Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[scriver]

So GM is moving to China, but they couldn't sell off SAAB to the Chinese. Fucking assholes. I'm looking up whatever other brands they have under their umbrella, I'm sure not buying anything else from them again.

[DJ]

The US practices something like free-market capitalism and other nations like China, do not. They heavily subsidize domestic exports, manipulate to devalue their currency, states run industries, eschew enviromental or regulatory controls and wages are deliberately kept low.

Doesn't USA heavily subsidize it's agriculture? Plus, you guys do tax cuts all the time, which in practice isn't very different from subsidies.

[Fiskav]

.

[Montague]

The US practices something like free-market capitalism and other nations like China, do not. They heavily subsidize domestic exports, manipulate to devalue their currency, states run industries, eschew enviromental or regulatory controls and wages are deliberately kept low.

Doesn't USA heavily subsidize it's agriculture? Plus, you guys do tax cuts all the time, which in practice isn't very different from subsidies.

I'm not a big fan of agricultural subsidies, but one reasoning behind them is that agricultural produce, especially grain is a commodity with razor thin profit margins in the first place. Foriegn produce and domestic produce in almost every country is of similar price (eg, really low). It is also too important of a industry to have every farmer barely scraping by to fail and be taken up by huge firms, it could be argued that it is in the national interest to subsidize it. Almost every country subsidizes agricultural for these reasons. Produce is a major export of the US, being one of the few net exporters in the world. Other countries might be free to impliment reciprocial tariffs on US imports, but for grain and whatnot, it probably would be a bad idea for them. Also, argicultural imports and exports probably don't effect employment a whole hell of a lot, but its favorable for people to be able to buy cheap food. It's hard to say if agricultural subsidy really exploits market differences and people like other produces do.

We do this, actually... or used to.  They're called Countervailing duties.  It's my job to make sure those duties are included in the paperwork on applicable imports.

Except I'm not aware of any commodities right now that get them.  There used to be several, especially on cheap DRAM from a couple asian countries.  They've all been removed in the last few years.

We still have anti-dumping measures on a few things also, but they're almost as sparse and more loosely enforced than CVDs were.

I wish they'd seriously start reconsidering some protectionist measures again. The arguments for free trade don't seem as true as they used to be and unethical competition is doing a good job of gutting the working and middle classes here in the US. Its lucrative only for far too few people to justify it anymore. I don't understand why we have a trade embargo on Cuba, just for being commie bastards or whatever, but the Chinese and other countries like them are given carte blanche to sell their undervalued crap in the US.

On a side note, GM always made crap products, moving their operations to build their crappy uncompetive products is probably the only way they can remain solvent with their current shitty business model of making grossly inferior (and crappy) automobiles.

[DJ]

Agriculture may not employ a lot of people directly,  but the whole food industry sits on it's shoulders.

[Sheb]

Montague, agriculture doesn't employ much people in the States. In some African countries, most of the population is made up of farmers, and they are not only loosing their jobs, but their lives as well. Some with US cotton undercutting Malian cotton for exemple. US and European agricultural subsidies are a large cause of poverty and, ironically, hunger in the South.

[Truean]

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaab-the-dagger/protest-helps-half-court-shot-contest-winner-claim-153247431.html

Occupy movement protest helps basketball contest winner claim rightful prize. They threatened mass pickets of Kroger Stores and got 37,000 shoppers to complain.

Demands: (Met)
1.) You will pay him for making that half court shot: the entire $10,000 immediately.
2.) You will in future competitions place a tape line over the logo so the half court line appears as clearly visible to everyone prior to the shot being taken. You will acknowledge this as YOUR duty of fairness, which your corporation will perform.
3.) You will comply. Failure to comply will result in organized protests in front of every Kroger store in the State of Kentucky and beyond.

They paid him immediately. Clear demands. They help a lot.

[Heron TSG]

Hurrah! Good to see people sticking together like that.

[scriver]

We are bricks that builds the wall. We are the sticks that doesn't break. We are the people. We are solidarity.

/pretension. America, I am proud. Now go make yourself a basketeer's union.

[Truean]

Yeah, frankly it's pretty representative of the whole damn cause.

