Human Rights Violations

[justashooter]

And as far as "mandatory benefits" is concerned, our biggest competitors (China and Europe) have UNIVERSAL SINGLE-PAYER HEALTH CARE. That's part of the secret of their success, the companies aren't going broke with the high insurance costs. So much for our "progressive agenda".


oh, that's hilarious. most people in china pay in cash for the health care they absolutely need. when they run out of money, they die. i see this 7 months a year, trust me.

 

[Lucky]

I was told that China had a reversed medical system, you pay when you are healthy, and the doctor stops getting paid when you get sick? Interesting, as long as the doctor can't bump you off to get you off his sick list

 

[Vern Humphrey]

More than one commentator pointed out that when Bill Clinton had heart surgery, he would have died under the system his wife had proposed (which was modeled on the Canadian system) -- assuming, of course, he had been put on a waiting list like "ordinary" people and not given special treatment.

 

[dasmi]

 

[HankB]

. . . our biggest competitors (China and Europe) have UNIVERSAL SINGLE-PAYER HEALTH CARE.

Yeah, the European competition is really killing us - just go to Wal-Mart and check out all the shirts, bedding, toasters, etc., formerly made in the USA, that have been outsourced to EUROPE.

Hmm . . . if we adopt European ways like their single-payer health care system, maybe we can get our unemployment rate of ~5.1% more in line with Portugal's 7.3%, Belgium's 7.6%, Finland's 7.9%, Italy's 7.9%, France's 10%, Spain's 10.1% . . . in fact, let's just use the E.U.'s overall estimate of 9.4% as a benchmark. (All are 2005 estimates from CIA World Factbook.)

And if I got sick, I sure wouldn't want to be hospitalized in Peking General.

Actually, it seems to me that in some areas, the government is ENCOURAGING outsource trends. Take farm products - most countries have farm subsidies to keep prices low. We have price SUPPORTS to keep the price HIGH, and will actually FINE producers if they sell their product at too low a price! :banghead:

Guess what? As I predicted many years ago, we're seeing more and more imported produce at the grocery store every year.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

I suspect you're not old enough to remember when everything was made in the USA. In those days we didn't have things like high taxes, minimum wages, and mandatory benefits.

We didn't get into this situation in one day -- we got into it like a frog in hot water -- by degrees.

We priced ourselves out of the markets -- for semi-skilled jobs.

I'm probably as old as you are. Yes, we were the major industrial power for most of the 20th century. Unions were strong. We may have indeed "priced ourselves out" because of high wages and regulations, but that's because the corporations would rather pay slave wages in some far off land where they don't have to worry about providing safe working conditions for their workers or pay to keep from polluting the surroundings. So what's your alternative? For American workers to live like coolies?

And are you saying companies in China, Taiwan, Japan, etc pay no taxes? I think they're probably higher than US corporate taxes.

And if you think health care in China is better than here (or even remotely comparable), then next time you need medical treatment, try China.

I never said anything was good about China, I just pointed out that they are kicking our butts in world trade. One of the reasons their companies out compete ours is that they have national health care. Companies don't have to pay those benefits, they're socialized. To the extent that they exist at all, I suppose, but if they have a bad availability of health care, it's because they're very poor. It doesn't have anything to do with what makes them outcompete us.

If we are to win the world competition in the future, we will be forced to do things other countries can't do -- and that requires a highly-educated workforce.

What makes you think other countries aren't capable of educating their people? Many are already doing so, and they send their grad students to the place with the BEST educational system, and that's US, contrary to the point that you made before.

The danger is not in shipping shirt factories and similar semi-skilled jobs overseas -- we don't want Americans to have to compete with Chinese peasants. The danger is in shipping the high-tech jobs overseas, because there aren't enough Americans who can do them.

As soon as you give up the "shirt factories", you have created an entire class that will be unemployed, simply because there is a certain percentage of ANY population that is just, for one reason or another, not going to make it in high-tech. It's not a question of whether there's enough Americans who can do the jobs. There are millions of Chinese who can do high-tech just fine, and they are.

What does that leave us? Well, the only real thing we've got going that really sets us apart from the rest of the world is that we're a lot richer, and therefore the biggest market on the planet. We can either use that market power to make life better for our people or continue to bend over for the corporations, which have no loyalty to anything but the profits of their shareholders.

oh, that's hilarious. most people in china pay in cash for the health care they absolutely need. when they run out of money, they die. i see this 7 months a year, trust me.

I'm sure their system is very lacking in a lot of ways, but your description is different from any other account I've ever read. Maybe they've privatized it since I last heard.

