Slashdot Mirror

Actually, Dow Chemical owns UCC since 2001 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dow_Chemical_Company#Bhopal_disaster but thank you for the correction, I misremembered the acquisition of UCC, whose subsidiary UCIL ran the Bhopal plant.

Monsanto, however, is a global company with 21,000 employees in 404 facilities in 66 countries, not a US one; here is a list of worldwide facilities from their web site: http://www.monsanto.com/whoweare/pages/our-locations.aspx

Likewise, Caterpillar does it's manufacturing close to its customers in various countries: http://www.caterpillar.com/company/global-footprint

Case tractors are also manufactured outside the US in many instances: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_IH#Factory_locations ; most of the engines used in the US models are manufactured in Brazil.

General Electric, which manufactures most of the train locomotives used in the US, makes nearly 2/3rds of its money outside the US, and has reduced their US workforce by 1/5 from 2002 to 2011: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?scp=2&sq=ge&st=cse

I'll point out that most steel beams used in large construction are manufactured in China and shipped over for use in the US, since the US no longer has the facilities to manufacture them; for example, most of the recent San Francisco Bay Bridge superstructure is from China: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-11/sf-bay-bridge-gets-5-300-ton-delivery-from-china.html

The other stuff is transient local infrastructure (why bring in concrete from another country, unless you are talking pre-stressed concrete girders, which, again, tend to get shipped from China).

So tell me again how the US is doing?

Nothing is actually made in the US any more.

Except Construction equipment, tractors, cars, trains, roads, houses, commercial buildings, food, copper piping and tubing, drugs and other chemicals (ever hear of Monsanto?), concrete... No, we make nothing here.

Gees, guys, wtf?

Caterpillar has one too. http://www.caterpillar.com/cda/layout?m=389975&x=7&ids=3367101

For some marginally good news for a change, as highlighted by jewishvoiceforpeace.org and corpwatch.org, according to an Apr. 15, 2004 Peoria Journal Star article:

Activists protested Wednesday outside Caterpillar Inc.'s annual shareholders meeting in Chicago, but lost their bid to get the Peoria corporation to study the use of its equipment in razing Palestinian homes overseas.

Stock owners defeated a proposal to determine whether the sale of bulldozers and other machinery to the Israel Defense Forces is consistent with Caterpillar's global code of business conduct. The Fortune 100 company's board opposed the measure.

Caterpillar's new chairman and CEO, Jim Owens, repeated the company's position that it feels compassion for displaced families but can't police the use of its more than 2 million pieces of equipment worldwide.

"After they've been sold, the owners of those machines determine how they're used," Owens told an audience of about 50 at the Northern Trust Building in Chicago's Loop. Some of the activists got inside the meeting because they or groups they represent own Caterpillar stock. Five of them spoke to board members before tentative voting results were announced; the measure earned support from about 4 percent of shareholders, which would allow it to be reintroduced next year.

Liat Weingart, co-director of San Francisco-based Jewish Voice for Peace, said more than 50,000 people have lost their homes in demolitions that often have no relation to Israeli security. Some Palestinians have been buried alive, she said.

Caterpillar is headquarted in Peoria, which is why the Peoria newspaper ran the story. I've been unable to locate any other newspaper running this story.

The Peoria newspaper portrays it as a loss for the activists, when in fact it is a major victory (the 4% means it has to be discussed at next year's shareholder meeting) and represents a creative and practical means for effecting change in corporate behavior -- much more practical than street riots.

As I've often stated, corporations should not be so large, last so long, and have Constitutional rights. However, if they have to be around, then the proposal contained in the conclusion of the seminal Small Is Beautiful for bridling corporations is good. Small is Beautiful says that since corporations are like mini-governments, run them as a democracy where all the stakeholders (all who are affected by the existence of the corporation, including investors but especially those who live near the corporation's activities) vote.

Failing those two -- i.e. if we can't ban large corporations and if we can't have stakeholders vote on how large corporations should be run -- then participating in the existing corporate governance process -- namely buying stock and voting at shareholders meetings -- is the next best thing.

This peaceful, legal alternative to reining in amoral powerful corporations has gone underreported.

See also the previous UnderReported.com stories:

• Feb. 6, 2004 With Israeli bulldozers, practice makes perfect
• Nov. 6, 2003 U.S. learning urban warfare from IDF: armored D-9s to take down buildings

Hi!

I've lived and worked in Pennsylvania for many years--Pennsylvania enacted a law assessing sales tax on computer software back in the late 1980s, only to repeal the tax several years later.

Why? In short, it failed.

The law of unintended consequences
Simply put, one of the problems of taxation is that it can be very difficult to accurately assess how people (and companies) will respond. You simply cannot say "companies in Illinois [or Pennsylvania] bought $600 million worth of custom software in 2003, so if we assess a 6% tax we'll reap a $64 million windfall in 2005." It's not that simple--anybody who can avoid the tax will work to do so. And there are lots of ways that a tax like that can be avoided--and those ways generally will result in a tax loss for the state.

