake because of how much it costs. What is the tax level of countries that provide (choke) "free" medical care? It's like the myth of the "freeway". It's "free" because there are no tolls, but look how many different taxes are paid for this "freeway". Socialized medicine costs everyone, so the few can have enough healthcare to break even.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
do you have any clue how much gm has lost this year?


Actually I do....According to them they are down a very little over 2% (2.02%). Really isn't a lot is it? And according to Reuters, Ford Motor Company saw a "profit" this year not a loss. I think you'll find a lot of GM's problems can be traced back to management. Link
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
I served 2 years (actually, 2 years, 2 months & 10 days) in the Navy as an internist. Ted is partly correct, but I can tell you the "system" is a problem, and a huge one. Things that took days to do in the private sector took months to do in the service, due to restrictive protocols, sequencing requirements and appointment availability, not to mention having to get things done 200 miles away when they were available privately down the street.

If you are acutely injured, military medicine is as good as it gets, provided you are in an area where it's available or you have access to rapid transport there. And their rehab facilities and programs are topnotch.

Outside of those two areas, it's so micromanaged and burdened with paperwork that it was extremely frustrating. I couldn't wait to get out. God forbid the military model ends up being the one used to build a universal health care system. Centrally controlled systems are not designed to be efficient - efficiency generally means "more" of something per unit time, and they want none of that. It's through frustratingly complex inefficiency that costs are postponed - which is the model that most HMO's have already adopted.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
According to them they are down a very little over 2% (2.02%). Really isn't a lot is it? And according to Reuters, Ford Motor Company saw a "profit" this year not a loss


gm lost 11.7 billion in market value this year. ford lost 12.6 billion.

an article in the detroit free-press published on 12/31/05--that would be yesterday--noted:

According to their closing prices Friday, GM's current market value of $11 billion now lies just below that of ketchup maker H.J. Heinz Co. Ford, at $14.3 billion, is worth less to the market than Electronic Arts, the video-game maker, and the Gap clothing store chain. Link

talk about 'displaced values'.
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
gm lost 11.7 billion in market value this year. ford lost 12.6 billion.


Sorry but you are WRONG on Ford! Check the link. That is unless you think Reuters doesn't know what it's talking about. Link

Now don't pull a col when confronted with proof that goes against your position.
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
That is unless you think Reuters doesn't know what it's talking about


yeah reuters is givin fmc a ringing endorsement i'm a lil concerned you don't know how to read that reuters analysis. for instance, what part of negative cash flow do you see as a good thing? ford's doin soooo well, its debt was downgraded to bb+ (or junk bond), it hadda sell off hertz and its stock value dropped 46% this year alone. furthermore, bill ford decided--quite wisely--to stop collecting his own salary.

when confronted with proof that goes against your position


you mean playin the drmiler card don't you. i can only recall one instance in which i've seen you concede anything, and i'd hesitate to even guess at how many ridiculously inane positions you've refused to abandon.

we can add this one to the list.
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
That is unless you think Reuters doesn't know what it's talking about


yeah reuters is givin fmc a ringing endorsement i'm a lil concerned you don't know how to read that reuters analysis. for instance, what part of negative cash flow do you see as a good thing?


Start off with, no you're pulling a col. When given info that does NOT back-up your position you either a.) ignore it entirely or b.) claim they are ignorant. Now... from the link I posted from Reuters I would like you to show me one negative number associated with FoMoCo. The "only" negative number on that entire page is coupled to GM. You may be concerned with me being able to decipher their analisys. But I'm more concerned with you obvious inability to read. And no when I have reputable evidence in hand supporting my position, I will NOT back down. I don't know about you, but most on here would consider Reuters above reproach.
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
" I'm talking about excesses, not basics."

The wealthy aren't made wealthy by excesses, they are made wealthy by the run of the mill stuff we buy. When you buy gas, or, like I said, toilet paper, some CEO is beneffitted. When someone buys a ticket to a baseball game, they are generating the money you are complaining about.