More than one commentator pointed out that when Bill Clinton had heart surgery, he would have died under the system his wife had proposed (which was modeled on the Canadian system) -- assuming, of course, he had been put on a waiting list like "ordinary" people and not given special treatment.

Well, those commentators must not be old enough to remember the debate over the Clinton health care plan. It was in no way "modeled on the Canadian system". In fact, I remember it very well, and the one thing that was off the table from day one was a single-payer system such as Canada's. What it was was a ridiculously contorted boondoggle that tried to please the corporations and insurance companies, but which pleased no one.

Yeah, the European competition is really killing us - just go to Wal-Mart and check out all the shirts, bedding, toasters, etc., formerly made in the USA, that have been outsourced to EUROPE.

I just said they're competitors, and they are. Not necessarily in cheap consumer goods. But whatever the shape of their economies, they enjoy certain advantages over us, and their health care system is one.

Hmm . . . if we adopt European ways like their single-payer health care system, maybe we can get our unemployment rate of ~5.1% more in line with Portugal's 7.3%, Belgium's 7.6%, Finland's 7.9%, Italy's 7.9%, France's 10%, Spain's 10.1% . . . in fact, let's just use the E.U.'s overall estimate of 9.4% as a benchmark. (All are 2005 estimates from CIA World Factbook.)

If you really believe that the US unemployment rate is 5.1%, I have some prime beachfront property in Arizona for you. We don't really know what is being reported in the foreign numbers, every country counts unemployment differently. So the numbers are basically meaningless. And like I said above, it's a matter of realtive competitiveness. Imagine what they're rates would be if the companies were paying the magnitudes of health care costs our companies have to pay.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I'm probably as old as you are. Yes, we were the major industrial power for most of the 20th century. Unions were strong. We may have indeed "priced ourselves out" because of high wages and regulations, but that's because the corporations would rather pay slave wages in some far off land where they don't have to worry about providing safe working conditions for their workers or pay to keep from polluting the surroundings. So what's your alternative? For American workers to live like coolies?

No, that appears to be your idea.

I say we educate our people (something we are not doing very well right now) and compete in those areas where other nations cannot.

And are you saying companies in China, Taiwan, Japan, etc pay no taxes? I think they're probably higher than US corporate taxes.

Got some data to back that up?

I never said anything was good about China, I just pointed out that they are kicking our butts in world trade. One of the reasons their companies out compete ours is that they have national health care. Companies don't have to pay those benefits, they're socialized. To the extent that they exist at all, I suppose, but if they have a bad availability of health care, it's because they're very poor. It doesn't have anything to do with what makes them outcompete us.

Their "national health care" is frankly non-existant.

What makes you think other countries aren't capable of educating their people? Many are already doing so, and they send their grad students to the place with the BEST educational system, and that's US, contrary to the point that you made before.

The fact is their high school graduates are well ahead of ours. That's why they are able to send so many of their people to our universities. As for how we do -- let me give you an example; In Arkansas, 58% of those who go on to college have to take remedial courses. In other words, they graduated high school without achieving a high school standard in education.

As soon as you give up the "shirt factories", you have created an entire class that will be unemployed, simply because there is a certain percentage of ANY population that is just, for one reason or another, not going to make it in high-tech. It's not a question of whether there's enough Americans who can do the jobs. There are millions of Chinese who can do high-tech just fine, and they are.

Actually, it was when we failed to educate those shirt-factory workers so they could do more than semi-skilled labor. Any normal human being can be educated far beyond what we are currently achieving.

What does that leave us? Well, the only real thing we've got going that really sets us apart from the rest of the world is that we're a lot richer, and therefore the biggest market on the planet. We can either use that market power to make life better for our people or continue to bend over for the corporations, which have no loyalty to anything but the profits of their shareholders.

You seem to have a strange idea of economics.

Do you thing corporations or businessmen have a gene that forces them to create businesses?

They don't -- you can't force them to create jobs. What you can do -- and we have done -- is force them out of the country.

Well, those commentators must not be old enough to remember the debate over the Clinton health care plan. It was in no way "modeled on the Canadian system". In fact, I remember it very well, and the one thing that was off the table from day one was a single-payer system such as Canada's. What it was was a ridiculously contorted boondoggle that tried to please the corporations and insurance companies, but which pleased no one.

Please! I'm rolling on the floor, laughing.

I just said they're competitors, and they are. Not necessarily in cheap consumer goods. But whatever the shape of their economies, they enjoy certain advantages over us, and their health care system is one.

If their health care system is an advantage, how come they have a negative trade balance with us?

