Slashdot Mirror


IBM, Other Multinationals "Detaching" From the US

theodp writes "If you're brilliant, work really hard, and earn a world-class doctorate from a US university, IBM has a job for you at one of its US research sites — as a 'complementary worker' (as this 1996 piece defined the then-emerging term). But be prepared to ship out to India or China after you've soaked up knowledge for 13 months as a 'long-term supplemental worker.' Newsweek sketches some of the bigger picture, reporting that IBM, HP, Accenture, and others are finding it profitable to detach from the United States (even patenting the process). 'IBM is one of the multinationals that propelled America to the apex of its power, and it is now emblematic of the process of creative destruction pushing America to a new, less dominant, and less comfortable position.'"

155 of 812 comments (clear)

  1. And the solution...? by XanC · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Instead of blaming them for leaving, why don't we stop chasing them away?

    1. Re:And the solution...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes because this all started the day Obama took office. Before that it was all peaches and sunshine.

      Stop watching Fox News ffs.

    2. Re:And the solution...? by bistromath007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because the stuff that's "chasing them away" is the same stuff that still nominally keeps the American people from being totally subjugated and destitute like the Chinese and Indians are. A corporation has one goal, by law: make money for the shareholders. Once one has grown so large that the vast majority of its competitors are insignificant, the best way for it to do that is to rape the worker and the consumer as hard is it can. Companies aren't going to stop leaving the US until we are so broken by their flight that we are forced to become fascist. We are doomed to this fate. There is nothing we can do about it anymore. But it still bothers me that you're cheering it on with your suggestion that the whole thing is the fault of interference with the free market.

    3. Re:And the solution...? by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You'll never be able to compete with wages in India, China, the Philippines, etc

      Every country grows up by companies not giving employees much. Then everything becomes dependant on those employees and they start demanding things, starting unions, wanting protection and business gets expensive so businesses move.

      Once everyone is on the same level of wealth companies can't move around or at least have less reason to. So that means either westerners need to start accepting less or ensure that poorer countries become less poor.

      This whole mentality that everything should be dirt cheap but wages should be high isn't helping either. Both the US and UK seem to have a thing again immigrants taking jobs but don't want to pay wages that locals will accept.

      You can't have it both ways and no matter what you think, the higher ups will always be paid more even if you the little guy does the actual work. You have to remember the higher ups are responsible for a lot and it's a risky job. They can even go to jail for something the little guy did without his knowledge.

    4. Re:And the solution...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Fucking idiot! This has been happening for the last decade, before Obama even came into the picture. The problem is greedy short term investors who drive companies to short term profits over long term profitability and quality. That's what unregulated capitalism does it drives towards the lowest common denominator - fastest profit with the highest cost at the lowest possible quality until a company implodes and can be sold off piece meal in order to put even more profits in the hands of the investors.

    5. Re:And the solution...? by JWman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ummm.... what about the second highest corporate tax rate in the world ? It sits at about 39%. I think that just might have something to do with wanting to leave.

      Corporate taxes are a joke. They just get passed on to the consumer anyway, and they make businesses less competitive internationally. But it is politically rewarding to go after the big evil corporations and for them to pay their way.

      Really, and end to corporate taxes is a big reason why I strongly support the FairTax . It would no longer hide the taxes we pay, and special interests would not be able to carve out exceptions for themselves life they do all the time now.

    6. Re:And the solution...? by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Informative

      You might want to look at the effective corporate tax rate, since no actual corporations pay 39% with our loophole-riddled tax code of exceptions, credits, and deductions. The actual rate they pay is about 22%, the 2nd-lowest in the developed world (after Ireland).

    7. Re:And the solution...? by LaskoVortex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You have to remember the higher ups are responsible for a lot and it's a risky job.

      Where did this myth come from that you get to be a higher up if you can just take the risk? 99% are "higher ups" because of birth right. The other 1% are held out there as tokens of the philosophy "if only you work hard enough for us higher-ups, you can make it too".

      Ask any poor guy with an inkling of sense and he'll gladly accept this "big bad risk" you speak of to make a truckload of money. I'd do it. Where is my executive position at Goldman Sachs?

      Nope. They aren't handing those positions out to people just because they want to take risks. You need to *KNOW* somebody, or better yet, be related to somebody. Otherwise, they could just hit any casino in Vegas to fill their empty executive positions.

      I'm not saying you can't make it in capitalist America if you try hard enough, but it sure does help if you choose your parents wisely. And the willingness to accept risk is not the reason people get to be higher ups.

      --
      Just callin' it like I see it.
    8. Re:And the solution...? by Nimey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Honestly, it will take a /long time/. I've known conservatives to pull "but Clinton!" even in the final year of Bush's term. It's about equally retarded no matter which side is doing it... though I'm still pissed that Bush got away with what he did.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    9. Re:And the solution...? by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's only worth it if your savings are higher than the cost of hiring accountants that can find and exploit these loopholes.

    10. Re:And the solution...? by Lordplatypus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Personally I have never understood why people are so convinced the solution to everything is the "free-market".

      The entire concept of a free market is based on a system free from external influence, force, fraud, or coercion. Am I the only one who notices that this isn't practical in a global setting without a centralized government?

      The only thing the Invisible Hand is doing is slapping down any businesses that are actually trying to do things in a fair and respectable way.

      In my view, the answer is easy. Take away the benefit of bad business. You want to sell products in the United States, just prove that all people and processes employed in the manufacture of the product meet the minimum standards of the United States. I know what most people would say; that would create a humongous amount of bureaucracy! It is true, but it would put everyone on a level playing field and on the bright side create lots of American jobs administrating it.

      --
      Diplomacy is the art of saying, 'Nice doggie!' till you can find a rock.-- Wynn Catlin
    11. Re:And the solution...? by node+3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Instead of blaming them for leaving, why don't we stop chasing them away?

      How about instead of letting them run off, we impose heavy import tariffs that negate (and then some) any savings? That's what other countries to to keep jobs and wealth in their nation (and it's what we used to do until Ronald Reagan came along).

      This is the fundamental flaw with "free market" capitalism, and this worshipping at the altar of absolute individual (as if a corporation is a human, deserving of human rights!) freedom. It worked for a short while, because there was a lot of room for domestic growth. But once that ran out, those monsters that we unleashed which served us well now must go on and find growth that they can no longer find here.

      20 years ago, the Conservative mantra was "buy 'made in America'", now it's "outsource, baby. outsource".

      The Democrats may not be a whole lot better on this, but at least they *are* better, and one of Obama's promises was to punish companies which move jobs overseas. Hopefully we can get the healthcare issue taken care of so we can move onto this. Although, looking at how the Republicans have gotten people to take up arms in protest of giving them healthcare, I don't think they'll have any problem convincing the peanut gallery that keeping jobs in America means slave labor camps or some such nonsense.

    12. Re:And the solution...? by Ryan_Singer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If this is true, why not simplify the tax code to get rid of the "exceptions, credits, and deductions", and then lower the rate to 22%. Then we could have a much easier time advertising our competitiveness, and we could eliminate some of the compliance costs and deadweight loss in the tax code.

      --
      Ryan Singer
    13. Re:And the solution...? by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Corporate taxes are a joke. They just get passed on to the consumer anyway, and they make businesses less competitive internationally. But it is politically rewarding to go after the big evil corporations and for them to pay their way.

      Bullshit.

      Are you telling me it's taxes are just enough that Sony has to â299 for the PS3 in the EU and $299 in the US and that it has nothing to do with the euro being worth more therefore allowing them to make a bigger profit for no additional work?

      Or why MS may be raising the price of the of the 360 arcade in the UK depsite the fact manufactuer costs are probably lower as is inflation? I'm sure it has nothing to do with the increase on the pound over the dollar and therefore a small rise means a larger rise in profits. http://www.edge-online.com/news/xbox-360-arcade-getting-a-price-increase

      The fact is nothing will ever be good enough for corporations as long as it's cheaper elsewhere. Even if they paid no tax in the US, if the over all cost was cheaper in India they'd go there.

      What they ought to do is allow companies to go where ever they want but the directors have to live where the majority of their employees live.

    14. Re:And the solution...? by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That would be the sensible solution, I agree. But I suspect it in no way would benefit the corporations who whine about corporate tax: they want it to have a high headline rate (so they can whine) but lots of hidden deductions (so they don't have to pay it). In particular, if you were to pick any exception as a place to start eliminating loopholes, you'd immediately run into an army of lobbyists who care very much about that particular exception. They're all there for a reason, after all, and usually the reason is that someone with deep pockets really wanted that loophole.

    15. Re:And the solution...? by blind+biker · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The truth is, nowadays more than ever, getting a top management position is due to effectively manipulating other people - and who is more effective at manipulating than corporate psychopaths, especially in the chaotic world of publicly traded corporations?

      This is why

      1) executives rarely care for the long-term viability of the company they lead, opting instead for a short-term uptick where they can cash in and then leave.
      2) these people can always find another executive position, once they leave their previous company, regardless of how dire the state they caused their company to get into - they can manipulate people so well that they will find an accepting armchair immediately.
      3) BODs are filled with people who just move from company to company, from one executive position to the other.
      4) golf is so damn important for them - that's where they network and prepare their parachutes.

      I strongly recommend you read this book. It's an eye-opener.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    16. Re:And the solution...? by benjamindees · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I agree with all of this, and it's sad that someone has to point it out. In a globalized economy, the US is not able to compete on price. We don't have the natural resources. We don't have the cheap labor.

      We can only compete on quality. We have many advantages. Low population density, decent schools, lots of infrastructure. But with free trade, even that probably isn't enough to keep us on top. Developing countries will eventually catch up.

      If we import immigrants to compete with third world countries, we will become a third world country. If we export capital in order to "raise up" third world countries, same result.

      Let's face it. We aren't particularly productive. Our government is not particularly great. We aren't particularly "free".

      But we have a head start. So we don't have to bend over backwards in order to prevent companies like IBM from leaving. They don't do anything that other companies can't do. Western countries are still their primary market. Their employees are still educated in Western schools.

      So let's just shut the door behind them. Raise tariffs on so-called "multinationals" that produce elsewhere and sell here. And rid ourselves of the delusion that Americans owning stock in these companies is worth the loss of jobs and revenue that goes with them when they decide to flee the country.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    17. Re:And the solution...? by JWman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This also ignores the tax compliance costs built into our current system. The deductions are not automatic, they have to be carefully planned for in most cases. How much time is spent each year by corporations considering the tax implications of a particular business move? And then how much overhead is there to doing the necessary paperwork to prove tax compliance in the event of an audit? It is an astounding amount of waste, and leads to companies wanting to do business where taxes are lower and simpler to pay than in the U.S.

      Also, while deductions do bring the tax rate down, there is also the state and local taxes that business are hit with, and those associated compliance costs.

      We have a horrible, horrible tax system. These issues also affect individuals as well as businesses, I'm just focusing on corporate taxes because of the silliness of the thinking that corporations pay any tax whatsoever. Their taxes and compliance costs are built into the price of goods that we buy and that they export to other countries.

    18. Re:And the solution...? by canuck57 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Fucking idiot! This has been happening for the last decade, before Obama even came into the picture. The problem is greedy short term investors who drive companies to short term profits over long term profitability and quality. That's what unregulated capitalism does it drives towards the lowest common denominator - fastest profit with the highest cost at the lowest possible quality until a company implodes and can be sold off piece meal in order to put even more profits in the hands of the investors.

      I differ, to do business in the US is now too legally complex and too tax expensive. INS is too meddlesome, keeping the good people out... why tolerate it any more? Just like my investments, most of my trades on the NYSE are in companies with a healthy offshore content as with even more liberalism and associate loss of freedoms and more increases in taxation promised there is no way US is going to lead a recovery.

      Now if you believe the recession/depression is over, go ahead, the evidence says not with 550,000 job loss in a traditionally good month of July says different.

      Americans can compete, but the environment of more bigger expensive dominating government is a load too big to do it. Get the moneys off the workers backs, and recovery will occur. That includes making corporate welfare to banks and GM a federal criminal offense as it should be. Nothing in the constitution says people coast to coast should be subsidizing banks and corporations.

      Get the parasites and corruption out of the system and prosperity will return.

    19. Re:And the solution...? by iluvcapra · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Personally I have never understood why people are so convinced the solution to everything is the "free-market".

      Because it is simple and morally destitute. If an economy is formed by actors that are completely rational, free and efficient, then everyone who is poor and destitute obviously had it coming.

      Also see panglossianism, and the long-standing tradition of certain popular philosophers to cater to the prejudices, and salve the aching consciences, of the rich and powerful, and to let them know that, yes, everything is A-OK with you in charge.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    20. Re:And the solution...? by babyrat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The myth of course is based in reality. There are many risks along the way to becoming successful. How many people do you know who stay in their current job because they are afraid of what might happen if they take a shot at a higher level job?

      How many successes came about as the result of betting the farm (figuratively) on some idea? People that were willing to risk everything they owned because they believed in themselves?

    21. Re:And the solution...? by FooAtWFU · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The idea that "import taxes will fix everything" is bogus magical thinking, because "jobs" aren't what makes a country rich. Wealth, ultimately, is something that you have (or possibly something that you experience) and the US imports a lot of Things from overseas and there ends up being more stuff for everyone. Forcing Americans to pay top dollar (or pay penalties) for American labor and American factories for their shampoo and their cars and their Ikea furniture does not mean that people in America will end up with more cars and shampoo and Ikea furniture.

      Economic studies have shown that your typical $50k/yr manufacturing job "saved" by tariffs costs the rest of the economy over $100,000-$200,000/yr. That's no way to make your country wealthy. And in the intermediate-to-long run it probably won't mean half as many jobs as it means "robots".

      And in the case of IBM employees, don't try to sell me baloney that says they're being "exploited" like a sweatshop. Mmf.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    22. Re:And the solution...? by hairyfeet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And how do you propose we do that? Allow them to dump toxins into YOUR backyard? Maybe bring back the 'good old days" of sweatshops and child labor?

      These assholes aren't leaving us for the EU, which also disallows dumping of toxins and worker abuse. Nope, they are going to the good old third world, where they can poison and abuse to their evil little hearts content. And considering the companies history of putting profits above everything, including human lives and suffering, i say good fucking riddance. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

      BTW we should take any and ALL tax breaks away from companies currently shipping their jobs overseas. if they want to move that is fine, but we sure as shit don't need to be giving them tax breaks to help pay for the move. If the third world wants to suck on a tailpipe and have air and water and soil unfit for humans then fine and dandy. But with out current oligarchy bending over backwards to big corps as it is, I personally say enough is enough. I am tired of "too big to fail", I am tired of tax breaks for companies that then fuck us with them, and I am tired of our laws being decided by who has the biggest checkbook. Maybe when the two parties have run us so far into the ground we look like Brazil we will line both of the parties against the wall and start over. Because as it is now we get royally fucked by the mega corps and it still isn't enough. Just look at the "superfund" sites dumped on us by corps like Haliburton as an example. I say we have kissed enough corporate booty, thanks ever so much.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    23. Re:And the solution...? by MartinSchou · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not just that, but what risk exactly?