Example: A company is considering expanding its mortgage servicing operations. That includes a $10 million custom software project. Locate that operation adjacent to existing offices in Illinois, and you'll have to shoulder an additional $600,000 in taxes in your startup costs. Locate that project in Iowa or Wisconsin, and you get to keep $600K. What's the net result? First, the state of Illinois doesn't get the $600,000--second, the state loses the jobs that would have used that software, and (presumably) will continue having to pay welfare, unemployment assistance, or other government assistance to people who could have filled those jobs.

In Pennsylvania...
It sounded like a good idea. I was working for a software development company at the time--we were planning on opening a company office in Pennsylvania, and doing development here. Instead I worked as an independent contractor, and development (and the development jobs) essentially stayed in California. Lots of other companies did the same thing--or moved development work to offices outside the state. The net effect: practically no revenue for the state, and all sorts of (admittedly anecdotal) evidence of job flight from the state.

Memo to the governor:
Custom software is a capital expenditure. And practically any economist (you might start at the University of Chicago, and perhaps the economist(s) at Caterpillar) will tell you that taxing capital items is generally bad economic policy: you want companies making capital expenditures, because those create j-o-b-s.

Hopefully, the state of Illinois has economic development people who can address this issue before the governor does something stupid and causes a bunch of people to lose their jobs. If nothing else, they should be able to notice that economic development people from a lot of other states will start telling their clients (corporations considering locating in Illinois) about Illinois's new Technology Disincentive Plan. And if you happen to be in the custom software business in Illinois, contact your legislator. Your job may not be going to Bombay--but it may be going to Milwaukee.

Nah...That's a pussy truck. Someone should have used one a Caterpillar 797 For more info about the truck that hauls 360 tons check out the article from car and driver a few years back. While it certainly rule out any chances of sneaking up on an enemy in combat, I think it could probably take whatever bumps/dips/light trucks it encounters in stride.

It was Caterpillar who made the power loaders used in the movie, but I've never heard that they are sold (or used) IRL.

That would be a Caterpillar D9 bulldozer. It used to be the biggest size used in heavy construction, but now they actually go up to D11. The D9R weighs a mere 48,874 kg (107,548lb.) in fighting trim, while the D11R CD, used mainly in mining, weighs 113,000 kg (248,100 lb.) There are mining machines large enough to carry a D9 in their bucket, and have room left over.

I note that the D11R CD features "smooth, one handed, Finger Tip Control (FTC) for steering and transmission".

The site doesn't work quite right in Opera 5 but the info is all there. The menus don't seem to work in Mozilla 1.0. Must be done by a Windozer :O)

That would be a Caterpillar D9 bulldozer. It used to be the biggest size used in heavy construction, but now they actually go up to D11. The D9R weighs a mere 48,874 kg (107,548lb.) in fighting trim, while the D11R CD, used mainly in mining, weighs 113,000 kg (248,100 lb.) There are mining machines large enough to carry a D9 in their bucket, and have room left over.

I note that the D11R CD features "smooth, one handed, Finger Tip Control (FTC) for steering and transmission".

The site doesn't work quite right in Opera 5 but the info is all there. The menus don't seem to work in Mozilla 1.0. Must be done by a Windozer :O)

The Duramax would be a great choice, I've read nothing but stellar things about it.

If 520 lb-ft of torque is simply not enough for you, then drop in a Caterpillar 3126B -- that's the plant which Ford put in their F-650 SuperCrewzer. It sports 860 lb-ft of torque, along with the same 300bhp.

In any case, this vehicle (however nice it is, otherwise) is clearly tainted by the fact it has a mere petrol engine. Convert to DERV immediately.

-cheers, csb

Caterpillar and several other companies make smaller ones (file cabinet sized). Check out Cat here .

maru

They don't say much about how well the tracks resist sideloads. Novice tank drivers often tear a track off the roadwheels by making abrupt turns. An important question is whether the track or the roadwheel breaks first; if it's the track, you can probably change it easily, but replacing a roadwheel is a job.

The Caterpillar Challenger line of agricultural tractors have been out for a few years now, and they have one of the best rubber track systems around. They look like a bolt-on for a wheeled tractor, but they're not; Caterpillar did a new tractor design. Among other things, they're capable of 25mph on-road operation, which is unusual for a tractor. Early buyers reported being pulled over by cops out of curiosity.

boo hoo. (i think i hear violins playing a sad song) Likewise a self service bank with out walls or a vault or guards(just a pile of money in an alley) might succeed if no one took advantage of them.

i can buy a a diesel engine from Caterpillar, add a chassis and a blade and resell it as a bulldozer competing directly against Cat's bulldozer. If Caterpillar sells the aforementioned engine at a loss then...well then maybe they're a little too stupid to stay in business. Netapliance simply should have known better

the moral : stupidity & short-sightedness deserve to be punished.