Print

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

[RedKing]

As far as I'm aware it wasn't illegal, just highly deceptive and unethical. And from a business standpoint, self-defeating in the long-term since you typically paid out more for an employee as a contractor (middleman inflation) than you did when they were on the payroll. So you doubled the labor cost, but on paper you slashed the in-house labor cost and made the company profitable. So the CEO got rewarded with a big fat bonus and then skipped town before the company collapsed. It's like playing a serious exploit game of Capitalism or a Railroad Tycoon game where you abuse the hell out of the stock market and wind up using your railroad/corporation as your own personal money spigot, without any care for the damage you cause to the corporate bottom line or the shareholders.

(Which is one reason I love Railroad Tycoon, because that shit actually happened...railroad financial shenanigans nearly destroyed the US economy half a dozen times in the 1800's.)

[Luke_Prowler]

As much as I hate corperate lobbying, there's no way to completely stop that, since they already have "fundraisers" and "committies" just so they can get around those kind of things, and get a tax reduction as a bonus.

I'd reather prefer complete trasparency. They can donate as they like, but then people will be able to see it.

003): Goods by a corperation that have been made outside of their home country (such as via outsoursing) will be subject to tariffs

[RedKing]

As much as I hate corperate lobbying, there's no way to completely stop that, since they already have "fundraisers" and "committies" just so they can get around those kind of things, and get a tax reduction as a bonus.

I'd reather prefer complete trasparency. They can donate as they like, but then people will be able to see it.

003): Goods by a corperation that have been made outside of their home country (such as via outsoursing) will be subject to tariffs

Meh....high tariff protectionism isn't really the way to go either. For one thing, get ready to pay a shit-ton more for every electronic device you own. Because semiconductor production is massively outsourced to East Asia and has been for roughly 20 years now. The vast majority of clothing is made in South Asia or Latin America. There's any number of products that are made overseas which even with the tariffs would be cheaper for the parent company to produce overseas. Meanwhile, they'll just pass the tariff cost along to consumers and blame Congress for the increase.

[Duuvian]

Nowadays they use employment agencies. That way, not only can they take your benefits, they can lift an additional 2$ from your hourly wage!

[GlyphGryph]

004) Any profits moved overseas still count as profits, with the maximum potential tax on them being equal to the difference between our tax rate and the tax rate the profits are declared in.

[GlyphGryph]

As far as I'm aware it wasn't illegal, just highly deceptive and unethical.

Technically, the way a lot of companies do it is extremely illegal. There are legal ways to do it, but most companies don't bother. I forget the name of the agency that enforces it, but they've been underfunded for a while. They do act, but their reach is limited and the consequences are minimal, often being reduced to what is basically a warning.

The IRS is often not so big on it as well, since the companies that do it usually screw up their taxes in the process.

It's possible yours did it the "right" way of course, which is still pretty despicable.

[Luke_Prowler]

As much as I hate corperate lobbying, there's no way to completely stop that, since they already have "fundraisers" and "committies" just so they can get around those kind of things, and get a tax reduction as a bonus.

I'd reather prefer complete trasparency. They can donate as they like, but then people will be able to see it.

003): Goods by a corperation that have been made outside of their home country (such as via outsoursing) will be subject to tariffs

Meh....high tariff protectionism isn't really the way to go either. For one thing, get ready to pay a shit-ton more for every electronic device you own. Because semiconductor production is massively outsourced to East Asia and has been for roughly 20 years now. The vast majority of clothing is made in South Asia or Latin America. There's any number of products that are made overseas which even with the tariffs would be cheaper for the parent company to produce overseas. Meanwhile, they'll just pass the tariff cost along to consumers and blame Congress for the increase.

Ugh, good point. In all reality, most products are sold for several times more than what the good going in them cost, and it's hard to believe the extra cost is from labor when it was probably made by some kid in Taiwan or China in a sweat shop for pennies an hour. But your right, any cost increase on their side would just cause prices to shoot up again and the politic game keeps going. Of course prices go up anyway for stupid reasons. Gas prices are so fickle that someone farting over in Saudi Arabia would cause them to go up another quarter. 

[klingon13524]

I agree with 001 and 002, and I'm a no for 003 and 004.

[Duuvian]

As much as I hate corperate lobbying, there's no way to completely stop that, since they already have "fundraisers" and "committies" just so they can get around those kind of things, and get a tax reduction as a bonus.

I'd reather prefer complete trasparency. They can donate as they like, but then people will be able to see it.

003): Goods by a corperation that have been made outside of their home country (such as via outsoursing) will be subject to tariffs

Meh....high tariff protectionism isn't really the way to go either. For one thing, get ready to pay a shit-ton more for every electronic device you own. Because semiconductor production is massively outsourced to East Asia and has been for roughly 20 years now. The vast majority of clothing is made in South Asia or Latin America. There's any number of products that are made overseas which even with the tariffs would be cheaper for the parent company to produce overseas. Meanwhile, they'll just pass the tariff cost along to consumers and blame Congress for the increase.