      They're paid enough that if they reduced their own personal cost of living to that or a normal working class citizen, they could get fired after one year and easily live off the salary for 10 years without having to worry about getting a job.

      Sure, if they do something insanely horrible, they might not be able to get a job as a CEO again, but that doesn't mean they can't work as unskilled labour like everybody else in need of a job.

      But that never happens. When's the last time you heard of a CEO being fired for gross incompetence and having to live off of food stamps and government support? So, yeah - what risk exactly?

      Hell, if you gave me 100 million dollars, I'd gladly go on national television in the US and say that I was personally responsible for the current economic collapse. Hell, I'd gladly spend 10 years in jail for it, as long as I had that 100 million dollars (well, better make sure it's in euros actually) when I got out of jail.

      It's not like "white collar" criminals are given a hard time in jail - look at Bernie Madoff. He caused 13,200 million dollars of losses, and he's still alive in jail. I haven't heard that he's been the victim of any kind of violence there either, yet you'd almost expect someone in jail to know someone on the outside who lost fortunes.

      So yeah - what risk exactly?

    24. Re:And the solution...? by whipple-spree · · Score: 2, Insightful

      After your clear-cut a plot, you don't stick around for the view.

    25. Re:And the solution...? by ShakaUVM · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >>The Democrats may not be a whole lot better on this, but at least they *are* better, and one of Obama's promises was to punish companies which move jobs overseas.

      Are you serial?

      Obama's plan was to tax American corporations for outsourcing, which would have the effect of them moving overseas entirely. It's one of the most fucktarded ideas ever conceived.

    26. Re:And the solution...? by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Corporate taxes are a joke. They just get passed on to the consumer anyway . . .

      Q: How do you get a laissez-faire capitalist to stop talking about market pricing, supply and demand, etc?

      A: Bring up taxes or any other cost that he doesn't like and suddenly it gets passed straight through to the consumer.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    27. Re:And the solution...? by node+3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The idea that "import taxes will fix everything" is bogus magical thinking, because "jobs" aren't what makes a country rich.

      Wealth is 100% resources and what people do with those resources. If you mine iron ore, it has a set value. If you ship that iron to China to have it refined and turned into steel, then ship it back to the US, we have to pay more for it than we sold it for, and that is wealth being transferred out of the country. If the iron had stayed in the US, it would have cost more to refine, but at least all that wealth would have stayed here.

      Economic studies have shown that your typical $50k/yr manufacturing job "saved" by tariffs costs the rest of the economy over $100,000-$200,000/yr.

      The "economy" isn't fungible. Using your numbers, those $50k/year jobs help a lot of people, while that $100k-$200k helps only a few.

      And it gets worse. If you siphon that $50k to create $200k in the short term, you end up with an economy without a foundation. How long do you think those $200k "boosts" to the economy are going to last if people aren't working?

      This insistence on geometric economic growth is going to end like *all* geometric scenarios end.

    28. Re:And the solution...? by HanzoSpam · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Instead of blaming them for leaving, why don't we stop chasing them away?

      I have a better idea - bar them from operating in the US altogether, and give their smaller competitors an opportunity to fill the void.

      --

      Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
    29. Re:And the solution...? by erroneus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Chasing them away? They seek lower "labor overhead" and they are getting it overseas. Taxes are far from the only and certainly not the most important reason for what we are seeing. We limit the amount of cheap labor they can import and punish them for breaking the law when they abuse the worker import programs.

      It seems to me that being a bit more protectionist rather than less is an appropriate measure. Take away more than their foreign workers -- take away their government contracts and their right to operate in the U.S. entirely. Sure they might survive even under those circumstances, but the U.S. is STILL likely to be their biggest customers.

      We have a horrible imbalance of wealth in the U.S. that people don't like talking about. We've heard about the disappearing middle class but no one seems to be listening or caring. The problem is that the stuff that is being sold is less and less affordable by the people in the U.S. For the past 20 years, people have failed to notice it because we've all been practicing "Reaganomics" or "debt financing" or "deficit spending" or however you prefer to phrase it. Instead of having a savings and an investment portfolio, the average American doesn't even have more than $2000 in the bank at any one time living paycheck to paycheck and trying to keep their credit cards paid. That can't work for much longer as people are making less and less money.

      The free market without controls and preventative measures allows unscrupulous people to get away all sorts of evil things. Greed knows no limits and greedy people know no limits. Screaming for "more free market" is just a cry for "please look somewhere else while I pull another Enron or Madoff!" The free market forces leading to the brain drain in the U.S. has been weaking this country for a VERY long time and we're just about to hit the bottom that the few have been warning everyone about. The U.S. won't be #1 much longer and we can see why.

    30. Re:And the solution...? by RobNich · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And how much does it cost to hire accountants and lawyers to exploit those loopholes?

      --
      Hello little man. I will destroy you!
    31. Re:And the solution...? by LaskoVortex · · Score: 2, Informative

      Research social mobility some time and educate yourself.

      Ok:

      Recent researchers collecting data on the economic mobility of families across generations, looked at the probability of reaching a particular income distribution in regards to where their parents were ranked and found that 42 percent of those whose parents were in the bottom quintile ended up in the bottom quintile themselves, 23 percent of them ended in the second quintile, 19 percent in the middle quintile, 11 percent in the fourth quintile and 6 percent in the top quintile.[1] These data indicate the difficulty of upward intergenerational mobility.

      --
      Just callin' it like I see it.
    32. Re:And the solution...? by ShakaUVM · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/national/20050515_CLASS_GRAPHIC/index_03.html

      Barely more than half of the people in the top 20% of the income bracket were still there even 10 years later. Not even close to the 99% intergenerational figure you were trying to claim.

    33. Re:And the solution...? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People who use Leibniz to justify free-marketism are no better than the Nazis who tried to justify themselves using Nietzsche.

      And it was Godwin, not Leibniz, who stretched optimism to ridiculous lengths.

      There, I've double-Godwinned the thread. Time to move on. :)

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    34. Re:And the solution...? by therealkevinkretz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The whole thing *is* the fault of interference with the free market. Large corporations benefit from economies of scale, but that doesn't offset their inertia and small business can respond much more quickly. But government is for sale to big corporations (who donate to both sides in campaigns so someone owes them no matter what). The problem is that politicians are whores, and they're perpetually campaigning. Simplify the tax code to take away all these unfair legislated advantages (as well as your whine that the US "effective" tax rate is higher that other countries') and implement term limits.

    35. Re:And the solution...? by ShakaUVM · · Score: 2, Informative

      >>You don't get it. If there were perfect class mobility, then 20% of the top would stay in the top and 20% of the top would move to the very bottom.

      No, you have it completely backwards. Our null hypothesis is that people will be making around the same amount of money in 10 years as they do today. The fact that 45% of people fall out of the top bracket in a mere 10 years is evidence of a huge amount of social mobility.

      >>It is a class mobility that incorporates a heavy dose of birthright. Your NYTimes page proved my point. Thanks.

      If you want to see what birthright actually looks at, read some studies of social mobility when Europe had a noble class, or even under socialist regimes like modern-day France. Socialist regimes are quite conservative when it comes to social change. They don't let their corporations fail, and crush up-and-coming competitors. So whereas a Mr. Facebook could make his millions in America, in a socialist regime the established company would crush it and stop him from rising in class.

  2. who cares what IBM do by postmortem · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Entrepreneurship is what is cause of success in US. That made all big companies work in first place. As long as there are smart people in US and smart people with ideas and execution to create companies, we're fine.

  3. Who's chasing them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We have the lowest effective corporate tax rates in the world for a developed nation. That still isn't enough I guess. American justice, American greed. Maybe if we stopped doing stupid shit like invading Iraq and keepng bases all over the world we could reduce that tax rate even further! But they'd still leave for a cheaper place.

    1. Re:Who's chasing them? by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Informative

      I hope the "we" you are talking about isn't the US. We actually have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world.

      Perhaps Google would have helped you a little.

    2. Re:Who's chasing them? by ClosedSource · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually corporations owe the public a lot.

      Incorporation's primary purpose is to shield those who make the profit from the consequences of their company's actions. If this legal shield is ever removed we can start talking about everybody being on their own but it's absurd under current law.

    3. Re:Who's chasing them? by bitrex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As if US corporations ever actually pay anywhere near what the rates actually are - any corporation can find innumerable tax loopholes while setting up offshore holding companies to cut the effective rate down to nearly nothing. Goldman Sachs paid an effective 1% tax rate in 2008, many US corporations manage to get an effective rate of 0% and pay no taxes at all. I'm all for reducing corporate tax rates, if the loopholes are closed so that the rates set down have some actual fiscal meaning.

    4. Re:Who's chasing them? by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Informative

      In 2007, Exxon reported paying a 44% effective tax rate in their sec filings.

      Goldman sax went bankrupt in 2008 didn't they? Remember the bank bailouts? Besides, they paid a 34% effective tax the previous year and attributed the lowered tax rate to the increase in permanent benefits as a percentage of lower earnings and changes in geographic earnings mix. This means that the their profits were paid out and the tax money didn't disapear, it will be paid by those people.

      You entire 0% rate is fictional to any company that is solvent. It isn't because of loopholes and it isn't because the rates set down don't have any meaning. The rates have an effective disposition because they are higher then what they should be and the government lowers them for companies who do certain things they want them to do. It's like the mortgage interest deduction, if your making over a certain amount of money, you should be owning instead of renting in order to lower your tax burden. That's by design and accurately reflects the intended rates. What doesn't accurately reflect the intended rates, is you misunderstanding of the tax system and those who participate.

    5. Re:Who's chasing them? by Mansing · · Score: 2, Informative

      We actually have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world.

      This is true. Please provide the names of the corporations in the Fortune 500 that actually pay that rate.

    6. Re:Who's chasing them? by HangingChad · · Score: 5, Informative

      We actually have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world.

      You're quoting KPMG and right wing propaganda machines as authoritative sources on corporate tax rates? Edwin Feulner runs the Heritage Foundation, one of the groups helping organize the "Tea-Birthers". One of his own favorite quotes:

      "We conduct warfare in the battle of ideas."

      Yes, they do. And those ideas are almost always promoting conservative policy items including corporate welfare. The tax rate is meaningless, the US is actually a corporate tax haven. Because of exceptions, credits, deductions, depreciation and amortization, plus a little lawful and unlawful income shifting, tax deferments and shelters, the effective rate paid by corporations in the US (13.4%) was below the average (16.1%) for the 19 OECD nations in 2000-05. So, sure, lower the tax rate and close off the deductions, then watch those very sources have a collective heart attack.

      You'll believe anything if it's on Fox News.

      --
      That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    7. Re:Who's chasing them? by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Exxon, They paid about 44% in 2007 and 47% in 2008. BTW, that comes to around 35 billion per year in taxes they paid.

      The rate isn't there to be actually paid. The government provided deductions and exemptions in order to steer businesses into certain directions and to get certain things accomplished that wouldn't have normally happened. The rate, just like you do no pay your actual rate, is 1: graduated progressively so it will never be the entire amount, and 2: it's there only for people and companies who do not follow the direction the government wants them to.

    8. Re:Who's chasing them? by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Informative

      Everyone's actual effective tax rate is lower then the applicable rate. That's by design and because we have a progressive tax system. If you are in the 25% bracket, you are not paying 25% on all your earning, you are paying 25% on the amounts over the threshold that brings you to that bracket.

      I do not know what you point is unless it's that you are ignorant of the tax system and want to claim having a 34% effective rate while being in a 45% bracket is somehow taking advantage of loopholes.

    9. Re:Who's chasing them? by HangingChad · · Score: 4, Funny

      You got a little spittle running from your foamy mouth there skippy. Maybe the nurse can wipe that off for you after computer time is over.

      --
      That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    10. Re:Who's chasing them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Goldman did not go bankrupt. They made a nice profit every quarter in 2008 except for Q4. They were positive for the year. Q1 of 2009 they had record earnings $3.4B.

      Exxon's rate of 44% includes taxes (mostly) paid to foreign governments. They don't pay that in the US. Foreign governments hit them hard and they can't dodge it because of the physical need to drill.

    11. Re:Who's chasing them? by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm not sure why this is a troll, unless we've got some very unschooled libertarians moderating tonight.

      Corporations owe their complete existence to the government and the people. A corporation is a legal entity created out of nothing by government action, and supported by the people. Benefits include tax breaks, jurisdictional freedom, limits on officer liability, access to publicly run and regulated markets (Wall Street), and so on.

      Private companies, on the other hand, are not corporations, and do not owe a certain responsibility to the public.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    12. Re:Who's chasing them? by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How can you be modded informative when you

      1) Spell it Goldman sax. Come on, even Kenny G. is wincing at that one.

      2) Say they went bankrupt. That's wrong, wrong, wrong.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    13. Re:Who's chasing them? by HanzoSpam · · Score: 5, Informative

      Wikipedia says the US has one of the highest corporate tax rates. Ireland is only 12.5%, making it a corporate tax haven.

      Too bad that's not stopping IBM from laying off Irish workers, too.

      --

      Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
    14. Re:Who's chasing them? by jcr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're quoting KPMG and right wing propaganda machines as authoritative sources on corporate tax rates

      KPMG is a global accounting firm. Perhaps you could explain why you believe they would misstate tax rates?

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    15. Re:Who's chasing them? by Slavik81 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Goldman sax went bankrupt in 2008 didn't they?

      Actually, Goldman Saches did not go bankrupt in 2008. In fact, they did relatively well throughout the crisis. Your response to the other poster explaining that they could have gone bankrupt while still making profit is also irrelevent, because they didn't go brankrupt.

    16. Re:Who's chasing them? by HangingChad · · Score: 2, Informative

      Global accounting firm...what allegiance do they have to the truth? Hey, someone had to take Arthur Andersen's place. They come in, five or six of them, once a quarter and take over a meeting room or hallway with their little laptop network and their job is to make sure that your actual corporate tax rate comes out at or below that 13% figure. Or that at least you don't get caught cheating too much. And if you think there isn't collusion between the auditors and executive row, then maybe one day you'll be able to work up to a cubicle with a red Swingline stapler.

      All KPMG cares about is billing. And you can bet anything they publish, anywhere, is tied to that goal. Your marginal tax rate is 35%, second only to Japan...you guys keep leaving out that talking point. People spent a lot of money on think tanks and PR for those talking points, you should at least include that one when you're parroting shit you hear on one of the business channels or Fox News. But if you use our auditing service we can show you the tricks to get your actual tax rate down to just 13% (plus our billing, which is in very small print).