Hmm . . . if we adopt European ways like their single-payer health care system, maybe we can get our unemployment rate of ~5.1% more in line with Portugal's 7.3%, Belgium's 7.6%, Finland's 7.9%, Italy's 7.9%, France's 10%, Spain's 10.1% . . . in fact, let's just use the E.U.'s overall estimate of 9.4% as a benchmark. (All are 2005 estimates from CIA World Factbook.)

If you really believe that the US unemployment rate is 5.1%, I have some prime beachfront property in Arizona for you.

So show us your statistics and cite the source.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

I say we educate our people (something we are not doing very well right now) and compete in those areas where other nations cannot.

What can we do that other countries cannot? And just how would you direct that education so that it is effective in those supposed areas? The invisible hand of the market? I think we have enough people selling real estate.

Got some data to back that up?

Japanese corporate tax = 30% to 41%. (But notice that individual taxes are lower than ours.) http://www.worldwide-tax.com/japan/japan_tax.asp

China corp tax = 24-33%. Capital gains taxes of 20%. http://www.worldwide-tax.com/china/china_tax.asp

I couldn't find Taiwan.

Actually, it was when we failed to educate those shirt-factory workers so they could do more than semi-skilled labor. Any normal human being can be educated far beyond what we are currently achieving.

Why shouldn't we be competative in shirt-making? The loss of our textile industry affects more than the garment workers. The other day a farm banker told me that if we lose a case over cotton export subsidies in the WTO this year, we might not have ANY market for the US cotton crop because there isn't a single mill left to process it here.

You seem to have a strange idea of economics.

Do you thing corporations or businessmen have a gene that forces them to create businesses?

They don't -- you can't force them to create jobs. What you can do -- and we have done -- is force them out of the country.

I think you have a strange idea of economics. I didn't say anything about forcing anyone to create jobs. what you can do -- and we have done -- is compete in a race to the bottom by a slavish devotion to corporate profits.

Please! I'm rolling on the floor, laughing.

That's OK, you must not be old enough to remember. Clinton's planwas called "managed competition." It in no way resembled the Canadian system.

If their health care system is an advantage, how come they have a negative trade balance with us?

Read it and weep. The only positive number I can see since 1997 is February 1997:
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c0003.html

I might have missed one; correct me if you find another.

 

[LAK]

HankB

Yeah, the European competition is really killing us - just go to Wal-Mart and check out all the shirts, bedding, toasters, etc., formerly made in the USA, that have been outsourced to EUROPE

Sure; we are not importing much in the way of eurogoods. But the heaviest investment in Europa right now is going into the cheap labor markets of places like Romania, Hungary etc - all current EU or soon to be. And we are not talking about corporations making plastic spoons; auto makers like Volkswagen for example.

Economically overall, the Eu as it grows is creating it's own domestic market that is going to outstrip us in productivity and growth.

It is not what we import to the EU that is the whole story - it is what goods, services and technology the EU is exporting - or will be exporting - to other countries in competition with ours.
---------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[Art Eatman]

Malone, if CEOs don't have a devotion to corporate profits, they get fired or the corporation goes into bankruptcy, or both.

The official unemployment rate in the U.S. is 4.7%. In the past, anything under 5% was considered full employment. The 4.7 figure, however, does not include those who are off the rolls of being paid unemployment compensation and who have given up on seeking employment. It also doesn't include those part-time workers who are called "under-employed". I don't think anybody knows the "true" unemployment rate. Reasonable guesses are in the neighborhood of some 9%.

What all this whole deal amounts to, however, is that the rest of the world has successfully played catch-up in industrial production since the end of WW II. Couple that with our social pattern of spending without saving and with our own growth in government at all levels and you have the mess we're in.

Nowhere is it written that the U.S. is guaranteed a high standard of living for all its people. Nowhere is it written that people have no responsibility for their own destinies, their own well-being. Our fundamental document speaks to the pursuit of happiness, not of catching that little doofer.

Art

 

[HankB]

If you really believe that the US unemployment rate is 5.1%, I have some prime beachfront property in Arizona for you. We don't really know what is being reported in the foreign numbers, every country counts unemployment differently. So the numbers are basically meaningless.

If numbers from the CIA World Fact Book (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2129rank.html) are meaningless and shouldn't be considered, I guess we'll just have to rely on hand-waving arguments and other unsubstantiated anecdotes.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

What can we do that other countries cannot? And just how would you direct that education so that it is effective in those supposed areas? The invisible hand of the market? I think we have enough people selling real estate.

Right now we have a slight advantage in leading edge technology. We can -- and will lose it if we fail to educate our people.

Now explain something to me -- how is it you think we can't direct education, but we can direct the economy?

