Offline
dirt is cheap. Its free, just walk outside and grab some. now a truckload of dirt isn't cheap. but you are realy jusy paying for the truck and the driver and the person who loaded it.
Inflation here? gas/grocery prices just continue to climb (1 Viewer)
- Thread starterefil4stnias
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
This is all fine. The problem is that corps have forgotten the workers. We are approaching the point where workers cannot afford the products they produce. This is a problem of shortsighted boards only concerned about their own bank accounts.
0rion
Hall-of-Famer
Offline
Not sure they've ever really had their workers best interest in mind to begin with much past how do they benefit the company. On a local level maybe but board rooms probably have never truly cared about the average worker. As long as the job gets done they don't care who's doing it and the cheaper it gets done the better.This is all fine. The problem is that corps have forgotten the workers. We are approaching the point where workers cannot afford the products they produce. This is a problem of shortsighted boards only concerned about their own bank accounts.
Offline
Offline
This is all fine. The problem is that corps have forgotten the workers. We are approaching the point where workers cannot afford the products they produce. This is a problem of shortsighted boards only concerned about their own bank accounts.
Henry Ford was sued by his shareholders over his plan to use corporate profits to increase production and raise wages without passing costs to the buyers because he thought it was patriotic.
The shareholders won and the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that Ford's plan to use corporate surplus in such a manner violated the company's duty to shareholders.
Ford could have argued that allowing more consumers to buy cars (in the mid- 1910s) would mean greater future sales because many of these buyers didn't own cars at all yet and would be hooked on Ford for future purchases . . . but he didn't. He believed in the principle of that matter, but his principles were inconsistent with profit-making and distributing.
In other words, that quote is at substantial odds with the US model of corporate moneymaking.
Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. - Wikipedia
- Admin
- #2,241
HoustonSaint68
Subscribing Member
Staff member
Administrator
VIP Subscribing Member
Platinum VIP Contributor
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2001
- Messages
- 8,023
- Reaction score
- 10,226
Offline
This. I think it's a race to see which comes first:
1) Unions find a way to thread their way through "free trade" agreements and dictatorial governments to organize worldwide so as to MAKE corporations and government-controlled economies care;
2) Populist movements around the world lead to trustbusting;
3) Populist movements around the world lead to autocrats which lead to dictators...and then the dictators give the populists a warped government-controlled version of the "socialism" they so loudly fear;
4) Populist movements around the world lead to regional wars which lead to world war.
- Admin
- #2,242
HoustonSaint68
Subscribing Member
Staff member
Administrator
VIP Subscribing Member
Platinum VIP Contributor
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2001
- Messages
- 8,023
- Reaction score
- 10,226
Offline
Aaaand, this.Henry Ford was sued by his shareholders over his plan to use corporate profits to increase production and raise wages without passing costs to the buyers because he thought it was patriotic.
The shareholders won and the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that Ford's plan to use corporate surplus in such a manner violated the company's duty to shareholders.
Ford could have argued that allowing more consumers to buy cars (in the mid- 1910s) would mean greater future sales because many of these buyers didn't own cars at all yet and would be hooked on Ford for future purchases . . . but he didn't. He believed in the principle of that matter, but his principles were inconsistent with profit-making and distributing.
In other words, that quote is at substantial odds with the US model of corporate moneymaking.
Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I can see why some might think that the argument I've been making against the mustache-twirling is simply semantics. But I think it's more than that. So long as people have this idea that the root of the problem is just a cabal of uber-rich board members and executives trying to line their own pockets, the problem will never get solved. That's just the eye-candy. As I argued above, it's much more fear that drives corporations than it is greed.
The root problem lies in the above quoted post. A short-sighted and short-term view of profit...and one that is getting shorter and shorter with algorithmic trading and hedging. I certainly don't have the solution, but that's the problem. And "free trade" agreements will be problematic so long as corporations can leverage workers of the world against one another.
I am no communist. And I am certainly not a big fan of tariff-based economics. But this house of cards is going to fall soon without a major shift in approach. And reducing the issue to personal greed just delays a solution because it hides the actual problem.
Offline
I think this as well. It doesn't seem like any of this is sustainable.
- Admin
- #2,244
TheRealJRad
The Artist Formerly Known as AgentJRad
Staff member
Tech-Admin
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Offline
It’s ok, we’ll bail out the corporations and for some reason handing them billions won‘t lead to inflation like giving us normies a grand will.
bclemms
More than 15K posts served!
Offline
You got a grand, the corporations got hundreds of billions and the government got trillions. Not a single one of them would have really caused inflation. All three of them at a time where the supply chain got crunched, that's another story.
I only mentioned the checks because they are being used as political rhetoric and as all rhetoric goes, it's inaccurate and the whole part is made up of half lies and half truths.
Offline
Henry Ford was sued by his shareholders over his plan to use corporate profits to increase production and raise wages without passing costs to the buyers because he thought it was patriotic.
The shareholders won and the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that Ford's plan to use corporate surplus in such a manner violated the company's duty to shareholders.
Ford could have argued that allowing more consumers to buy cars (in the mid- 1910s) would mean greater future sales because many of these buyers didn't own cars at all yet and would be hooked on Ford for future purchases . . . but he didn't. He believed in the principle of that matter, but his principles were inconsistent with profit-making and distributing.
In other words, that quote is at substantial odds with the US model of corporate moneymaking.
Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. - Wikipedia
TIL…. Seriously, i must have missed that particular History class at MHS
.. very enlightening story to help illuminate where we find ourselves today in corporate America .
Offline
My friend....when walking in their many many upscale malls, you will see a great amount of beautiful 21 to 29 year old women. I've never seen so many beautiful women all under one roof as the time I spent in Singapore.
Offline
TIL…. Seriously, i must have missed that particular History class at MHS
No worries - I learned that in Corporations in law school, not MHS.
Offline
Haha, there may or may not be as many- or even more- beautiful wimmins walking in the malls of Bangkok, and Chiang Mai and Phuket and in Cebu City or any number of other cities in Asia……….. OR SO I HAVE HEARD
OP
OP
Offline
or lady boi.....ask Stu.
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account on our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.