      Maybe you've heard of their IT consulting group, BoringPoint...I mean, BearingPoint. Or did they spin off that loser finally? They would sell Girl Scout cookies if it would increase their billing, so they certainly are going to tell their client base what they want to hear. Hell, half their board are probably also the people in those think tanks spending the money to get people like you to vote against their own interests. And that's the only part amazing to me, is how they manage to convince hordes of stupid poor people to vote against their interests so consistently. Just amazing. It's like those street cons playing a rigged game, only the chump never catches on. Or maybe they think that if they work hard, some day, they'll be at the top of the pile. Yeah, you keep believing that...but first you have to earn that red Swingline stapler for your cubicle.

      --
      That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  4. So? by mosb1000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And your point is? Maybe we should prohibit these businesses from operating in the states. Oh wait, that's why they're leaving. . . And that's the problem.

    Patriotism is a highly overrated trait in anything/anybody. If it's better to leave, why stay?

    1. Re:So? by __aarzwb9394 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The point is that people have been told for the last 30-40 years that "business" (whatever that actually means) is intrinsically good for the western world. Many people believed this, and now they are surprised.

    2. Re:So? by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm pretty sure if we actually "prohibit[ed] these business from operating in the states" that they'd go bankrupt pretty quickly: IBM would not last a month if it were prohibited from selling products or services in the United States.

    3. Re:So? by benjamindees · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ceteris paribus, economizing resources is intrinsically good for everyone.

      Obviously there are some implementation details that get in the way of that always working out. Recognizing and correcting market failure, force and fraud should be the primary function of government regulations meant to ensure we all benefit from the "economy". The US government has clearly demonstrated it is not up to that task.

      Worse, there are entire swaths of activities that much of American society considers "beneficial" which actually constitute unwarranted force: foreign warfare, welfare, retirement entitlements, unchecked immigration, employment policies, monopolization of natural resources. Few states, let alone the US, even philosophically recognize most of these as such. As far as I am aware, none recognize them all.

      Businesses will naturally move to states with the most beneficial regulatory environment for them. Those with high labor costs will move to states with high populations or unchecked immigration. Those with high materials costs will move to states where they can easily monopolize natural resources or where an imperialistic military will ensure resource availability. Those that perform dangerous work will move to states with socialized healthcare and little ability for legal recourse by injured parties. Polluting industries will move to states with few environmental regulations. Et cetera, et cetera...

      But the US economy will never function for the benefit of all Americans until all unwarranted force is regulated and eliminated and economic activity proceeds on a voluntary basis for all involved.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
  5. M*U*L*T*I*N*A*T*I*O*N*A*L*S by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They are multinational corporations... what kind of national loyalty are we expecting from them?
    They behave exactly as legislation allows them to behave. If you don't like it, change the legislation.

    1. Re:M*U*L*T*I*N*A*T*I*O*N*A*L*S by __aarzwb9394 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Attempt to change the legislation and be called an America-hating Hitler-Nazi-Communist-Socialist-Terrorist-Muslim-Paedophile.

    2. Re:M*U*L*T*I*N*A*T*I*O*N*A*L*S by moosesocks · · Score: 3, Funny

      Attempt to change the legislation and be called an America-hating Hitler-Nazi-Communist-Socialist-Terrorist-Muslim-Paedophile.

      That many hyphens, and you couldn't find room for a homophobic slur?

      And to think you call yourself an American... Hmmph!

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
  6. Better Idea: by FatSean · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Reduce the tax rate but eliminate loopholes.

    Or, we could close up all those expensive shit-stirring military bases, stop the failed wars (oh Korea and Vietnam, I wish we had learned from you..) and cancel social security, medicare and medicaid.

    --
    Blar.
  7. Corporations are Greedy by Nerdfest · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Large corporations are not good citizens and care little about the welfare of the nations that created them. I've heard them described as sociopathic is nature, which is probably quite an accurate description. They rarely have any long term vision in most cases and only seem to look a quarter or two ahead to make investors happy. Limiting their greed just slightly compared to their competitors might earn some good will in the future, but even that seems to be beyond most corporations.

    1. Re:Corporations are Greedy by speedtux · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Large corporations are not good citizens and care little about the welfare of the nations that created them. I've heard them described as sociopathic is nature,

      What definition of "good citizen" would that be? Someone who turns down a high paying job abroad and works on a low paying job in his country of birth? Why is that good? Do you know anybody who actually behaves that way?

      Plenty of people leave their home nations because they get a better paying job or a higher quality of life elsewhere. America has benefited tremendously from that because so many exceptionally skilled people have come to the US from other nations.

      Of course, as the US becomes less attractive to individuals and US immigration becomes ever more tighter, corporations are leaving as well. It's simple, rational behavior, and both corporations and individuals behave accordingly.

    2. Re:Corporations are Greedy by bitrex · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's touching that you care so much about your brothers and sisters in the global village - as an American you can rest assured that they couldn't give a fuck less about you. The "citizen of the world" mindset is a predominantly White American/European peculiarity that I imagine is the result of both relatively long term economic prosperity, the underlying Christian ideology that America was founded on, and the rise in power of predominately left-wing philosophies that came to the forefront post 1960.

      Unfortunately, take away one of these elements, and the house of cards collapses. Outside of the Western world there are essentially two things that matter: Nation and Race. When you are competing with people whose belief structures center around those concepts (and you will compete with them, as bringing up the standard of living in those nations to that of the West is impossible given the Earth's finite resources), having the "citizen of the world" mindset is effective suicide. Interestingly, every time there is an economic downturn in the developed world those nasty nationalistic ideas seem to be rediscovered: for example the recent election of members of the UK's BNP to the EU parliament and the uproar that went along with it. Why should this be so? In the developing world, every political party is a nationalist party, essentially by definition. The 21st century as I see it will hardly be a century of the fruition of the "global citizen" ideal, but because of declining resources the first element of the house of cards, economic prosperity, will start to be dismantled. The defining characteristic of the 21st century will be the rise of ethnopolitics and hypernationalism.

    3. Re:Corporations are Greedy by JanneM · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Large corporations are not good citizens and care little about the welfare of the nations that created them.

      Um, most citizens are not good citizens then. And if a corporation shifting their focus to foreign markets is somehow unpatriotic, do you feel the same about individuals doing the same?

      I have left my country of birth - the country where I I grew up and got my education - to work and live in a different country. I still like my old home, and I still "do business" there, but my work is certainly mainly benefiting my current country.

      Am I being unpatriotic? If so, are foreign students staying in the US to work and live also being unpatriotic?

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    4. Re:Corporations are Greedy by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hmmm this is interesting, you basically called every non-western country both racist and nationalist. I'm not sure how you got modded up for that when it is such obvious flamebait. I mean, have you even met many people of a non-western ethnicity? They aren't as bad as you seem to think. Try visiting some of these other countries sometime, most people are actually really nice.

      I have seen a few third world countries (heck, I'm practically from one myself). GP is spot on - nationalism is par for the course outside the West. Racism, less prominent, but still there. "Help your own before anyone else" is part of that mentality, and I've noticed that it often correlates with quality of life - the lower that is, the more likely this approach is to be practiced. A Somali proverb sums it up nicely:

      Me and my clan against the world.
      Me and my family against my clan.
      Me and my brother against my family.
      Me against my brother.

      This doesn't contradict your statement that "most people are actually really nice". As it often happens, they are - so long as you keep away from some topics.

      As Christ said so simply, "Love thine enemies." Whether you believe in Christ or not, it doesn't matter, that is a good and effective strategy.

      Early Christians, which actually applied said strategy, don't strike me as a particularly inspiring example. The strategy served them well to reach their goals (which is to get to heaven as soon as possible, ensuring your place there via martyrdom), but I would rather ensure my enemies' place in hell while staying on this plane of existence, thank you very much.

      At the same time, Christianity only rose as a truly prominent religion when it allowed itself to be adopted as a state religion, and started to rely on state violence to spread and secure its well-being.

    5. Re:Corporations are Greedy by phantomfive · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Eh, loving your enemies doesn't mean letting them kill you or torture you. It means being nice and well, loving, even though they may not deserve it. Real love is the strongest power on the earth because of this.

      As a moderate example, consider our fight with Japan at the end of world war two. After we beat Japan, we could have taken all their resources, enslaved them, and raped their women. It is what they did, and they fully expected us to. But we didn't, we turned around and helped them rebuild. It was a loving gesture, though not an entirely pure love, and it completely changed the Japanese from being our enemies to being our friends. If the love had been more pure, the effect would have been even more clear.

      The greatest power is through influencing other people. One man can do so much by himself, but if he can command an army of others, then his power increases dramatically. You can convince other people to follow you for money, or from fear of death, but the most powerful way to influence others is through love.

      That said, truly loving others is not easy.

      --
      Qxe4
    6. Re:Corporations are Greedy by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You haven't travelled far. And to be honest, there are quite a few countries that are considered parts of the western world that are also of this "non-western" mindset. Even simply southern Europe already has no shortage of countries with essentially only ethnically centered parties.

      You're probably a typical liberal. You either haven't travelled, or haven't left the hotel. After all, getting actual answers from people requires knowing the language, so at the very least very good french is required. And even with french you have to keep in mind that the more religious types outside of france will simply refuse to speak french, so you are basically only talking to secular-government minded people (which are fortunately over 80% even in the worst places I've ever visited)

      The grandparent post is right that, barring tiny exceptions, all north-african political parties are ethnically AND religiously centered. I haven't visited Asia yet, so I don't know. I do doubt it's much different there. And quite frankly, even in Europe every last country has a sizeable ethnically centered party, and a sizeable religiously focused party, even if the religious aspect is currently mostly downplayed. At the very least one per country. They "are hated" they are "racist", but there isn't a single european country where ethnically-centered parties don't command at least 20% of the vote, and more typically 30-40%. If the religion-focused party would join with the ethnically focused party, which is a VERY unlikely prospect, they would command large majorities everywhere in Europe.

      America is a special case because it's got only 2 parties. In reality the racists and ethnically centered idiots are divided amongst both parties. Those "own people first" idiots are overwhelmingly socialists, so they are somewhat deterred from the republican party even if that party is more America-centric than the democrats. And other loony racist groups cannot put themselves over the gun issue, and thus vote republican, probably not for reasons that actual republicans would like to know about.

  8. Stop Running Trade Deficits by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Stop running trade deficits. Tariffs against lopsided trade are not the big evil that right-wing economists say they are. If other countries stopped running trade surpluses with us, they'd have to create a stronger local consumer class, which would start to even out monetary differences and even out imports. Balance balance balance.

    1. Re:Stop Running Trade Deficits by Unoti · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We totally shouldn't have government regulation. Except for the fact that pure capitalism tends to exploit children, exploit workers or both.

      I'm all for free trade and as little government intervention as possible, too. But capitalism is all about short term gain regardless of the impact on the people or the environment. It's human nature that's got us screwed.

      It's the main reason the ideas of The Long Now Foundation are so interesting.

    2. Re:Stop Running Trade Deficits by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Good point. Their labor is often cheaper because they poorly regulate:

      * Pollution
      * Safety
      * Child-labor
      * Working hours
      * Paycheck laws
      * Etc.

      Should our goal be to compete with slaves, or end (de-facto) slavory?
           

  9. Its the law of the jungle by Tokolosh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Egyptians complained about the English "stealing" their cotton spinning and weaving business. The English complained about the Yankee New Englanders, who complained about the Southerners, who complained about the Mexicans, who complained about the Malaysians who are complaining about the Chinese and Indians.

    When I say "complained", I mean passed laws and regulations, imposed sanctions, taxes and duties, fought wars, battled smuggling, and whined.

    In the long run, the laws of econonics ALWAYS win. The US should fix the causes, not the symptoms.

    --
    Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    1. Re:Its the law of the jungle by demachina · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "The US should fix the causes, not the symptoms."

      I'm pretty sure that entails:

      - Reducing the wages of most workers to the vicinity of a dollar an hour, maybe $10 an hour if you are highly educated and skilled, and maybe get work weeks up to around 70 hours with no vacations and no overtime pay.
      - Eliminate all taxes on corporations and reduce taxes on the wealthy below 15% which is where it already is on capital gains and billionaire hedge fund managers. They also don't want to pay any payroll taxes or health insurance. Taxing workers making a subsistence wage in to the ground is still OK as long as they don't pay any of it.
      - They want their taxes eliminated but they still want the government and tax payers to give them billions of dollars in government contracts, bail outs, low interest loans, free money from the Fed, subsidies, etc.
      - They want schools that drill their workers intensively for about 16 years in math, science, computers and obedience. Don't bother with arts, independent thinking or creativity... kind of like "No Child Left Behind" on steroids.
      - They would probably favor a totalitarian regime as long as its pro multinational, basically Fascist leaning as long as the party is their friend and makes them lots of money. Two ideal examples of perfect governments for multinationals are the new China and 1930's Germany. And yes IBM did love the Nazi's in the 1930's too. They want their workers thoroughly cowed, subservient, afraid and most definitely not organized.

      The best fix for these American idiot CEO's, out to make a quick bug with no regard to long term consequences, is to strip them of their citizenship, and deport to them to their new corporate headquarters in China and India. I think once they get to live in China full time, with no ticket home to the U.S., and get to endure the repression, censorship, corruption like a real Chinese citizen, they will change their tune. They will especially realize their mistake when they get on the wrong side of a party boss or a company owned by powerful party members. Right now China is nice to them and is kissing their asses while they turn over all their capital, jobs, IP and market access. Chances are once they have all those and have their own version of IBM, owned by powerful party bosses, like Lenovo, they will completely destroy IBM and every other western corporation who sold their long term survival down the river for a few years of cheap labor, illusory access to China's markets and short term profit.

      --
      @de_machina
    2. Re:Its the law of the jungle by Corbets · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Oh yes, as long as we're doing quid pro quo, let's send everyone who talks about the horrors of living in China and such actually live there themselves - while I admit there are problems there, my Chinese friends have never thought it's as bad as you seem to believe. Oh, and let's make everyone who complains about "idiot CEOs" pay the same tax rate as upper management too.

      Why do you people somehow think that "corporations" (by which I assume you mean upper management, as corporations don't think) want robots? Sure, there are some jobs where you just need someone to go through the motions; but there are plenty of other jobs where you need someone who's capable of improvising, someone who's capable of making intelligent decisions, and the kinds of "slaves" you describe above don't meet that criteria. So some jobs get shipped out, but new jobs get created; if our workforce is capable (which your post seems to imply, by highlighting how much worse the workforce is in other countries) then they'll be hired for those sorts of jobs instead.

    3. Re:Its the law of the jungle by demachina · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "my Chinese friends have never thought it's as bad as you seem to believe"

      Most people living in Fascist states don't mind them until they fall on them like a ton of bricks, and at that point you aren't likely to be chit chatting with them. Fascist states are usually very good at producing jobs and economic progress so as long as you aren't on the wrong side of the party most people are fine with them. Most people don't care if they are free as long as they are making a good living, I do... Most Germans loved the Nazi's in the 30's using the same rationale.