Japanese corporate tax = 30% to 41%. (But notice that individual taxes are lower than ours.) http://www.worldwide-tax.com/japan/japan_tax.asp

China corp tax = 24-33%. Capital gains taxes of 20%. http://www.worldwide-tax.com/china/china_tax.asp

Note also that it is not levied like ours -- we double tax. The corporation is taxed, and then the shareholders are taxed on the dividends.

How much do the Chinese pay in Social Security and Medicare?

[/quote]Why shouldn't we be competative in shirt-making? The loss of our textile industry affects more than the garment workers. The other day a farm banker told me that if we lose a case over cotton export subsidies in the WTO this year, we might not have ANY market for the US cotton crop because there isn't a single mill left to process it here.[/quote]

Shirt making is a semi-skilled job. Any peasant can learn it in a day or two. Do you want to reduce the US population to peasants?

Now, if I were you, I wouldn't weep over cotton. Agri-business should convert from cotton, rice and other over-supply crops to oil-producing crops (soy beans, peanuts and so on) and we should convert our over-the-road truck fleet to bio-diesel.

Of course that won't happen because we subsizide those over-supply crops!!

I think you have a strange idea of economics. I didn't say anything about forcing anyone to create jobs. what you can do -- and we have done -- is compete in a race to the bottom by a slavish devotion to corporate profits.

That's your interpretation.

Now you can prove me wrong -- go out and start a business. Run it the way you think it should be run. Come back in ten years and tell us how you made out.

That's OK, you must not be old enough to remember. Clinton's planwas called "managed competition." It in no way resembled the Canadian system.

Are you saying it wasn't a single payer system? Do you claim that it didn't have penalties for doctors who accepted private payments?

Read it and weep. The only positive number I can see since 1997 is February 1997:
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c0003.html

I might have missed one; correct me if you find another.

Looks like their superior education system is paying off.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

Malone, if CEOs don't have a devotion to corporate profits, they get fired or the corporation goes into bankruptcy, or both.

Absolutely. That's why if there's going to be any protection of human rights (the subject of this thread, if I remember back that far), it's going to have to come from somewhere except the corporate structure itself. Do you know of any institution other than government that could play that role?

I agree with the rest of your post, Art. Not sure of your point, though.

If numbers from the CIA World Fact Book (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/.../2129rank.html) are meaningless and shouldn't be considered, I guess we'll just have to rely on hand-waving arguments and other unsubstantiated anecdotes.

With the CIA's track record, I would not be using them to argue a position. Remember all of those WMD we were going to find in Iraq? Not to mention the communist menace that we spent billions of dollars and millions of dark-skinned lives to combat. Sorry, you do not win an argument that way with me.

Now explain something to me -- how is it you think we can't direct education, but we can direct the economy?

Jeez, this is getting tedious. Now point out to me where I said we can't direct education. My point is that relying on high-tech and some supposed superiority of the 'Murikan worker to do high-tech work is a flawed strategy. I also think our education system needs a lot more resources put into it.

Note also that it is not levied like ours -- we double tax. The corporation is taxed, and then the shareholders are taxed on the dividends.

Are you sure about that? As you can see from my post, the Chinese have a capital gains tax. I don't remember about the Japanese, it's there in the link I posted, though. At this point I'm not sure why we're arguing this point about comparative tax rates. I would still argue that our competitive disadvantage with them is not because of our taxes.

Shirt making is a semi-skilled job. Any peasant can learn it in a day or two. Do you want to reduce the US population to peasants?

Now, if I were you, I wouldn't weep over cotton. Agri-business should convert from cotton, rice and other over-supply crops to oil-producing crops (soy beans, peanuts and so on) and we should convert our over-the-road truck fleet to bio-diesel.

Of course that won't happen because we subsizide those over-supply crops!!

Well, since it would probably take a big subsidy to get bio-diesel on it's feet, I take it your problem is with misallocation of subsidies, rather than with the subsidies per se.

I have no problem with letting the markets be the dominate influence over crop and industrial production. I do have a problem with government programs that allow or in many cases actually subsidize the destruction of our primary industries. It is a folly to let our industries rust away because of a historically temporary ability to get goods from the other side of the world as cheaply as we can. Does anyone really think transport will ever be this cheap again?

I also don't want American workers to be peasants, I want those who are best suited for "semi-skilled jobs" to be able to make a decent, middle-class living doing so. You are never going to educate the entire workforce to the point that everyone can work in high-tech industries.

Now you can prove me wrong -- go out and start a business. Run it the way you think it should be run. Come back in ten years and tell us how you made out.

I've had a couple of businesses in my life, none for 10 years, though. Katrina put an end to my last one.