Let me get this straight, you wanna say he's over the half court line when the line isn't visible and doesn't show up AT FUCKING ALL because the team logo covers it? Forget for a second whether or not he's over the line, why the hell didn't anyone put down a piece of tape? It wouldn't have cost you hardly anything and it would've been fair.... Forgetting that even, he shot from where someone placed him. They said "take the shot from here," and moved him into position. You're going to screw him over for following directions given to him by who exactly...? You?

Now because you placed him on a court with no visible line we have photos from some angles showing him over the line and some that don't because nobody really knows where the hell the damn line is.... Thanks.... I can't help but think this is all your fault Kroger Corp, because it is....

Now compare that to the deregulation attitude.... We're happy to compete and work at it, but we want a few things. We want lines; we want disclosure. We want fair rules. It isn't impossible; it isn't prohibitively expensive. Shut up and do it or we'll find someone who will. You are not irreplaceable.

Put a piece of tape on the court.... That's all we want and that's the big point of contention....

To Kroger personally, they finally got smart and realized that this would've cost them far, far more than the $10,000. I hope the other corporations are paying attention.

[SalmonGod]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Zangi]

*snip*

To Kroger personally, they finally got smart and realized that this would've cost them far, far more than the $10,000. I hope the other corporations are paying attention.

Meh, it could just discourage other corporations from doing this sort of thing.  The way it sounds like, seems that Kroger never really wanted to give out that cash prize they offered if they decided to fight it. 
Its either that or a serious of unforseen incompetence that ended up with whoever makes the decision in Kroger to say he didn't actually win the prize.  Would not be surprised if the decision maker was working on second or third hand information actually... 
(I've had some experience being told to come in and 'fix' stuff based on incomplete 2nd/3rd hand information.  Not exactly ideal when the best way to handle it is having everyone down the line giving consistent information...)

[Duuvian]

Another veteran to die after police force entry to his home over Marijuana

Sort of unrelated:
U.S. Agents Aided Mexican Drug Trafficker to Infiltrate His Criminal Ring

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Not as bad as it seems at first I suppose from what they are telling people. However, 'According to the testimony, the traffickers’ deposits totaled $1 million. And on the traffickers’ instructions, the informant withdrew the money and the D.E.A. arranged for it to be delivered to someone in Panama.

Testimony by the informant suggests that the traffickers were pleased with the service. '

Despite that, this should be mentioned: 'The next day, the informant was summoned to his first meeting in Mexico City with Mr. Poveda-Ortega and Mr. Beltran Leyva, who asked him to help them ship a 330-kilogram load to Spain from Ecuador. The documents say the shipment was transported over two weeks in October, with undercover Ecuadorean agents retrieving the cocaine from a tour bus in Quito and American agents testing its purity in Dallas before sending it on to Madrid.

The testimony describes the informant reassuring the traffickers in code, using words like “girlfriend” or “chick” to refer to the cocaine, and saying that she had arrived just fine. But in reality, the testimony indicates, the Spanish authorities, tipped off in advance by the D.E.A., seized the load shortly after its arrival, rather than risk losing it.'

Sort of related: As Global Economy Falls, Black Market Rises

Spoiler: Milton Friedman (click to show/hide)

“Well, the black market was a way of getting around government controls. It was a way of enabling the free market to work,” said famed economist Milton Friedman. “It was a way of opening up, enabling people. You want to trade with me, and the law won’t let you. But that trade will be mutually beneficial to both of us.”

Friedman explains:

    The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit. The big difference between government coercion and private markets is that government can use coercion to make an exchange in which A benefits and B loses. But in the market, if A and B come to a voluntary agreement, it’s because both of them are better off. And that’s what the black market does, is to get around these artificial government restrictions.

    Now, obviously you’d like a world in which you obey the law. The fact that the black market involves breaking the law is something against it. It’s an undesirable feature. But this only exists when there are bad laws. And nobody, nobody believes that obeying every law is an ultimate moral principle. There comes a point, if you look back at the history of law obedience — think of conscientious objection during wars — I think you will see that everybody agrees that there is a point at which there is a higher law than the legislative law.

Spoiler: From the Link (click to show/hide)

Wired: Why should we care?

Neuwirth: Half the workers of the world are part of System D. By 2020, that will be up to two-thirds. So, we’re talking about the majority of the people on the planet. In simple pragmatic terms, we’ve got to care about that.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Someone('s) vandalized a construction site in my area with pro-OWS graffiti.

[SalmonGod]

San Diego Occupiers charged with felony conspiracy for mic checking the mayor.