      You couldn't pay me enough to live in China. As flawed as the U.S. is, at least its not a Fascist police state yet.

      "if our workforce is capable then they'll be hired for those sorts of jobs instead."

      Not by CEO's looking for the cheapest labor they can get that can more or less do the work. They are looking to maximize their bottom lines to make good numbers for quarters, and one of the easiest ways to do that is to slash labor expenses. The quality of the work may suffer some, but you can throw more bodies at things so the cheap labor market always wins with bean counters. With the cost of living in Western Europe and the U.S. workers there simply can't compete until places like China stop manipulating their currency and their cost of living achieves parity with the West.

      Tariffs and trade barriers have been used by countries for centuries to compensate for the fact that other countries have lower cost of living and cheaper labor. It took some rocket scientist free traders in the U.S. to completely dismantle them, while all the countries they are competing against still have them in spades. Markets in Japan, China, Korea and India are still not free, they erect all kinds of barriers to prevent Western corporations from competing on a level field there. The U.S. is practicing unilateral economic disarmament and our economy is going down in flames as a result. I might be OK with free trade if every country we compete with was as free as we are, they aren't.

      --
      @de_machina
  10. re: Chasing them away? by King_TJ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I recommend reading a book called "IBM and the Holocaust" (http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com).

    This is a company that happily accepted huge sums of money from the Germans during WWII to computerize the process of hunting down and exterminating Jews, and even "hardened" several of their facilities so they'd survive Allied bombings. All the while, they claimed to be an American business.

    It's arguable that in a sense, they "left" the United States back then, even if they still retained a big physical presence here. Despite the law preventing IBM from being able to move their profits out of German banks during the war, they STILL happily worked on their projects for them, knowing full-well they couldn't even touch the money for years.

  11. Isn't Chinese Law by rolfwind · · Score: 2, Insightful

    that any factory or venture in China must be at least 51% domestically owned, such that they always will have the power?

    Can't help but think that all these companies are building up their own competition... when China decides the dollar isn't that great anymore and that they've sucked out all the knowledge needed of the US and other 1st world countries to be on par with them.

    Not that US companies alone can be blamed, the US consumer, with their rush to the cheapest priced options, by and large, contributed to this cycle.

    1. Re:Isn't Chinese Law by Rand310 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      China is a fool's bet right now. Unless a person has lived there or worked directly with a Chinese company for more than a year, they are simply not qualified to assess the benefits of Chinese economics. It's many many years behind where most people think it is. And that deception is intentional. It's amazing how many get repeatedly burned looking for the magic billion-man market.

    2. Re:Isn't Chinese Law by jonpublic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't blame the consumer. I blame the people who wrote the trade laws that allow for slave labor to have equal playing field. Those trade laws completely destroy the fundamental American principle of freedom.

      I blame the trade laws which basically guarantee that if you build a product in a responsible manner, it's not going to succeed, because the people who ignore environmental and safety standards can build it cheaper.

  12. Solution is You and Me by sanman2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The fact is that Obama is a redistributionist who claims that jobs are owed and not earned. Sorry, but that kind of attitude is what's driving employers away from the USA. You wish you had a girlfriend/boyfriend? Then make yourself appealing, so that someone will want to hook up with you. Don't go talking about how having a significant other is your inalienable right, somehow owed to you by society or other unspecified parties. You wish you had a job? Then make yourself appealing and more competent, so that someone will want to hire you. Don't go talking about how somebody else is "stealing" "your" job, as if a job is somehow owed to you, regardless of how incompetent you are.

    Obama is consistently talking about "American jobs" as if the jobs are rightfully American. His political stance is well known to be re-distributionist. Start earning, and stop whining for a handout.

    1. Re:Solution is You and Me by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 4, Informative

      You're right that the jobs aren't automatically American jobs but even if Obama is a "redistributionist you're still ignoring the original guy's point that this happened long before Obama came into office.

      In fact a load of it happened under Bush. Are you telling me he's a "redistributionist" who scared off companies? In fact it's usually Republicans that allow companies to import people on H1-Bs and allow them to move work over seas with no negative effect. That is probably what makes companies move.

      The fact is that when it comes down to it, neither Obama or Bush really make a difference. Foreign workers definitely don't do a better job (like wise their work isn't inferior). What it's all about is someone in Manila can be paid for a year on a couple months of my salary, they have no expectations of pensions, private health care, etc. They're just happy to have a good job.

      My company employs over seas staff. I know what they're paid, what they get and it's quite obvious why my company uses them. The employment laws are more lax and they 6 people for 1 of me.

      It's not fucking rocket science.

    2. Re:Solution is You and Me by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is actually the 'old style' socialism you are complaining about. State of the art socialism is about empowering individuals and helping them become productive members of society, wherever you can.

      Denmark has a program called Flexicurity which is a popular example of this. Under that system, once you lose your job, you can get unemployment benefits as long as you are actively looking for another job. Or, if you prefer, you can go back to school, get some new skills, during which time the government will also help you out. This has worked out really well for the Danes: it allows companies to easily fire people they don't need, and allows people who are out of a job to easily find another one (or retrain for another one). It is a flexible, secure workforce.

      It isn't always a matter of whether it is 'earned' or 'owed.' Sometimes we can change things to make the path to productivity as easy as possible for our citizens. If we can help them out, why not?

      --
      Qxe4
    3. Re:Solution is You and Me by ucblockhead · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So you are saying that jobs are fleeing from the US to China because the US is becoming "redistributionist"?

      You might want to investigate the political and economic system of China before you hold them up as an alternative to Obama's "socialism".

      What is driving "offshoring" is not taxes, it's pure free-market forces. Labor is more expensive here than it is there, so companies attempt to cut costs by moving the labor there. Companies don't increase presence in China because the US raises taxes 5%. They move to China because they can hire a college educated engineer there for $15k a year.

      --
      The cake is a pie
    4. Re:Solution is You and Me by east+coast · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And how are we going to develop a more competent populace when we keep cutting funding for public education?

      Actually the amount we're spending per student is going up. So the real question is how are we going to create a more competent populace when all we do is keep throwing money at the problem?

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    5. Re:Solution is You and Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hahaha, 15k would be a kings ransom. Try 3-5k.

    6. Re:Solution is You and Me by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 4, Informative

      Quit your bitching.

      You knew what they were up to when Watson was still in charge. He didn't rename the company "American Business Machines". The Nazi banks ran on equipment he sold them. The Nazi rockets were modeled mathematically on equipment he sold them.

      The ethnic populations were CERTAINLY tabulated by the Nazis. On equipment he sold them.

      Funny. I know Jews who won't ride in a Volkswagen, but make sure iBM is in their portfolio.

      So, screw Godwin, and screw INTERNATIONAL Business Mahines.

      --
      "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
    7. Re:Solution is You and Me by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's not always the case but to be fair, unless you were born into wealth, you have to work smarter and harder than everyone else.

      Except for periods where I feel burnt out and need to slack a bit, if I'm not sleeping or running on the treadmill, then I'm coding for myself or my employer.

      My existence, at the moment, is probably a bit pathetic to some (though I make time for some all Friday night to Saturday morning benders) but I'm am building up cash for investments through working a lot harder than my co-workers and I'm working on my own stuff which, hopefully, will turn into something I can I can either deploy and make money with or sell.

      In the end I fully expect to retire early. My goal is to retire 1 year early. That doesn't sound like much but I do find if I set the bar lower, I then find I'm going to achieve that quite early on and raise the bar and keep raising it as time goes on.

      It just depends what you want. Do you want small bits of work over a long period or bust your nuts for a shorter period and relax for a longer time?

      You need money to make money. If I bust my balls now coding and buying up trademarks and hopefully some patents then hopefully I can spend more time doing fuck all.

      Maybe this is the wrong mentality and I'll die tomorrow having busted my balls with nothing in return but this is the gambleI'm taking.

      I am an American who moved to the UK and that did change me. For starters, I don't have to buy private health care. :D But seriously, having to move somewhere, after building up a credit history and making something of yourself, to then find you have to start all over from scratch and can't even get a bank account because you haven't lived here long enough makes you re-think things. Having to start from scratch, with nothing, twice also makes you realise it's not that bad and I'm half tempted, if I get the opportunity, to go off to somewhere in Asia to help with off-shoring. Starting from scratch can make you feel youthful again and you gotta go where the money is.

      Things have change a bit in how they work but the over all theme has stayed the same; you don't get something for nothing and smart hard work always pays off.

    8. Re:Solution is You and Me by Fallen+Seraph · · Score: 5, Informative

      I can't help but wonder if people modded you flamebait because of the anger in your post or because they didn't think you were correct.

      If the latter, then I'd like to point out to the people modding you that IBM was indeed the provider for the tracking software used at the concentration camps and labor camps of the Third Reich. The numbers tattooed on Jews weren't just decoration, they were tied to a punch card system IBM developed and maintained for the Third Reich. The numbers represented what "crime" you were arrested for (Jew, Gypsy, Homosexual, etc), your point of origin, and the camp you were assigned to. And this wasn't like a modern system where IBM can say they only sold it and didn't know its use. The systems which were used would've required constant on-site maintenance by IBM employees, which means there's no way they couldn't have seen what was being done to the prisoners held there. Additionally, contracts, internal memos, and other paperwork still exists showing that IBM's headquarters in the US was well aware of what was going, and what their equipment was being used for. They simply didn't care.

    9. Re:Solution is You and Me by jadavis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is a flexible, secure workforce.

      The flip side of a "secure" workforce is that people don't feel as much need to perform well at their current job.

      If we can help them out, why not?

      Because it's very difficult to isolate and help only those who need it without changing the overall incentives in the economy. A general unemployment benefit means that you're helping millionaires and poor people alike. We want the upper middle class to rely on saving for themselves and being as productive as they can; we only want to step in when someone is down and out.

      At least in the US, I think that a safety net policy would work best if it was very well targeted (using some kind of means test), and strongly encouraged people to rise above the program as quickly as possible. I just don't think socialism works well in the US. Even if you think it works well somewhere else, it would be a disaster in the US.

      --
      Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
    10. Re:Solution is You and Me by broeman · · Score: 3, Informative

      What do you mean by "knowing each other"? This homogeneous country myth has to stop, we are individuals, not a collective mind. Danish people are probably worse at networking than an American (who are more forced into the situation).

      The security of the job market works either as a payment from the municipality or as a insurance (where the government pays for most of it, but you get a more decent monthly payment). The system hunts you down to get a new job as fast as possible (by you hating it so much to get away from useless courses and forced applications), or getting an education (either payed by the municipality or the educational state system). The companies on the other hand gets much more freedom (than other EU-countries that is) to fire and hire people as they please.

      For a mixed economy, the system works pretty well, and this is probably why we haven't felt the recession yet (yes, we have had stimulus packages to banks and what not). But the price is that we pay over 50% personal taxes (+25% sales tax and "behavioral" taxation of almost every product available) with some subsidies (mainly interests; good for home owners and banks).

      --

      (yes this can be compared with sex)
    11. Re:Solution is You and Me by Teancum · · Score: 2, Informative

      In spite of the presence of the communist government in China, one thing that the Chinese government has learned is that regulations and taxation kill business. Instead of taxing everything, the Chinese government is instead an investor .... and the business policies are often decided on the basis of how good it can be for Chinese business, as the sale of goods to America ends up often going straight into the pocket of the Chinese government.... more often than not the "People's Liberation Army" more directly. Yes, the Chinese Army is running factories that supply goods and services to the U.S. Army on sometimes a very direct fashion.

      Nice fanciful things like environmental laws and OSHA are simply non-existent in China as well. In other words, they don't have to worry about carbon tax credits, they don't even have to worry about what happens when they dump toxic waste directly into the Yellow River. Certainly luxuries like concerns over mine safety is something that is also very much missing.... hundreds or even thousands of Chinese miners die each year due to mining accidents that would permanently shut down any American mine. Injuries in factories are no different.

      As a result, "the tools that make the tools" like CNC machines, lathes, and other basic machine tools that make more tools are about 10% of the cost as you can buy them in America. They are more labor intensive, but labor isn't something the Chinese are lacking. Skilled labor isn't even a huge problem. So the tools to make the factories are cheaper, they can do eminent domain to build factories at pennies on the dollar compared to what a company would have to do in America, and they have what appears to be an unending supply of peasant labor coming from the rural parts of China.

      It isn't just the cheaper labor costs, it is the cheaper everything cost in China that has turned that country into America's manufacturing center. And the influx of cash, with a deliberately designed weak currency to keep money flowing in that drives the current relationship between China and America.

    12. Re:Solution is You and Me by demachina · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "The fact is that Obama is a redistributionist who claims that jobs are owed and not earned."

      The fact is some of America's greatest prosperity was during the 50's and 60's. Tax rates for the rich ran in the 70-90% range. That was when America was as redistributionist as it could get and America did great. So your Fox News/CNBC/Wall Street Journal propaganda rings hollow. I love it how they screen "class warfare" now that the Democrats are back in charge. They conveniently gloss over there has been class warfare for the last 30 years, but it was the rich waging it and they won, big time. They only use the term "class warfare" when the middle class is trying to claw some of it back.

      The progressive tax system started getting dismantled under Reagan and George W. finished the job. The more it was dismantled the sicker America got. For example billionaire hedge fund managers now get taxed at 15%, working people its closer to 40%. By the time W. was finished America was actually redistributionist again, except it was redistributing all the wealth to the top 1%. Income inequality now is the worst its been since the roaring 20's which is is coincidentally the last time we had a crash like the current one.

      So your claim America is "redistributionist" and that this is the problem is completely and utterly false.

      It simply isn't healthy to have all the wealth concentrated in the hands of a small number of people. You need affluent, happy workers who buy things to have a balanced economy. Rich people don't buy stuff(other than yachts and mansions). Americans have continued on the buying binge been for the 30 years even though their wages are stagnant, but its mostly been through massive debt accumulation and now the party is over. You will see how much it really sucks to have 1% rich and 99% broke now that the housing bubble has burst.

      --
      @de_machina
    13. Re:Solution is You and Me by malbosher · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is simply globalization, and the race to the bottom. The poster obviously feels secure in his abilities and thinks that the free market only applies to labor. Besides you can never win an argument with a corporate jock sniffer, just be secure in the knowledge that what comes around goes around.

    14. Re:Solution is You and Me by the_macman · · Score: 2, Informative

      Would you mind posting a citation for this? My wife is a teacher in the poorest area of our town and they are losing funding because state government is cutting education to trim the budget. :\

      I recently saw an article somewhere (Google can probably find it) that describes how politicians would rather cut from education and social programs than release some non violent criminals to save some money.