That said, why SHOULDN'T the people we buy products from get the money for what they sell? If you hire someone to work in your store, do they deserve and equal share with you, the owner? Are you saying that baseball players that generate hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue don't deserve more than a fraction of the revenue they generate?

Who does, then, they guy who sells the hot dogs? Once you cap the earnings of players, owners, etc., what do you suggest they do with the rest of the money they earn? Give it to people who did nothing to earn it? Why? Should they just cut the price of tickets when people will pay more? If so, wouldn't the government then be setting the price point for every product?

This is always going to come down to the fact that no one is forceing you to make these people rich. You, while you are sitting here complaining, are making someone rich. Don't pretend that they don't deserve it while paying them.

Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
'Why give a 3 year warranty on a vehicle you "know" will end up in the shop? This makes no sense! When it goes into the shop, they send the mfg a bill for fixing the vehicle. Which they must then pay. Which lowers their profit margin for the vehicle in question. That is just simple economics. Artifically churning the market does "nothing" for their bottom-line.'

Drmiler, if you were a manufacturer of second-rate vehicles, which option would you go for?

1) Advertise your vehicles as having 6 months warranty only, and watch unconvinced consumers flock to buy from the competition (profit = none); or
2) Advertise your vehicles as having 3 years warranty, sell plenty, and pay for them to be fixed when they go wrong within the warranty period (profit = standard mark-up less cost of repair),

So, it makes perfect sense whenever it might lead to the difference between a sale and no sale.
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
from the link I posted from Reuters I would like you to show me one negative number associated with FoMoCo


1. click on the 'more' link immediately beneath the 'net margin' category (there's an orange arrow so you can't hardly miss it) to see ford's income statement, balance sheet and cash flows figures.

2. scroll down to 'cash flows'

3. add all three figures.

4. scroll down all the way to the three year 'net income' listings.

5. note there is no figure yet for the last quarter (s/b out on wednesday i believe).
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
For example, two people are trying for the same job. Which is "fair", giving the job to the person who needs it more, or the one who deserves it more?
Now you're implying charity, not value.

Are you saying that baseball players that generate hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue don't deserve more than a fraction of the revenue they generate?
You're making my point of displaced value: the millions generated could be better directed toward more useful needs in a social system. You're simply accepting things as they are, rather than setting up a system that does the most good. Entertainment and sports are hogging too much of the pie, regardless of the consumer's indifference to things that matter most.
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
Fine statement, Ziggy!
Socialized medicine is a mistake because of how much it costs. What is the tax level of countries that provide (choke) "free" medical care?
You clothe universal health care with socialized medicine to denigrate the concept. The system we have now is based on profit and therefore seeks patients that are the most risk free to the extent that there are millions who cannot even get insurance if they could afford it, or the cost is prohibitive. We are all being "taxed" by soaring costs of insurance, Medicaid and the millions of uninsured who cannot pay their catastrophic hospital bills.
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
You're making my point of displaced value: the millions generated could be better directed toward more useful needs in a social system. You're simply accepting things as they are, rather than setting up a system that does the most good. Entertainment and sports are hogging too much of the pie, regardless of the consumer's indifference to things that matter most.


That involves a value judgment on your part, Steve, one that others might not make. The "result" of our economy is based on millions of individual value judgments, largely a "bottom-up" process ("accepting things as they are"). Your viewing it with a "top-down" mindset. Most people prefer not to be told how much entertainment they "need" - or cigarettes, or booze, or cars, or microwaves, or blogspace, or whatever.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
God forbid the military model ends up being the one used to build a universal health care system.
In time of war, military medics are miracle workers. The death toll in Iraq would be over 6,000 were it not for the extraordinary work in healing the wounded. As for stateside care for the military and families, I think most would disagree with you.
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top
You clothe universal health care with socialized medicine to denigrate the concept. The system we have now is based on profit and therefore seeks patients that are the most risk free to the extent that there are millions who cannot even get insurance if they could afford it, or the cost is prohibitive. We are all being "taxed" by soaring costs of insurance, Medicaid and the millions of uninsured who cannot pay their catastrophic hospital bills.