I don't mind paying more for electronics if I have a job making semiconductors. It's better than scavenging what I can without one probably.

That said, you are very right about tariffs. I would think that in order to combat an initial reduction of supply caused by tariffs a domestic industry would have to be shaped prior in order to be able to beat foreign prices just enough that the tariffs are effective while at the same time meeting enough of demand that the initial price spike is less severe before manufacturers can fully meet demand.

As for clothing, I just did a quick google search, found a made in America store, and learned that a pair of jeans cost 50$. While I won't make comparisons on quality, my desire to not spend money on foreign goods (due to the concept of money supply rather than a superiority complex) is greatly diminished at that price.

Historically, when things like these prices happen, people choose substitutes for their normal purchases. In this instance it's the cheaper foreign made good. Often this is a cause of monetary issues, in this case I would say it's partially due to the dollar's gradual decline and mostly due to the money supply. Specifically, the fact that wealth is accumulating in the hands of fewer people. While this might initially sound like an uninventive liberal proclamation, the fact is that it in fact has severe economic repurcussions. Three I can think of are 1: The people who have money can spend more. and 2: Those that do not have money don't spend much at all, and 3: The people who have money often let it 'sit' in  a bank somewhere, and who knows what mystical dimension they keep it in. Of these three the 3: is arguably the least important in this case and probably the most difficult to fix. Yes, I know bank money doesn't 'sit,' it's fairly active in stocks and loans and such but by doing these things they contribute to 1 and 2 over a period of time, and it still 'sits' for the people who made the deposit at record low interest rates.

1: is a problem because if they are willing to pay more for the luxury goods, it will raise prices due to business being able to charge that much. In non-luxury goods such as clothing in times like these most people make do with substitutes (foreign goods in this case) because they don't have the money to buy American Made. This contracts the money supply of most of the population as at least a portion of it flows overseas.

2: is the most severe problem, as people don't have the money to spend. This is because not only is it the case where only the wealthy can hold onto their money supply over the long term, as in a clothing example American made costs more; but also because economists have become dreamy eyed at the thought of finding the spot of the most profit per item instead of finding the way to produce the most at a profit in my opinion.

That said, would tariffs affect these issues positively? In the long term, yes, they could be a very good thing. That said, tariffs have proven so volatile in the past that politicians probably HATE them. That said, oftentimes it felt when I was reading about them that they were often poorly implemented and not well thought out. I'm probably forgetting an attempt somewhere that was but oh well. Mostly though it seems like a tariff would be something you would have to start planning say 5 years in advance? 

That way the government can do what it does anyways and spend money for business in shaping a new (old?) domestic industry, but this time it would be more constructive than usual in that it wouldn't be in a layman's (myself included as I shouldn't have to worry about this stuff for free) view the standard 'Here's your loan, do whatever the hell you want with it as long as we get paid before the next election."
EDIT2: Auto bailout was great though, unless the companies pulled a fast one that I don't know about. Houses in Detroit could be bought for 10$ at that time. Probably not a lot better now but at least Detroit doesn't have the national guard stationed where it used to be.

EDIT:



EDIT3: Also



and


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

and



EDIT3?:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply
Note: The examples apply when read in sequential order.
M0
Laura has ten US $100 bills, representing $1000 in the M0 supply for the United States. (MB = $1000, M0 = $1000, M1 = $1000, M2 = $1000)
Laura burns one of her $100 bills. The US M0, and her personal net worth, just decreased by $100. (MB = $900, M0 = $900, M1 = $900, M2 = $900)
M1
Laura takes the remaining nine bills and deposits them in her checking account (current account) at her bank. (MB = $900, M0 = 0, M1 = $900, M2 = $900)
The bank then calculates its reserve using the minimum reserve percentage given by the Fed and loans the extra money. If the minimum reserve is 10%, this means $90 will remain in the bank's reserve. The remaining $810 can only be used by the bank as credit, by lending money, but until that happens it will be part of the banks excess reserves.
The M1 money supply increased by $810 when the loan is made. M1 money has been created. ( MB = $900 M0 = 0, M1 = $1710, M2 = $1710)
Laura writes a check for $400, check number 7771. The total M1 money supply didn't change, it includes the $400 check and the $500 left in her account. (MB = $900, M0 = 0, M1 = $1710, M2 = $1710)
Laura's check number 7771 is accidentally destroyed in the laundry. M1 and her checking account do not change, because the check is never cashed. (MB = $900, M0 = 0, M1 = $1710, M2 = $1710)
Laura writes check number 7772 for $100 to her friend Alice, and Alice deposits it into her checking account. MB does not change, it still has $900 in it, Alice's $100 and Laura's $800. (MB = $900, M0 = 0, M1 = $1710, M2 = $1710)
The bank lends Mandy the $810 credit that it has created. Mandy deposits the money in a checking account at another bank. The other bank must keep $81 as a reserve and has $729 available for loans. This creates a promise-to-pay money from a previous promise-to-pay, thus the M1 money supply is now inflated by $729. (MB = $900, M0 = 0, M1 = $2439, M2 = $2439)
Mandy's bank now lends the money to someone else who deposits it on a checking account on yet another bank, who again stores 10% as reserve and has 90% available for loans. This process repeats itself at the next bank and at the next bank and so on, until the money in the reserves backs up an M1 money supply of $9000, which is 10 times the M0 money. (MB = $900, M0 = 0, M1 = $9000, M2 = $9000)
M2
Laura writes check number 7774 for $1000 and brings it to the bank to start a Money Market account (these do not have a credit-creating charter), M1 goes down by $1000, but M2 stays the same. This is because M2 includes the Money Market account in addition to all money counted in M1.
Foreign Exchange
Laura writes check number 7776 for $200 and brings it downtown to a foreign exchange bank teller at Credit Suisse to convert it to British Pounds. On this particular day, the exchange rate is exactly USD 2.00 = GBP 1.00. The bank Credit Suisse takes her $200 check, and gives her two £50 notes (and charges her a dollar for the service fee). Meanwhile, at the Credit Suisse branch office in Hong Kong, a customer named Huang has £100 and wants $200, and the bank does that trade (charging him an extra £.50 for the service fee). US M0 still has the $900, although Huang now has $200 of it. The £50 notes Laura walks off with are part of Britain's M0 money supply that came from Huang.
The next day, Credit Suisse finds they have an excess of GB Pounds and a shortage of US Dollars, determined by adding up all the branch offices' supplies. They sell some of their GBP on the open FX market with Deutsche Bank, which has the opposite problem. The exchange rate stays the same.
The day after, both Credit Suisse and Deutsche Bank find they have too many GBP and not enough USD, along with other traders. Then, To move their inventories, they have to sell GBP at USD 1.999, that is, 1/10 cent less than $2 per pound, and the exchange rate shifts. None of these banks has the power to increase or decrease the British M0 or the American M0; they are independent systems.

So the poor people have little money, the wealthy have too much, and money supply is high but concentrated and prices are increasing despite and because of this.

[sluissa]

Can I suggest an adaption to 003?

Perhaps have a scaling tariff that's based upon the income the manufacturing employees make in the other country. If their base pay is roughly in line with ours, then the tariff is low, or even non-existant. But if the overseas employees (manufacturing employees, specifically.) are being paid signficiantly less than, just for example, the minimum wage here, then the tariff goes up. That way overseas companies are given incentive to pay people reasonable wages.

I do realize I haven't thought this all out. One of many possible consequences is the potential to completely wreck a developing economy if suddenly you have a lot of people making 8 currencies an hour when they used to get 1 or 2.

But if anyone can further refine this, feel free.

[GlyphGryph]

I agree with 001 and 002, and I'm a no for 003 and 004.

So, what exactly is the problem you have with 004?

[Dwarf]

005): This.

[lemon10]

005): This.

The purpose of this post is to begin a discussion concerning what 10 edicts (totally arbitrary) could be made, that could significantly curb corporate greed. Even if not ever implemented by the Government, corporations could pledge to follow these edicts.

That's not a edict, its a book.

[Pnx]

Ugh, good point. In all reality, most products are sold for several times more than what the good going in them cost, and it's hard to believe the extra cost is from labor when it was probably made by some kid in Taiwan or China in a sweat shop for pennies an hour. But your right, any cost increase on their side would just cause prices to shoot up again and the politic game keeps going. Of course prices go up anyway for stupid reasons. Gas prices are so fickle that someone farting over in Saudi Arabia would cause them to go up another quarter.

This stuff reminds me of Jennifer Government, in particular this reminds me of this bit of it:

... “Now. What do you know about Nike Mercurys?”

Hack blinked. “They’re our latest product. I haven’t actually seen a pair, but... I heard they’re great.”

The Johns smiled. “We started selling Mercurys six months ago. You know how many pairs we’ve shifted since then?”

Hack shook his head. They cost thousands of dollars a pair, but that wouldn’t stop people from buying them. They were the hottest sneakers in the world. “A million?”

“Two hundred.”

“Two hundred million?”

“No, two hundred pairs.”

“John here,” the other John said, “pioneered the concept of marketing by refusing to sell any products. It drives the market insane.”

“And now it’s time to cash in. On Friday we’re gonna dump four hundred thousand pairs on the market at two and a half grand each.”

“Which, since they cost us—what was it?”

“Eighty-five.”

“Since they cost us eighty-five cents to manufacture, gives us a gross margin of around one billion dollars.” He looked at Vice-President John. “It’s a brilliant campaign.”

Has anybody noticed that the only thing the economics of scale seems to work in favour of is profit margins of the top percentile?

Just a thought.

[timotheus]

005): This.

I've never heard of this book; thanks for the link. With the power of Project Gutenburg it is on my phone, to be read during my daily commute. Thanks.

Can you summarize it to a sentence or two, to fit our 10 edicts format?