    15. Re:Solution is You and Me by 8282now · · Score: 2, Insightful

      l've so often but rarely see any proof of such cuts in funding.. would YOU please cite what school and town you're referring to?
      Specific budgets pre and post cuts to prove your point. Otherwise. retract your assertion,

    16. Re:Solution is You and Me by boa13 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's been well documented for seven years now: http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/

    17. Re:Solution is You and Me by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is actually the 'old style' socialism you are complaining about. State of the art socialism is about empowering individuals and helping them become productive members of society, wherever you can.

      You should invent a catchy name for this 'new style' socialism that doesn't have any downsides at all.

      May I suggest 'Socialism of the 21st century'

      Denmark has a program called Flexicurity which is a popular example of this. Under that system, once you lose your job, you can get unemployment benefits as long as you are actively looking for another job. Or, if you prefer, you can go back to school, get some new skills, during which time the government will also help you out. This has worked out really well for the Danes: it allows companies to easily fire people they don't need, and allows people who are out of a job to easily find another one (or retrain for another one). It is a flexible, secure workforce.

      Tax revenues in Denmark are 50% of GDP, as compared to 28% if GDP in the United States.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP

      Don't get me wrong - a lot of things in Scandinavia are done well. Still pretending that their model doesn't have a downside is dishonest. It also seems unlikely that Americans will support doubling the size of the already massive Federal Government, which is really what the tax revenue figures are measuring. Finally even if they did it's not clear that even if they did the US Federal government would perform as well as a Scandinavian one.

      I suspect that Scandinavian social models only work in small countries with a cultural homogenous population. This guy from Denmark agrees

      http://www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=485

      Traditionally, Denmark has not regarded itself as a country of immigration. This is due to its relatively homogeneous population of 5.4 million, a strong sense of national identity, and the fact that, until recently, immigration flows were moderate. Most immigrants in Denmark came from other Nordic or Western countries, and the country experienced more emigration than immigration.

      In addition, the welfare state was designed on the basis of a culturally similar citizenry, and the Danish economy has successfully adapted to a variety of international challenges by taking advantage of institutions built around a powerful sense of civic solidarity.

      Since the end of the guest-worker program was in the early 1970s, however, a growing numbers of immigrants, mainly refugees and family dependents of refugees and former "guest workers," has challenged the status quo.

      Particularly the generous welfare system works because only a small minority choose to free load on the system by living on benefits - if that minority is small enough they can be subsidised by the rest. That's not going to be the case if you extended the same model to a larger, more diverse country like the US, or even if you allow people in who don't fit in culturally as has happened with immigrants to Denmark.

      Note the problem here is not with the immigrants per se. I knew a guy from Armenia whose family moved first to Sweden and then to the US. His mother said that "when you walk down the street in Sweden people looked at you like you were a monkey. In America Armenians are regarded as being white and that is all that matters". I suspect this is partly an economic issue. Most recent immigrants to Scandinavia end up on welfare and stay there. In the US welfare is less generous and so they have to work. Still that affects people's perception of immigrants being hardworking.

      Essentially the Scandinavian welfare system is creating social discord. It's not hard to imagine that Americans would behave similarly if they paid mu

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    18. Re:Solution is You and Me by tsotha · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The fact is some of America's greatest prosperity was during the 50's and 60's. Tax rates for the rich ran in the 70-90% range. That was when America was as redistributionist as it could get and America did great.

      You're proceeding from a false assumption. Tax rates had nothing to do with American prosperity in the '50s and '60s. We were prosperous because most of the first world's industrial base had been destroyed during WW II, and people all over the world had to rely on American products as they rebuilt their own industries. High marginal tax rates had nothing to do with that prosperity, and in fact probably hindered it to some degree.

      Besides which, people paid taxes at those rates in the same way corporations pay high corporate taxes today, which is to say they didn't. Tax receipts are the important figure, not tax rates. The Economist had an article years ago (which I can't find on the web, unfortunately) which said rich people pay no more than about 25% taxes in aggregate. And that's not just Americans, either, it's pretty constant worldwide. It's true in Europe, and even in Japan where the top bracket is on the order of 90% (at least it was at the time the article was written). Wealthy people don't make money at jobs the way you and I do - they invest what they have in order to generate profits. But investments involve a risk/reward calculation. As you raise taxes more investments fall into the "not worth the risk" category because the reward is reduced. Those are the same investments which will generate the most profit (and thus, the most tax revenue) if they work out.

      So you don't actually get more money by having sky-high marginal tax rates, because people are making changes in the way they invest their money. In the case of the US, as you raise taxes the capital eventually moves into double-tax-free munis. The rich people pay fewer taxes, and the economy falters because nobody is investing in enterprises which will create jobs. When tax rates were lowered in the early '80s tax receipts actually went up as people moved their money out of double-tax-free munis and into riskier investments. At the same time growth, which is what actually lifts people out of poverty, started to pick up.

      High marginal tax rates were lowered because people had come to realize they are a bad idea for everyone. I have to believe the idea is back in vogue because we have a lot of people who are too young to remember the last time around. Oh well, that's life, I guess. If you don't talk to your parents you do the same stupid shit they did.

    19. Re:Solution is You and Me by Teancum · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While I will admit that the industrial revolution in America produced some incredibly awful pollution, I can't stand for a moment the assertion that the USA is the most polluting nation on the Earth. That is a flat out lie and an attempt to skew statistics in some anti-America hate that doesn't really know what is happening.

      By nearly every possible measure, America is a much cleaner and healthier place to life, raise children, and grow food. Environmental laws that exist within the USA are having an impact... both positive for the environment and negative in terms of business growth. That several American presidential administrations and the various groups of senators over the years have chosen not to get themselves tied up in Euro-centric treaties that would further punish America in ways that doesn't help improve the natural environment may not be nearly as bad as it sounds.

      Nearly every possible measure of pollution, from air quality, water quality, concerns about ground water contamination, even radioactive waste disposal and even nuclear weapon testing have shown a significant and positive improvements. While not perfect, the air quality in Los Angeles has improved significantly since I was a young boy. In New York City, you are finding worms rotting out the wooden piers at the docks... something that didn't happen as recently as the 1980's. Beavers are even coming back to Brooklyn and building lodges for the first time since the 1700's. The air in Pittsburgh PA is actually breathable where a hundred years ago the soot and air pollution was so bad that you couldn't see more than a hundred yards (meters) or so due to the steel mills. These are just a few examples and there are hundreds of others.

      That there may be other problems you can point to, sure, but on the whole it is disingenuous to assert that America doesn't care about the environment... or that this is strictly a leftist issue either. The issue is how you take stewardship of the resources you have available, and when to do the right thing.

      BTW, the exact opposite is true in China. The Yellow River is all but dead for most of its length, and certainly it is unhealthy to use for anything other than as an open sewer. The air quality of Beijing was so bad that during the Olympics they had to do the draconian move of simply shutting down all private automobiles and even most trucks going into and out of the city. Certainly the air quality of Beijing is far and away worse than Los Angeles county ever could have dreamed of and is nearly as bad as it was in Pittsburgh at the beginning of the 20th Century. Due to lousy farm practices, a considerable amount of the Chinese top soil actually lands on my back yard... in America. The dust storms that come from China from time to time are so incredible that the dirt literally is carried completely across the Pacific Ocean.

      China simply is not being a sound ecological steward of their environment and it shows in nearly every possible statistic that can legitimate measure pollution. The only reason why China isn't mentioned as the worst polluter on the planet has more to do with official reports than with actual consequences.

      I am not ashamed at all of the environmental record of America, and I'll put it up against any other country of the world that has steel mills and is involved in heavy industrial production with as diverse of an industrial base as exists in America.

    20. Re:Solution is You and Me by phantomfive · · Score: 2, Interesting

      OK, you wrote such a nice long post I would feel disrespectful if I didn't reply.

      First of all you have to consider the intent of my post: I wasn't saying there is no downside, nor was I trying to give a comprehensive overview of every facet of Flexicurity, I was trying to point out that there are other options: social welfare doesn't have to mean finding a job for everyone, even at the cost of retaining useless jobs. It can mean training people to become capable of doing useful jobs. Now, I think Obama and a lot of Democrats are actually stuck in the old mindset, where money from the rich gets redistributed to support the poor, when they should be looking to find ways to help the poor support themselves and become productive members of society. There is a huge difference between these two mindsets, and I was trying to help people see that there are alternative approaches.

      Now, is Flexicurity the proper approach for the United States? Probably not, we are a different country with a unique set of challenges, immigration is one of those, as you mentioned, another is our massive slums and poverty zones. Any sort of social program ought to take these into direct consideration. These people in the slums are a group who all have similar problems, mainly they don't know how to escape the life cycle of poverty they are stuck in, and they are filled with self-doubt (this is my experience from working in slums). If we can address these problems, then we will massively improve the quality of life of many Americans. These are not necessarily easy problems, but they are real problems that need to be solved.

      --
      Qxe4
    21. Re:Solution is You and Me by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yep. In the US, the more you earn, the higher your tax bracket. Believe me, the first time I got a smaller paycheck after working more hours, I asked.

      That's absolute bullshit. When you reach a higher tax bracket, you get taxed at a higher rate on the money earned within that bracket. So, the first several thousand (is it $15k now?) doesn't get taxed at all. The next several thousand gets taxed at the next level and so on. It's only the amount that you earn within the particular bracket that gets taxed at that rate. You sir, know nothing about progressive taxation. And I think your story is a lie.

  13. The big problem is our immigration system by ThousandStars · · Score: 3, Insightful
    ... or lack thereof, one might say.

    The best thing we could do if we don't want IBM and other companies going abroad is what John Doerr and Thomas Friedman have suggested:

    We should be taking advantage. Now is when we should be stapling a green card to the diploma of any foreign student who earns an advanced degree at any U.S. university, and we should be ending all H-1B visa restrictions on knowledge workers who want to come here.

    Because it's often difficult or impossible to import international engineers and scientists with valuable or unusual skills to the United States, the logical alternative is to go to where they are. Want this kind of behavior on the part of IBM and others to, if not stop altogether, then at least to slow? Implement Friedman's suggestion. Otherwise, don't implicitly (or, in the case of many commenters on this thread, explicitly) complain when companies react to the conditions that politicians, and by extension voters, have placed on them.

    1. Re:The big problem is our immigration system by ClosedSource · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think this idea of a lack of engineers with "valuable and unusual skills" in the US is more myth than reality.

      The primary value that the H-1B program has for companies is economic. If you convert these workers to citizens, you'll have to pay them competitive wages and they'll be free to change jobs. Not much economic value there.

      It's funny how people complain that illegal immigrants are cutting to the front of the immigration line but there's always a place for athletes, actors, and celebrities to go to the front. Of course, there really isn't a line anyway.

    2. Re:The big problem is our immigration system by winwar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Because it's often difficult or impossible to import international engineers and scientists with valuable or unusual skills to the United States, the logical alternative is to go to where they are."

      Do you really seriously believe this? Can you give even one example of such a case?

      You don't set up shop in India because you want a couple of great Indian workers. You set up there because you can get lots of engineers-in-a-box CHEAPLY. You may also want to do business in the region (or already do).

      There are no shortage of qualified people (or those willing to be trained) in the US. There is a shortage of qualified people who will work cheaply. In general, large companies don't hire great people, they hire cogs in a machine.

      It's about the money.

  14. Do what Canada did in 1965. by B5_geek · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In 1965 Canada brought into law the "Auto Pact" ahref=http://www.canadianeconomy.gc.ca/english/economy/1965canada_us_auto_pact.htmlrel=url2html-14781http://www.canadianeconomy.gc.ca/english/economy/1965canada_us_auto_pact.html>

    It basically states that for every car bought in Canada, one car must be built in Canada.

    (In 2001 it was abolished because it infringed on NAFTA.)

    This policy works for everybody except the greedy CEO's. Any manufacturing industry could be converted to this setup.

    --
    "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
    1. Re:Do what Canada did in 1965. by 0123456 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This policy works for everybody except the greedy CEO's. Any manufacturing industry could be converted to this setup.

      No, such a policy works for no-one other than greedy auto workers; everyone else has to pay higher prices for lower-quality cars, since without competition the auto companies will just sell expensive crap.

    2. Re:Do what Canada did in 1965. by speedtux · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That policy works until other nations start retaliating against your primary export.

      Canada managed to get away with it for a while because Canada isn't that significant in international trade and primarily trades in raw materials. But, in the end, even Canada preferred free trade over protectionism, which is why it joined NAFTA.

  15. You get what you pay for. by jonpublic · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is what our factories have to compete with. Plants which poison children.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090820/ap_on_re_as/as_china_lead_poisoning

    Laws that protect us from this kind of behavior add costs that push companies to these countries.

    Democracy isn't cheap.

    1. Re:You get what you pay for. by ProfM · · Score: 2, Informative

      Democracy isn't cheap.

      Good thing we don't live in a Democracy. However, we're tending that way all the time.

    2. Re:You get what you pay for. by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Laws that protect us from this kind of behavior add costs that push companies to these countries.

      And here we find the weakness in capitalism — the tyranny of the masses, who want cheaper and cheaper DVD players and disposable razors, and don't care how many twelve year olds have to work in sweatshops to deliver them. (Me too. I'm trying to be better, but my habits are very bad. Like most of us.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:You get what you pay for. by FooAtWFU · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Manufacturing is one thing, but the software developers at IBM's China Development Labs aren't known for giving kids lead poisoning, and they still have plenty of "offshoring" hate. I don't think there's too much "exploitation! sweatshops!" there either.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
  16. achievable? by speedtux · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because the stuff that's "chasing them away" is the same stuff that still nominally keeps the American people from being totally subjugated and destitute like the Chinese and Indians are.

    What makes you think that's achievable? Americans are competing with Chinese and Indians. What possible reason would there be for anybody to pay more to an American worker than to a Chinese or Indian worker?

    Companies aren't going to stop leaving the US until we are so broken by their flight that we are forced to become fascist.

    Companies don't care about fascism. We just need to become cheaper, or we need to help Chinese and Indians become rich.

    1. Re:achievable? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The only way you can become cheap enough to compete with India and China is if you completely ditch all the achievements of the labor movement throughout the last century - 8-hour workday, etc. At that point, your quality of life will pretty much match theirs as well for the majority of population. Clearly, this isn't the answer.

    2. Re:achievable? by speedtux · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Another possible reason is love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it, aka patriotism.

      Sure, but Americans obviously don't want to make the sacrifices. If they did, they would do one of two things: either devalue the American dollar, or impose import duties.

      And if foreigners are patriotic, then they will buy fewer American goods, and they certainly won't buy American-made goods at their current inflated prices.