I assure you, universal health care IS socialized medicine. You are quite correct about the indirect tax our current system imposes. But I don't believe universal health care will solve the problem.

There was a time when insurance companies sold "insurance" - the pooling of premiums from the many to insure against the misfortune of the few. There was a coverage known as "major medical" - you could self-insure for the small stuff (doctor visits, etc.) but have coverage for serious illness or injury. If you had a health problem before obtaining insurance, they might rider (exclude) it for a period of time, say 2 years, but you could at least get coverage for everything you didn't yet have. The largest of the insurance companies was non-profit.

Insurance companies now sell premium notices, preferably to people least likely to need healthcare, and they won't sell to you at all if you've ever had a hangnail. Major medical policies are practically impossible to come by. Millions of dollars are siphoned off by layers of management which contribute not one iota to the amount or quality of healhcare delivered. The government turns over Medicare premiums to health plans which then invest it in financial instruments and hold onto it as long as they can to squeeze as much as possible out of it before spending any of it on patient care, and reward the CEO's & CFO's with fat bonuses when they do it "well". Other than that, the system's just about perfect.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top
The government turns over Medicare premiums to health plans which then invest it in financial instruments and hold onto it as long as they can to squeeze as much as possible out of it before spending any of it on patient care, and reward the CEO's & CFO's with fat bonuses when they do it "well


so, if anyone was at all innarested in cutting out the middleman...
Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top
For example, two people are trying for the same job. Which is "fair", giving the job to the person who needs it more, or the one who deserves it more?
Now you're implying charity, not value.


No, I'm talking about a question that employers have to answer every day. I'm talking about the kind of questions that hiring someone almost always comes down to. It's also a good example of how a "fair shake" is not as simple as it would seem... and down right dangerous when used in policy making or rhetoric.

Fairness is NEVER fair and equality is NEVER equal.

Socialized medicine is a mistake because of how much it costs. What is the tax level of countries that provide (choke) "free" medical care?
You clothe universal health care with socialized medicine to denigrate the concept.


No, I just don't fall into the "buzzword" of the day. If you are talking about government funding of all healthcare, then have the guts to call it what it is. "socialized health care" or "universal health care", if there is a difference at all, please, enlighten me. Does spelling it different make it more palatable to you?
Reply #49 from JoeUser Forums Top
from the link I posted from Reuters I would like you to show me one negative number associated with FoMoCo


1. click on the 'more' link immediately beneath the 'net margin' category (there's an orange arrow so you can't hardly miss it) to see ford's income statement, balance sheet and cash flows figures.

2. scroll down to 'cash flows'

3. add all three figures.

4. scroll down all the way to the three year 'net income' listings.

5. note there is no figure yet for the last quarter (s/b out on wednesday i believe).


So I would have to guess that you must have missed this line.


Gross Profit $29,946.0


Note there is no negative sign in front of it which means they were in the black as of the time of the report and NOT in the red like you seem to believe.
Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top
'Why give a 3 year warranty on a vehicle you "know" will end up in the shop? This makes no sense! When it goes into the shop, they send the mfg a bill for fixing the vehicle. Which they must then pay. Which lowers their profit margin for the vehicle in question. That is just simple economics. Artifically churning the market does "nothing" for their bottom-line.'

Drmiler, if you were a manufacturer of second-rate vehicles, which option would you go for?

1) Advertise your vehicles as having 6 months warranty only, and watch unconvinced consumers flock to buy from the competition (profit = none); or
2) Advertise your vehicles as having 3 years warranty, sell plenty, and pay for them to be fixed when they go wrong within the warranty period (profit = standard mark-up less cost of repair),

So, it makes perfect sense whenever it might lead to the difference between a sale and no sale.


Sorry but I'm not buying this theory. All they had to do was leave the warranty where it was at 1 year not increase it to 3 years. So like I said it makes no sense. Because when a warranty repair is done it's general practice to "soak" the mfg on the cost of repair. So it would not be cost effective for the mfg like you and kb seem to think.