I didn't have any trouble obeying the law and following regulations in my businesses, though. What's your point?

Are you saying it wasn't a single payer system?

Yes, but I'm not going to argue it any more. It has little if anything to do with the subject.

Looks like their superior education system is paying off.

No, by your logic, it would have to be due to their lower taxes.

 

[Art Eatman]

Malone, The opening sentence had to do with my disgust at the general "evil corporations" stuff that is so prevalent.

The unemployment stuff was merely for a bit of information from miscellaneous readings of various tidbits I've run across...

Anyhow: Lemme just talk about Generous Motors for a moment as an example of the complexity of our problems.

In the 1950s/1960s, GM was King Kong. In 1962, GM had 53% of the US car market.

They could afford to enter into the wage/benefit/retirement contracts they signed with the UAW. All the actuarial data about longevity was favorable, as was the foreseeable future of income and profit.

Then came Toyota and Honda, et al. H & T went into robotics in a big way. The UAW strongly resisted robotics. The hours to assemble a car, for Toyota, was just a little over one-half of GM's. And, with robotics, fewer workers were needed. So, a double-hickey from a competition standpoint: Fewer workers, and the workers had lower wages.

Thus Honda and Toyota could sell more car for less money, even after tariffs.

Now: GM's costs of benefits has risen faster than inflation. The retirement program, with its free medical insurance has also seen the rise in costs--and retirees are now living longer than in 1950s/1960s.

The times have changed but the contracts have continued. If GM survives, it'll be a miracle.

So Toyota and Honda are now building assembly plants here. The contracts with the workers aren't as generous as the original GM contracts, so the overhead is more controllable, more reasonable on a per-car basis.

And GM is moving their assembly operations to Canada in order to get out from under those original UAW contracts here in the US.

Now: Somebody tell me how a government can kiss the ouchie and make it all better.

Art

 

[HankB]

With the CIA's track record, I would not be using them to argue a position . . . Sorry, you do not win an argument that way with me.

And IMHO hand-waving and sourceless anecdotes don't even constitute a serious attempt at making an argument.

. . . communist menace that we spent billions of dollars and millions of dark-skinned lives to combat.

Huh? Where did that come from? Trying to playing the race card - somehow? What's next - "For the Children?"

 

[cloudkiller]

I am actually going to argue that...

the so called democratization of our economy, through the expansion of "public" ownership of stock is what has really undermined our economic efforts.

Right now corporations serve a 2-tier marketplace. Shareholders and customers. CEOs and executives are graded more on the performance of stock, to their "elite" but small customer base (large shareholders) than to their larger market. Since stock gains can be manipulated as much by cutting costs as by increasing sales (or even manipulating currency) there is little incentive to promote sound business practices that are sustainable.

Corporations don't have to follow traditional business models that promote sustainability. -- For example, not tanking their own market. By paying lower wages, and cutting benefits corporate America is eating away at its own larges market that increasingly has to turn to debt to finance its consumption. Also, a lack of investment in the workforce (which is a longterm practice) also causes problems. -- We say our schools are failing our economy because our workforce is undereducated. The fact is that the main problem with the quality of our students is the quality of their home life. This ties DIRECTLY to the tremendous pressure that parents have to face working the most hours of any major nation with the fewest benefits and the fewest vacation days. Our workers are bled dry in unsustainable ways.

The results of this practice are evident in everything from a huge lack of R&D spending (--there was a great article by the owner of Boss speakers about this) to poor quality (US cars manufacturers still promote innovation in design, because their quality still lags) to terrible environmental practices. Nothing is designed around sustainability.

Because true costs are defrayed or transferred (like the cost of non-renewable energy) the "traditional" market forces that would drive innovation are absent.

I agree that resolving the healthcare issue woudl be a great first step in promoting competitiveness. The second thing that would help would be some kind of plan to slow down the concentration of wealth. This, more than anything else will prove to be the greatest threat to our freedoms. For now the "trick" to keep people distracted about this concentration of wealth is to blame Mexicans and companies that outsource rather than looking at other root causes.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

the so called democratization of our economy, through the expansion of "public" ownership of stock is what has really undermined our economic efforts.

How does this tie in to the second gunman on the Grassy Knoll?

 

[Art Eatman]

Vern, I hope you got a payraise. You're going to be buying a bunch of keyboards!



cloudkiller, I hate to tell you this, but it's the public trading of stock in this "democratized" system which allows the little folks to play in the big guys' games. Make money.

The corporate world is not some Little Orphan Annie deal, with Daddy Warbucks being the Big Owner of Everything.

, Art