    3. Re:achievable? by speedtux · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why do you think your $75000 salary is buying what it is buying? It's because India and China have cheap exports. If you are forced to buy American, or if those nations come up to US standards, that $75000 salary would be the equivalent of, say $40000. So, the reason you can earn those $75000 and still have all those "achievements of the labor movement" is because the US has exported the bad working conditions to India and China.

      But there is a simple solution to all this: substantially devalue the US dollar. If the US dollar gets devalued by a factor of 2-3, US exports become much more attractive to foreigners, and Chinese and Indian imports become much less attractive to Americans.

    4. Re:achievable? by jonadab · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > What possible reason would there be for anybody to pay more
      > to an American worker than to a Chinese or Indian worker?

      In terms of the manufacturing sector, if they can make the same stuff, then there's really no such motive, ultimately.

      Well, to a small extent there is, to cover things like shipping costs (it's slightly better to produce widgets near to where they're going to be sold) and a bit of inertia (relocating a plant costs money, so it's worth a bit more to hire workers where the plant is as opposed to somewhere else, at least in the short term). But these factors only cover a relatively small wage differential.

      Why do you think the US economy has been, for half a century or so, gradually moving away from most kinds of manufacturing?

      Some kinds of services can be outsourced to the third world nearly as easily as manufacturing, but others really can't, or at least not to the same effect. Advertising, for example, needs to be handled by people who know the target market and culture. Design work requires a certain level of education, so even if you hire your engineers in India or China, they're still going to make a good deal more than the poverty-stricken masses you could hire to run manufacturing lines. (In fact, for a lot of that stuff you'd mostly be hiring the kind of people who could probably get H1B visas and work in the US if they were so inclined. That's going to drive wage expectations in a certain direction.) Medical professionals have to be hired in the places where people spend a lot of money on medical care, and the US is fairly high on the list there. And so on.

      > Companies don't care about fascism.

      Actually, they kind of do. On the whole, they're not generally real happy about it, although they prefer it to populism (hello, Latin America) or outright communism (Eastern Europe, I'm looking at you).

      > We just need to become cheaper,

      The market is sorting that out.

      Granted, it would be sorted out faster if the government would stop trying to delay the inevitable (particularly, the shift away from a manufacturing-based economy). I mean, come on, do you really WANT to work in a factory? Let it go, already. There are more worthwhile (and more profitable) things you could be doing with your time.

      > or we need to help Chinese and Indians become rich.

      Define "become rich".

      Because, if you mean "become rich compared to where they were a few decades ago", that's already happened, and continues to happen. The per capita standard of living in China today is much higher than in China fifty years ago, and the same is true in India.

      Of course, it's true in the US as well: fifty years ago, the average US household had one car, one radio, one record player, one rotary phone, no camera, no computer, no shelf full of movies, very few electric kitchen appliances, and only about a 50/50 chance of having a television. Today the average household has slightly more than one car per person over age 15, 2-3 radios per person, multiple CD players, multiple cellphones, several cameras, internet access, a shelf full of DVDs, a counter (or cupboard) full of kitchen appliances, cable and/or satellite television, and a bunch of other junk we don't actually need.

      (It is at this point not difficult to imagine our society reaching the point where attempting to maintain a household at the standard of living that was average in the fifties might put you in danger of having your children taken away by child services. Make it a hundred years instead of fifty and we're probably there now: the lack of indoor plumbing would just about do it, quite aside from everything else.)

      So if you mean "help Chinese and Indians become rich(er) relative to Americans", then that's a different thing. But I don't see how that would create a "reason ... for anybody to pay more to an American worker than to a Chinese or Indian worker". Quite the reverse, in fact.

      And, of course, "richer" in th

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    5. Re:achievable? by speedtux · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are absolutely correct, but there is an important side note here. Even if my salary would only be the equivalent of $40,000, it would still provide me with a much higher standard of living than either India or China.

      But Americans don't seem to be willing to go back to that kind of living standard--otherwise, we'd vote for politicians that devaluate the dollar and embrace protectionism.

      That's not surprising either: as long as unemployment stays around 10%, the current tradeoff doesn't cause too much social upheaval and it works out better for the majority. Some degree of inequality is built into our political system.

  17. Isn't the real fix... by Xenious · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Isn't the real fix that we improve the countries they are outsourcing to until the economy there demands the same as US salaries? At that point geography becomes the benefit instead of dollars and they want to hire the guy closer to "home."

    --
    -Xen
  18. The truth isn't just relative by microbox · · Score: 3, Informative

    To be fair, Bush pissed off the whole world and destroyed the US budget. Both will take years to repair. No other US president can come close to that.

    --

    Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
    1. Re:The truth isn't just relative by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Informative

      Obama has already spent more money then Bush has in his entire 8 years in office. Don't forget Bush, but do not give Obama a pass because of him.

    2. Re:The truth isn't just relative by davester666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, but it's to try to reduce the effects of previous administrations policies, namely an economic meltdown.

      Or do you believe Bush would have behaved significantly different (eg, they would let GM, other banks, etc.. fail)?

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    3. Re:The truth isn't just relative by Quothz · · Score: 2, Informative

      Obama has already spent more money then Bush has in his entire 8 years in office. Don't forget Bush, but do not give Obama a pass because of him.

      That's a flat lie. Obama is asking for money in his budget; his spending so far has been based on the budget submitted last year, by Bush. The 2009 federal spending budget, which Bush built, was $3.1 trillion. Obama's 2010 budget wants $3.6 trillion. That's way too much, but half a trillion dollars is only a fraction of a single years' spending, not eight years' worth plus change.

    4. Re:The truth isn't just relative by SnapShot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Are you serious? Obama's placing the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars on budget is some sort of devious conspiracy while NOT placing the war on the budget was some sort of principled stand by Bush? I thought Bush didn't put the cost of the wars on the budget because Rumsfeld convinced him that we'd pay for it all with Iraqi oil revenue.

      --
      Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
    5. Re:The truth isn't just relative by SnapShot · · Score: 4, Informative

      As a public service, I have to reiterate: sumdumass is wrong. Bush increased the debt by about $7 trillion dollars in his 8 years. Obama, in the middle of a recession, has budgeted an additional $1.7T of deficit spending in his first year.

      --
      Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
  19. Whats Next? - Multinationals Use Us by JoeCommodore · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So after they move out what will keep them doing to the US what they do to other countries - exploit countries resources for profit. As we were the home to these greedy groups we have been pretty much insulated as they didn't rock their own boat. But if they are based outside of the US, kinda cleans off that slate and opens us up as a whole new market to exploit, don't you think?

    --
    "Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
  20. Re:they're not stupid! by Renraku · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well, let them all move to India/China/etc, then.

    Let them move to countries that rely more on rote memorization of facts, and little in the way of independent thinking. Let them move to countries where the employees could feed themselves for a year by stealing a few pieces of their product. Let them move to countries where the government could very well decide that the company isn't pious or nationalistic enough, and take over their assets.

    America has many great and successful companies for a reason.

    It's hard to put a dollar amount on how much money will be lost by them moving overseas, but I guarantee it'll be a net loss. I look forward to hearing some CEO's say, "Well, we had record profits this year, but no one can seem to actually find any of this money, and we can't even pay rent on some of our offices anymore!" Metrics aren't perfect, and no one with a marketing degree or above the level of middle management seems to know that.

    --
    Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
  21. Time to detach from china and india by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I find the fact that corporations such as this, especially in a time of economic hardship, are basically harming american workers and showing such contempt for the USA, to be greatly offensive and angers me to no end. i think its time that we detach from china and india which has basically decimated Americas economy and who have stolen our jobs. I think its clearly time that we need to stop allowing these companies to abuse the USA looking at it as only a market to sell their overpriced chinese crap, and start creating jobs here again. Globalisation is such a big scam its ridiculous, its destroying this countyr and allows these greedy companies to basically exploit slave labor in china. The US should and can, and must for its survival, implement a tariff on imports of cars, textiles, furniture, IT services, customer service calls to India and China, etc, and so on. When we have 15% unemployment in reality and people struggling to find work the notion of any company moving jobs somewhere else really should cause a revolt from americans and demands to implement tariffs. Its time to get past this irrational hysteria about tariffs. Tariffs are good and can help this countries economy rebound. There is nothing wrong with it since it simply allows americans to make products for other americans. Think about it, why cant the chinese make things for other chinese, and americans make things for other americans. it would be better for the chinese of the products that chinese workers stayed in china to benefit to the people there. It would be better for americans to create more jobs in the US making products for use by americans. The only people that globalisation benefits is the wealthy rich elite corporations who important products made by employees in slave labor camps in china making a few cents an hour, living in filthy dormitories, who are treated in the most inhumane way, beaten, and even not allowed to use the restroom, with litany of human rights abuses, the products these slaves make are then sold off at a 100% markup in the US and the wealthy elite take the profit. Both the american and the chinese worker are the losers. Globalisation is what has allowed as well corporations to basically dictate to countries basically how they will treat workers and the environment and rewards countries which allow their environment and workers to be ruthlessly exploited by massive global corporations. This is a system where massive global corporations get their way and make the laws through making countries compete against each other to see who can allow their employees to be treated in the most inhumane way. Through the global consolidation and globalisation the corporations are able to control markets resources, jobs, and so on in many different countries and operate as sort of transnational governments. Through this we are seeing a new world order emerge where the governments of countries are simply puppets of a powerful fascist global corporate order who controls wealth, resources, jobs, markets, capital, etc.

    If we value our freedom, we need to implement tariffs which would give our own worker welfare laws, our own democratic state, some force and allow us to implement unions without the corporations threatening to move jobs to other countries. If you want to be treated like a decently like a human being, to have a good life and to be paid decently for decent work, we desperately need to implement broader democratic unions which allow employees a democratic vioce where they can act as a safeguard against mistreatment and slave wages. Unions are essential to our economic recovery and for stopping the destruction of the middle class. The unions built the middle class in the USA and ironically created a middle class that had the spending power which made companies like IBM so successful. Unions are essential for workers to have decent wage since it more often than not is the tendancy of corporations to pay workers as little as they can, leading to a vast impoverished state in the economy. Its just shocking and disgusting tha

    1. Re:Time to detach from china and india by dbIII · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Tariffs have unexpected consequences. Take a sip of Coke or Pepsi and wonder why it is loaded with heaps of corn syrup instead of around half the quantity of cheaper imported sugar to give the same sweetness. Consider how the tariff on steel has led to a lot of manufacturing moving offshore instead of paying high prices for lower quality steel at home.
      The ironic thing is those two industries the tariffs were designed to protect lost their traditional markets due to the tariff protection and greed. The nasty thing is the tiger is now grasped firmly by the tail. The badly run, protected and complacent US sugar industry for example is doomed to vanish the day that cheaper imported sugar is allowed in. None of this is about low wage countries since Australia competes as well as anyone.

  22. Some Perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Look I am an Indian, and I think that there are a few things all of you need to know.

    America is not going anywhere for now. The fundamentals of your future lie in the hands of your people, especially the select few who have a vision and can buck the status quo. As long as you have plenty of such individuals you are going to weather any geo-political storm.

    Whereas in my nation life is so linear that it is a goddamn joke.

    Almost every kid is expected to be an engineer and most of these engineers hardly even know what the hell they are talking about. As Feynman would say their knowledge is fragile.

    Our educational system itself is a joke. Trust me on this.

    At the same time entrepeneurs are discouraged and looked down upon. They are sorta treated with ice, as everyone wants a *son* in an MNC with a prestigous MBA. So, basically our society is choking itself. Sure, these people are awesome paper pushers, but despite the fact that some of them do have a decent brain they all seem to fail to do anything different.

    No revolutions are put into motion. No brilliant new synthesis are formulated. No groundbreaking patents are filed. In short, the truly important stuff is in stasis.

    Your society whereas pushes its outliers and that is why, as Kay once put it, most software is written on one side of the atlantic. I think that you should stop looking at IBM and start looking at MIT. That is where your future lies.

    And seriously drop all of that economics mumbo-jumbo. As the foundations of society are the ability to create things, transport those things and dessiminate them. I think that those earning a living by making a killing in stocks are living a sham.

    Oh and Thomas Jefferson would kill himself if he saw Bush in action. Despite his failings Obama is, at least, a breath of fresh air. So, value him for that. At least he had the courage (unlike me) to step up to the plate.

    P.S. - /.s javascript is screwed, haven't they heard of simplicity?

    1. Re:Some Perspective by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Informative
      While much of what you say is CURRENTLY true, India has a number of things in their favor, with several being foolish on our part:
      1. The biggest is India's money is fixed against the dollar and we are not screaming that it should be freed. Without a true free market, then it is IMPOSSIBLE for conditions to adjust. This is the worse thing that is happening.
      2. India has trade barriers against the west (interestingly, they allow most other nations to have free trade). With those barriers in place, free market can not adjust.
      3. A number of my Indian friends have told me about the schools there. Apparently, they are still well below Western schools. BUT, given enough time, that will change. I have had several former school mates that I respected go back to take teaching jobs in India. If India continues to recruit ppl like these back to there, the education system WILL improve.
      4. India DOES need to push for more start-ups. At this time, they push to support large companies similar to the way that W and reagan did. I believe with some of your leaders that it will change.
      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  23. It is the next step in Internation Corp Evolution by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You've heard of offshoring labor to a foreign nation for a lower cost in labor?

    International Corporate Evolution is the new trend. When in a nation with a bad economy offshore the entire company to a richer nation like in the EU that has a lower corporation tax and a lower tax on the wealthy.

    You see labor needs to be offshored to the lowest cost third world nation like China, India, Thailand, Russia, where the cost of labor is low. That is the first step in International Corporate Evolution.

    The second step is to expand your business to a foreign nation to compete with other corporations in foreign nations. If a company does not do that, foreign companies might move to their nation and buy them out (ala Anhiesier Busch Beer) or expand and build a company right next to yours and try to shut yours down. It is like a game of corporate chess, you need to move a piece to their location before they move a piece to your location and checkmate you.

    The third step is to offshore highly talented employees (like with PHDs and tons of experience) and management to a nation that is wealthy and has a good economy but has lower corporation taxes and lower wealthy taxes. Move the bulk of your local company to that nation and downsize any employees that aren't as valuable.

    The fourth step is closing down buildings in the local nation that has the bad economy and high taxes.

    The fifth step is moving back to that nation after the bad economy has recovered and tax rates have been cut again and bringing the talent back with you. But if the economy does not recover and the tax rates are not cut, this is like a strike against the government to offshore the entire company to punish them for higher taxes and ruining the economy.

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
  24. So myopic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
    According to standard macro-economic theory, you pay off the deficit in good times, so that when bad time come around you can stimulate the economy by borrowing money.

    Bush Jr watched his dad get crucified in an election against Clinton. His father had raised taxes (as did Reagan) to keep the budget balanced (ish). Clinton also did that. It is speculated that Bush Jr's experience of his fathers election loss jaded him over treating the budget responsibly - afterall, the voters panned his father.

    Bush Jr ruined the budget as follows:
    • Let laws expire which rained in government spending. You used to require proof that new spending could be paid for.
    • Got involved with an expensive war - nobody seriously believed the original paltry estimates
    • Used war-time provisions to end-run a bill for big pharma: the 2003 Medicare bill. The cost of this bill is projected to dwarf the entire US economy in just a few decades

    So Obama (the bad guy =) inherited a financial crisis whose complex antecedents go back at least 20 years. Just when the US needs to spend big, Bush had already bankrupted the budget.

    Obama has already spent more money then Bush has in his entire 8 years in office.

    So myopic.

    For the record, Reagan, Bush and Bush were huge spenders, but Reagan and Bush Senior had the wisdom to also raise taxes. The Republicans are all about huge government, and are the ones who tax and spend - by their actions. Except Bush Jr just who spent, so that future presidents can deal with the tax part.

    Obama's spending is about averting a depression.

  25. Your civilized infrastructure.... by zogger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...is falling apart, daily. Entire states are broke, even our richest state California is broke. They are having to close down a lot of infrastructure, give public employees furloughs, dump prisoners, consolidate prisons, etc, and it keeps getting worse. Local hospitals and local school systems are broke all over the nation *now* and it is getting worse. Thousands of local governments are broke or near broke. Millions of people are facing foreclosure and one estimate is half of all homes will be "underwater" in terms of what they owe as opposed to what they will really be worth within a few years now. Daily we hear about more and more jobs going poof, just like in this article. States and local governments get taxes to pay for your civilized infrastructure, and we have half a million jobs a month going poof. People who can't afford their house note are not going to be paying local property tax, and if they lose their job, not be paying any state or federal tax either.

    Your quote, then, in my opinion, "We are never going to drop to their level of poverty because we have things like running water, a strong infrastructure, and plentiful high quality housing. These are things that won't go away, just because of outsourcing."..is *wishful thinking* to the extreme, because there's nothing whatsoever stopping all this civilization we have developed for generations now here from further deteriorating as long as we are losing 100 jobs to one gained, whatever the lopsided figure is, and government tax payer jobs are not the answer there either.

    Government jobs cost the nation wealth, they don't create wealth. We need real civilian sector middle class wealth creation jobs, not mc jobs or telephone sanitizing "service" jobs or government busywork bureaucracy jobs (or all those ludicrous "homeland insecurity" paramilitary jobs), and those are the type of jobs we have been losing, the wealth creation jobs. You have to have wealth creation jobs, period. Lose them, your civilization will collapse.

    And it can and most likely will get a lot worse here than it is now, and it is precisely from the last couple of decades of heavy offshoring for fast cheap labor arbitrage designed to make wall street richer and everyone else poorer (in this nation).

    Your attitude (anyone you) changes fast once you lose your home and job, etc. It stops being theory.

    Not sure how far you are willing to drop down in lifestyle, but to match a lot of the developing world, you should be using a privy out back, be walking a few miles to the town well and carrying the water back, raising a lot of your own food immediately around your house, etc. Plus working 16 hour shifts in some dismal and highly dangerous factory for a few bucks a day..but still be forced to pay all US costs.

    That's what you are saying, so I'll counter it and say it can't be done in the US, hence why I said wishful thinking.

    I know I live as cheap and mean as possible here, probably a lot closer to developing world status that most people on this board, my income is slightly less than ten grand a *year*, and I couldn't live on 5 bucks a day, it just isn't possible unless you are out living totally wild and scrounging your food mostly. Any sort of shelter with electricity and running water, etc costs a lot more than that. I think I am at the bare minimum now, and we grow a lot of our own food, drive ancient vehicles and those only once a week, spend zip money on entertainment or restaurants, etc. Cheap, not third world, but second world status and you STILL need to have some decent cash coming in to exist here.

    No job..then what, what do you tell people who just lost their middle class job to offshoring? "Tough crap, sucks to be you friend, just magically exist somehow...just think how cheap the goods at walmart are though!!"

    Really, what are you willing to say to someone *in person*, face to face, who lost their job to offshoring, haven't found another job

  26. Carter is Republican scapegoat for islam hate by microbox · · Score: 2, Informative

    Don't know anything about Taft, but crucifying Carter for the Islamic revolution is revisionist. The antecedents for the revolution are complex, and much to do with the actions of the British empire. Jimmy Carter did not create the whole middle-east hatey thing. Not by a long shot.

    Although I do *not* support the Iranian revolutionaries, the Shah was one of those nasty idiot dictators that was a puppet of Western powers. So the revolutionaries had it in for western imperial powers, and for good reason. It would have been better for everyone if a bunch of moderates took over, but that is history.

    Carter angered Iranian revolutionaries by toasting the Shah just before the revolution. Carter tried to work with the new regime after the take-over, however, he really pissed them off again by allowing the Shah to receive medical treatment in the US. Note that Carter only granted the request to the Shah because of pressure from Rockefeller and Kissinger.

    The paranoid revolutionaries in Iran thought that the USA was plotting a "counter" coup, but they never were. To consolidate power, the revolutionaries started the hostage crisis. There was probably nothing that could have been done to militate the course of events. Dealing with hostile paranoid revolutionaries is hard - esp. when they already hate you and blame you for all of their problems.

    Carter attempted to negotiate, and then there was the ill-fated rescue mission. Perhaps you think Carter should have let the US embassy staff rot in hell? They were just doing their jobs, and the US administration was doing nothing wrong at the time.

    The talks that successfully negotiated the release of the hostages were initiated by Carter two months before the election. The release occurred shortly after Reagan was sworn in as president.

    THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR RELEASE, but in a twist of irony, they got the entire political capital for it - essentially because of the campaign. The Republican administration did nothing to set the history straight in the publics mind, by giving credit where it was due.

    You can read all about it on the internet. It might open your eyes.

    --

    Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
    1. Re:Carter is Republican scapegoat for islam hate by microbox · · Score: 2, Informative
      You do admit the Middle-East problems happened during Carter's watch, as did the hyper inflation, double digit unemployment rate, recession, high gas prices, and hostage crisis.

      Lets take that apart:
      • A revolution in Iran happened during Carter's watch. Those revolutionaries weren't born, raised, and revolted in 4 years.
      • As did: hyper inflation, double digit unemployment rate , recession. Yes, yes, yes. Again, Carter was the the wrong person in at the wrong time. The antecedents to stagflation and the world-wide woes at the time were fall-outs from previous economic success. Just like Bush Jr isn't responsible for the most recent stock-market crash, which had it's antecedents largely in the 20 years previous
      • high gas prices: yes, the oil producing nations of the world decided to get a better deal. Was that Carter's fault? Again, the wrong person at the wrong time.
      • hostage crisis: yes. Carter solved that, and the Republicans took credit. It's doubtful that anybody could have averted what happened, although Carter did make some mistakes as I noted before

      AND, the Iran-Contra Scandal had NOTHING to do with the hostage crisis that Carter SOLVED. The US hostages involved in the Iran-Contra scandal were 6 US citizens being held by Hezbollah.

      Just as you can claim Fox News has a right-wing bias, so can you prove that Moveon.org and other liberal blogs that they run and create are also biased but in a left-wing sense.,

      It's not a matter of bias in this case, but getting a few basic facts straight. rotfl!

      --

      Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
    2. Re:Carter is Republican scapegoat for islam hate by Flamerule · · Score: 3, Informative

      I got my information from history books with a neutral point of view that were reviewed for accuracy.
      ...
      Ronald Reagan is vilified for the Iran-Contra Scandal in which it is said that he traded weapons in exchange for getting the Hostages released. But if what you said was true, and Carter negotiated the release before Reagan took office, then the whole Iran=Contra scandal is false.

      Good god. In Iran-Contra, the Reagan administration facilitated the sale of arms to Iran in the hope of freeing hostages in Lebanon taken from 1982 onward, years after the Iranian hostage crisis.

      So what history books have you been getting your information from?

  27. They never really 'detach' ... by dtjohnson · · Score: 3, Insightful

    These companies never 'detach' from the capital and credit markets that they need to stay in business. They enjoy access to free and fair markets supported by the U. S. Constitution. Investors and lenders to such companies depend on financial and accounting standards along with required public disclosures of financial information. When someone threatens to steal their IP or violate a contract they are a party to, they expect access to a fair and impartial court system backed by a stable political system. Let's see them 'detach' from those things...not likely. Being located in the United States is an enormous advantage for these companies and they know it. They just don't want us to know it.

  28. This has EVERYTHING to do with money by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In particular, India and China having their money fixed to ours. If not, then why not Europe or Russia? The simple fact is that IBM, GE, and others are exploiting the fixed money difference and the west is allowing itself to be destroyed. Unless the WEST decides to work together to stop these nations from having an unfair advantage, then there will NOT be a fair competitive market. And without that, more and more IP will simply flow to these nations. Keep in mind that BOTH china and India are pushing to obtain all of our IP related to tech (such as nukes or military or tech or pollution control, etc) and are simply stealing it if they do not feel like paying for it.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  29. Re:Solution is not You. by pentalive · · Score: 2, Insightful

    All wealth stems from theft either now or in earlier eras.



    I see, so when I am the best at building widgets, and you buy one of my widgets because
    it is good quality and worth the price to you, this is theft?

    Oh, I get it, I should *give* you the widget just because I have many and you have none. Even If I had
    to buy materials and spend time to make the widget, I am evil, mean and nasty to not just give you one.
  30. US Northerners and England by br00tus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Regarding your example, England and the US South wanted free trade with each other, with the backwards South supplying raw cotton material to industrialized England for processing, while the US North wanted "laws and regulations, imposed sanctions, taxes and duties" to protect its growing industrial base. The result of this was a civil war in which the industrialized north beat the rural south (a south which couldn't trust a quarter of its population). Afterward, the sanctions and duties only increased. What was the result of this? Today the GDP of the US is five times that of the UK.

  31. Re: Chasing them away? by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Palestine was under British control,

    Just about the entire middle east was under British control. Oh and "palestine" meant the Roman Province called "philistine", meaning Israel, Lebanon, most of Syria, and sizeable parts of Iraq, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

    And IBM may have helped with the holocaust, but the project they signed on for was the administration of the national health care system of Nazi Germany. Of course that was the project that turned into the holocaust later. I know it's important for "tolerant socialists" to believe that Hitler was conceived in a black mass by 2 goats fucking eachother in hellfire, but in reality this was an unremarkable guy, who started out working hard and trying to help his country. Later he went into politics and pushed a form of centralized economy that used to be called "socialism" (as opposed to (bolsjevik) communism) and is today known as "fascism". The component of the ideology that lead to supremacism and the holocaust, eugenics, can be found in any history book under socialism.

    Until late 1941, Hitler was known as the man who made socialism acceptable and possible in America, or more affectionately the "Champion of the poor". He was nominated for the Nobel peace prize, and was the recipient of numerous press prizes on promoting peace, fairness and, especially, equality.

  32. Money mobility caused this by catchblue22 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Following the Great Depression and World War II, the leaders of our society decided to start taxing the wealthy more and more, while using that money for the betterment of society as a whole. It was called the New Deal. And this policy worked quite well, propelling America into a period of rapid economic growth, while at the same time creating a profound sense of economic security for the middle class. Vacation pay became the norm (it largely didn't exist before the Great Depression), and middle class Americans had enough disposable income to spend on luxuries like vacations.

    This system was made possible by several other policies that prevented the rich from quickly withdrawing their money from the country. If you were wealthy in the UK in the 1950's, it was extremely difficult to get your money out of the country. It became common in this period for rich British citizens to build huge sailing yachts, which they sailed to other countries and then sold. They used their boats as a store of their wealth (read Myles Smeeton's Once is Enough for a story of one such couple).

    Then came the right wing "neo-liberal/neo-conservative" politicians. When they got into power, one of the first things they did was to remove the barriers to capital mobility. Money was able to flow almost completely freely across national borders. This has brought economic growth for some, especially in countries like China. But it has also ensured that the countries that originally used taxes on the wealthy to ensure a healthy middle class were at a huge disadvantage. Rich individuals have withdrawn their money from America, and invested it in countries like China.

    What many of us don't realize is that the complete and free mobility of capital will lead to the virtual disappearance of the American middle class as we have seen it over the past four decades, because it will ensure that money will flow away from countries with high taxes towards productive countries with low taxes. The country will increasingly look like Britain in the 1800's during the beginning of the industrial revolution (i.e. the world of Oliver Twist). There will be a very wealthy class. And there will be a worker class, which will comprise the vast majority of the population. Things like vacation pay, comfortable pensions, affordable quality health care, and disposable income will slowly but surely disappear for the vast majority of the former middle class. I am not prophesizing this; I am watching it happen before my eyes. IT IS ALREADY HAPPENING! Take an honest look at America right now, and tell me that our standard of living isn't slipping. And this at a time when we have never been able to make products more efficiently!

    And to those of you who reflexively demonize those like me as "liberals", ask yourself this question? Are you a Billionaire? If not, then why are you thinking like a billionaire? Why do you think that lower wages for most of society is in your interest? Why do you think that taxing billionaires and spending that money to build roads isn't in your interest?

    Do you think that the $20000 you have invested in stocks will pay for your comfortable retirement? What you seem to forget is that the billionaire who owns $200 million of those same stocks will make slightly more than you. And he will use the money he makes to buy even more stocks. Meanwhile, you, with your ever decreasing salary will have less and less disposable money to invest.

    --
    This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
    1. Re:Money mobility caused this by catchblue22 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Neo-conservative != fascist

      See if you can recognize the following characteristics in today's Fox News/Jeff Beck/Rush Limbaugh followers in the following list (note especially point #3 in regard to the parent post):

      Fascism Anyone? The 14 characteristics of Fascism
      by Dr. Lawrence Britt
      Free Inquiry magazine, Spring 2003

      Dr. Britt, a political scientist, studied the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile). He found the regimes all had 14 things in common, and he calls these the identifying characteristics of fascism.

      1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism -- Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

      2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights -- Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to 'look the other way' or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

      3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause -- The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

      4. Supremacy of the Military -- Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

      5. Rampant Sexism -- The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and antigay legislation and national policy.

      6. Controlled Mass Media -- Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or through sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in wartime, is very common.

      7. Obsession with National Security -- Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

      8. Religion and Government are Intertwined -- Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

      9. Corporate Power is Protected -- The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

      10. Labor Power is Suppressed -- Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely or are severely suppressed. 11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts -- Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.

      12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment -- Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses, and even forego civil liberties, in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

      13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption -- Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to

      --
      This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
    2. Re:Money mobility caused this by Bob9113 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Following the Great Depression and World War II, the leaders of our society decided to start taxing the wealthy more and more, while using that money for the betterment of society as a whole. It was called the New Deal. And this policy worked quite well, propelling America into a period of rapid economic growth, while at the same time creating a profound sense of economic security for the middle class.

      Your post presents a very important issue. I want to provide citation to reinforce your point.

      To those who doubt the above. Please first take a look at the calculation of "Marginal Tax Rates":

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_tax_rate

      Specifically, please note:

      "The marginal tax rate may increase or decrease as income or consumption increases, although in most countries the tax rate is (in principle) progressive. In such cases, the average tax rate will be lower than the marginal tax rate: an individual may have a marginal tax rate of 45%, but pay average tax of half this amount."

      Now consider the marginal tax rate calculation for the labor tax code of 1954. A few months ago I added the column for GDP adjusted income. That column is misleading. The correct deflator to use when adjusting individual income is PPC (Product Per Capita, AKA: GDP Per Capita)

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Revenue_Code_of_1986

      Now consider the marginal tax rate calculation for the labor tax code of 2003 (the most recent year for which Wikipedia has the table):

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_and_Growth_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2003#Single

      Now, calculate the actual tax rate tables, being careful to apply marginal tax calculation.

      Where do the tax lines cross? Above what level are you better under our current tax policy than during the period of greatest economic expansion in United States history? Or, conversely, below what income level are you worse under the current tax structure than during the period of greatest economic expansion in United States history?

      The answer was a bit of a surprise to me. It is $251,000. That is the inflection point. Why does that surprise me? Two reasons: First, it's a bit lower than I thought (I had been mentally using GDP until tonight -- but that is not the correct deflator for income per person). Second, and more importantly, it is the number Obama has used several times when referencing the dividing line between rich and not rich. Is that intentional? Did he (or his economic advisor) reach that conclusion by doing the exact same calculation? Perhaps -- given that 250,000 is a number commonly used when pulling figures out of one's ass, it is entirely possible that it is just coincidence. Still, it makes me wonder...

      But I digress. In short, people making less than $250,000 (about 95% of the population) are paying a greater percentage of their income as taxes than they were during the greatest period of economic expansion in United States history.

      Said differently, people making more than $250,000 (about 5% of the population) are paying a lesser percentage of their income as taxes than they were during the greatest period of economic expansion in United States history.

      Please note: This is assuming that you completely discount capital gains, the distribution and tax policy changes of which shift the inflection point much further in favor of the very few, very wealthy.

      One More Time: During the greatest period of economic expansion in United States history our tax policy was enormously more progressive than it is today.

      For further reading, including statistics that show the gargantuan concentration of wealth that has occurred as the tax policy shifted, see Piketty Saez 2007.

    3. Re:Money mobility caused this by Alomex · · Score: 2, Insightful

      First off, the assertion that the New Deal propelled America into a period of rapid economic growth is ridiculous - the economy remained in a depression until the onset of WWII.

      If you look carefully at the data the economy ebbed and flowed as Congress tampered with the New Deal. When in New Deal policies were going strong, the economy improved, when Congress resolve weakened and moved away from expansionary policies the economy took a downturn. Would the great depression come to a swift end without WWII? perhaps not, but clearly it was ameliorated by the New Deal and worsened by whenever anti-New Deal actions took place.

  33. End free-trade with non-free countries now by edfardos · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Simply end free trade with non-free countries. If the US is incapable of this simple concept, then buy Chinese and do everything you can to prop up the Chinese economy and government. The US lifestyle will degrade until we're equal with China. Our only hope is to try to bring the communist standard of living up to what we expect in the USA or any other free country.

    End free trade with non-free countries, or try communism! buy Chinese!

    -edfardos

  34. IBM is a global business by cheap.computer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This has nothing to do with socialism, tax structure, or unregulated capitalism. IBM has stopped to innovate, the only way they can show any profits is by screwing over its employees with no long term strategy in place. They want to look good next quarter, and that is all they care about. The only way they can show any profits is by shifting their work force to cheaper labor markets. They have nothing new to sell, just have to maintain existing crap.

  35. Re: Chasing them away? by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 3, Informative

    I gave it a read. It's well researched, but repetitive and sensational.

    The system worked like this. One punchcard per person. Take the census data, find out a person's ethnicity, parent's ethnicity, religion, occupation, education etc. Now if you need to find the Jewish people, all you do is run a sort based on ethnicity. They were able to use the census data and the card sorters to find people with as little as 1/16 Jewish ancestry.

    Now you have a stack of cards for each concentration camp. If you need a thousand people to build a railway, sort on profession, age, etc. Done. Distribute the cards to the guards and find people to find the prisioners with the right numbers tattooed on their armptis.

    It's no surprise that the German subsidary did this work though. It was a German company. The surprise was how Watson was able to keep his hands in the cookie jar from over a wartime border.

  36. penandpaper02 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As a fellow economic genius I have a few thoughts:

    1.) Buying cheaper is more expensive.
    We the consumers are as much to blame as the large corporations. The point is we are willing to buy the cheaper product to save ourselves money. There's nothing inherently wrong with this however we are thinking in the individual sense and not looking beyond the purchase and asking questions such as "How can they make this so much cheaper?" We just want cheap crap we can throw away later so we can buy more cheap crap (repeat over and over) which actually costs us more in the long run and fills those companies pockets.

    2.) You need a babysitter?
    We want the Uncle Sam to totally control how these companies operate however we fail to realize that we have the purchasing power. You don't need to be protected from buying from China or elsewhere. Make the decision on what to buy from where and whom. If nothing fits what your looking for then here's a thought: Stop buying shit. What could take months to years in the political arena can be accomplished instantly by you making a decision while your in the store. What happened to personal responsibility?

    3.) The Chinese work hard.
    Yea, I said it. The average Lee over there is no different than over here. He or she is just trying to support their family and put some food on the table. Would you let your family go hungry for someone else in another country? Deep down I doubt it because I know I wouldn't. Thus I can't fault them for it. If you want to turn your anger somewhere turn it at the guys lining their pockets with fat bonuses and those employees putting in the bare minimum and expecting premium wage.

    4.) Our students need to not be stoopid.
    I work and attend a college (no, I'm not the janitor). Everyday I hear students complain about how hard they have to study or how they can't wait to get shit faced. Yea, that's the way to go. Go ahead and burn some brain cells that won't come back.

    They study to pass tests but not to learn the material. They complain about teachers trying to "over teach" them. We're so obsessed with having a society with individuals that have degrees that the quality of the person (by quality I mean someone who actually is willing to work hard to learn the material) getting it reduces its true significance. And a degree is only a meaning. That piece of paper doesn't make you more intelligent, it just means you know how to study for a test and do homework. Anyone can memorize things. What matters is your passion for learning, and your ability to take those memorized facts and use them in an abstract manner to solve problems that don't have answers yet. Your goal shouldn't be graduation but graduation as an effect of you mastering the material.

    Why the rant? Because these same students who hate to learn and don't have a passion for knowledge take this same approach in the work field but have some sense of entitlement about them. When they can't do the job and get fired they blame the gov, the minimum wage guy from China, and everyone's momma. I would think our present situation would make students want to buckle down and give China something to be envious of but I still see students complain about how long their class was. Maybe China does deserve it more...

  37. 10 years and it will all be coming back by MM-tng · · Score: 2, Informative

    At my work we have a Chinese production facility. They do molding design as well. Molding design and Manufacturing are just as expensive. So skilled labour is just as expensive here as it is over there. Only thing is assembly is cheaper. But I can already see prices starting to rise. It's cheap but not that cheap. And then you have to send your stuff all across the world, this takes 3 months. Transportation is not free as well. So in all it's better now in China but when wages increase all this work will be coming back. And we will have a large Chinese middle class ready to spend some of their cash over here.

  38. Re:"Mumbo-jumbo"!? by catchblue22 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Oh please, economics is NOT is science in the same way as physics and chemistry. It does not have hard and testable hypotheses. Its predictions are always approximate, and are seemingly rarely falsified, largely due to their vagueness. Most economic theories are inwards looking and self-referential. The theories are logical based on a certain set of assumptions, but those base assumptions are mere speculation.

    I like to look at economics as a useful tool. It may have some preductive utility, not unlike technical stock analysis. But it certainly shouldn't be used as the main guiding force by which to operate a society. I believe that the fundamental flaw of economics is that it seeks to make predictions about phenomenon that are largely psychological. In the end, market behavior is based on psychology, on desires, on fears, on needs. To assume that we can reduce such a massively complicated thing as fear to a simple set of equations is ludicrous.

    --
    This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
  39. not sensationalist... by zogger · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ..just realistic. I saw the crash coming a long time ago and set out to become as independent as possible, including dropping demand for having to have so much of my life connected through the federal reserve note. I think I was accurate in the face of events over the last ten years. Way more than the bulk of wall street economists (the shills I mean) and especially the government who have lowballed the effects near constantly. Even with cooking the books, changing the way they count unemployment, changing how they create what it costs to live (dropping food and energy prices from their calculations) etc, it has still been worse than what they predicted. Near every quarter they have to readjust this or that. (I have a lot of journal entries on economics if you want to look, under "the almighty buck" but most of my other writings on the subject are gone now because they were on sites that are defunct)

    Now not all big name economists got it wrong, the ones who also predicted it correctly are still saying that we haven't hit bottom yet, so I'll tend to believe those guys.

    The biggest clue that the Feds were getting concerned that they had screwed up was when they stopped releasing all the money stats, the M3, which helped them push massive inflation easier.

    As to living cheap, well one, I just am not doing apartments and random roomates, I am near retirement age and.well, just ain't gonna. My apartment days are long over. My GF and I share a small cabin and live on a farm. We3 have dogs and cats anf chickens and cows and a large garden, and that's jibe with apartment and roomate living. No mastter how cheap you get in an apartment, you are still 100% dependent on the whole system staying intact, which is a risk I simply will not take at this time..because I think it's near nuts to do that. If you do that you are relying on the biggest crooks and conmen in the world to have your best interests at heart..I just can't buy that being a smooth move.

    I determined that moving to the the semi stix and being directly involved with food production and also we get a lot of our normal energy here directly onsite using firewood and having our own well, etc would be the best future proofing method. To get independent. Trying to eliminate the middleman as much as possible, we even have a modest solar array now and so on. We have little to no debt as well, a big help. Yes we buy in bulk and also grow in bulk ourselves, example we have enough stored food to last well over an entire year, even without having our garden, etc. Took awhile but I got there. I believe in wealth creation, just not filtering it through what I see as the dropping in value fed reserve note, so I switched to dealing in tangibles as much as possible..

    We'll see what happens, but my prediction is it will get a lot worse here in the US and might take generations to recover, not just years or even decades.

    The dominance of the fed reserve note as the international reserve currency is clearly in peril now, which is by far and away the big kahuna when it comes to quality of life in the US since we have offshored the bulk of wealth creation manufacturing. We need to import manufactured stuff now, and have been doing it with printed up pieces of paper. IOUs in other words (a "note" is a legal term for a debt instrument), and we we try to get them back to finance government, we just issue another form of IOU to these foreigners who hold our debt and they are getting *antsy* over that now and are slowing this effect and practice. It's slow, but the trend is steady and what you can read about it is it is a clear pattern and will continue. The fed note is medium term doomed right now, and as it goes, bye bye middle class USA.

    We started out having our own manufactured items being exchangeable for imported oil (the petrodollar rise and the dominace of the fed reserve note after Nixon's move), but seeing as how that is not so much the case anymore, all these various outside nations now are questionin

  40. William Gibson saw this coming 20+ yrs ago by shinehead · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Back when I first read Gibsons novels I realized that his vision of multinationals running the world is essentially correct. Made me kind of sad too. Since being laid in the financial services meltdown I am now working for an offshore outsourcing firm with the client being a Fortune 10 company. These days I can relate more to Tom Joad than Adam Smith...

  41. We do that by zogger · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We can and freeze a lot here. We grow our own beef and chickens and get some eggs, plus there's a big pond to fish from and we get bass from it. It's so close and easy to get fish from I don't bother with trying to can it, we eat it fresh when we want to or throw a few fillets in the freezer. But I hear ya, I could do that, should try it just for garnering another thing to learn to can I guess. And can't hardly keep up with the garden now, we've be canning and freezing a lot of the surplus. Running two stand alone chest freezers and the side freezer on a two door big freezer/fridge combo. Modest increase in electric bill for a huge decrease in grocery store bill, it is a good trade. Shelves full of home canned stuff, plus we store our own dried beans and so on. Here's a cool one, we have propane heat plus wood heat, but the last two winters we didn't use any propane at all, zilch. I just cut and split some extra wood, done. That saves a lot of cash right there, but the propane in the tank is still good for decades if we really need it for emergency use, and it is paid off.

    The whole deal is to try and get what you would normally spend cash on, without needing the cash, and eliminating the middleman suckage. I haven't found replacements for every bill yet, like this internet connection, but we have done a lot so far. By going directly to the tangibles, it saves bunches and your hourly "pay" goes up in a sense. It is a way to "insure" both future availability of something you need, plus lock in a price better when you do all or most of it yourself. Independence rather than dependence.

    Here's a direct figure for you: by growing our own beef, we pay moderately more for hamburger than you can get it at the store on sale..but all the other cuts of beef are the same "price" to us, so we save a ton. We eat ribeyes for barely hamburger price, and that is organic grass fed to boot. Price that in the store, heh. Same with our organic garden produce.

    I don't do my own butchering on a whole beef, just too big and no walk in fridge/cooler for the required hanging and aging, so that's the biggest expense, just the slaughterhouse fee, which isn't that bad overall. I find someone to take one half, we take the other half. Chickens I do myself, I can knock one out pretty fast now. In a pinch though I can butcher a whole beef, I mean if I *really* have to, I have done it before twice, but I will admit I am not as good or fast as a pro butcher who does it all day long as a biz and is set up for it with huge meat saws and electric grinders, etc.

    And then there's the normal thrifty action, hit the thrift stores/ yard sales for good used clothing, all that stuff you can imagine. I try to avoid buying anything brand new unless necessary. Even my tools, if there is something I need that I don't already have, I'll hit the pawnshops first before shelling out the full price scratch. My computer desk here is just an old platform bed I built and used for years, no longer needed, so now it sets across a bureau for my precious gadget junk (has to go someplace..I am a nerd, can't throw out old gadgets;) ) and my file cabinets. Done, "free" executive sized desk. My computer is built from cheap parts mailorder from tiger, then recycled hard drives and optical drives, and I only did that because the last one was broken, physically broken, stopped booting and it was an old 200 mghz pentium pro! I was using that until two years ago or so (I think around fedora core 8 maybe? Don't remember, around then). We don't do cable TV(not even available here) or satellite, but get by with an old regular TV and one of the perverter boxes and over the air signals. Movies we buy used tapes or disks or I download free to copy documentaries and so forth (I don't peg leg anything, but am in favor of serious copyright law reform there). Books I buy used and ye aulde ladee hits the library. We have some *really* nice and expensive carpeting here, I got it for free for tearing it out at some rich folks house, they didn't