good summation of whats wrong here

[Texas_tea]

Why should it be the private sector's job to see about our happiness, properity and liberty? Isn't it our job to pursue those things for ourselves? If your not a good boss or won't pay decent wages to retain your employees you probably won't stay in business very long.

 

[RoccoR]

Gipper, et al,

LaHood is saying the exact same thing that I am saying.

“We’re going to send this money back to the governors and say, ‘put people to work now, during the construction season. Build the roads, build the bridges, build these projects’ and let us know how you’re going to spend the money so we’re sending an e-mail out to governors all over the country and we’re saying to them, this is money that was earmarked for a project, spend it now, get people to work and get this project finished.”
LaHood, a former Republican congressman, told TheDC that he wants to see the federal funds put toward projects on the state level where people can go to work right away.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/20/lahood-im-very-proud-of-dot-stimulus-spending-at-738000-per-job-video/#ixzz24IigWbfv

Almost every single one of those 15,000 projects was infrastructure related. But no industry is just going to fix the power grid just because it needs fixed. They need to maximize their wealth, that means a contract; from the government.

Sorry, but I can't agree with most of that. Government should not build ANYTHING. They can contract with the private sector to build things, but this has a long history of corruption including the building of the railroads in the 19th century. The government has the luxury of using other people's money, which they generally like to squander. We should do all we can to limit governments ability to do anything. Did you see Ray LaHood's comments...Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood told The Daily Caller that he is “very proud” of the Economic Recovery Act of 2009 that put 65,000 people to work with $48 billion in federal funds for the Department of Transportation, amounting to $738,461 per job. http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/20/l...ot-stimulus-spending-at-738000-per-job-video/ ---Most typical of government out of control.

(COMMENT)

What is wrong with this? Is that you don't see how much in capital improvements was made. You don't see how much of that money went to supplies and equipment on the US economy. All your seeing is the total cost of the projects divided by the number of prime contractor employees. That is very simplistic view.

In a capitalist society, if their is consumer demand for something, the private sector can meet that demand far better that government. History proves my statement correct.

(COMMENT)

I never argued against this. But no private industry gears-up because jobs are needed. They gear-up because someone is paying them for an end-product.

We won WWII primarily because government contracted with private industry to build the biggest war machine the world has ever known (sadly, that machine likes to be overfeed and this tendency toward obesity, continues to this day). Had government not allowed the private sector to build war machines unencumbered, we might have lost the war or incurred even greater losses of men and equipment. Of course, the debt we incurred to win that unfortunate war was unprecedented (until progressives like W and Big Ears blew up government debt).

(COMMENT)

I don't disagree. But first the government had to order something, and have a project. The war was a huge project. But private industry didn't just benevolently gear-up tank plant, aircraft assembly, and ship building on their own.

The outsourcing of jobs has a great deal to do with federal government policies, which inhibit competition. Secondly, government likes to play favorites with the private sector. Those who get the favors can destroy their competitors. Thus eliminating competition and in the worst case, resulting in Fascism.

(COMMENT)

Yes, I hear this all the time. Private industry want to be exempt from child labor laws, the safety regulations, the environmental code, and every other little thing sweatshop infringement that they don't have to worry about when they go overseas. I hear all this whining before. They want the cost of labor to go down, so that they can be competitive with Penang, Malaysia; Xiamen, China; Bracknell, UK; Manila, Philippines Chennai, India; Hortolandia and Porto Alegre, Brazil; Bratislava, Slovakia; Łódź, Poland, Panama City in Panama, Dublin and Limerick, Ireland.

All the outsourcing is always blamed on the government, but that is entirely misrepresenting that facts.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

Cruella, et al,

That is exactly correct.

Why should it be the private sector's job to see about our happiness, properity and liberty? Isn't it our job to pursue those things for ourselves? If your not a good boss or won't pay decent wages to retain your employees you probably won't stay in business very long.

(COMMENT)

This drives outsourcing. The employment laws and costs overseas are very much different. It is like the "Gipper" implies above, in countries where there are no child labor laws, ... etc, Shanghai has the highest minimum wage of anyplace in China; it is about $300/month (or $3600/yr). Having said that, My classmate said that he makes $12K in the design and manufacture of components for PCs. In Malaysia, the minimum wage is about $5K/yr, and the average PC component maker gets about $7K-$10K per year.
Then, there are the environmental standard, OSHA, and all the little things that go into making a place reasonable to work in.

If we drop our standard of living (eliminate the minimum wage of $15K) to make us competitive, and if we eliminate all the laws that Mexico, China, Malaysia and where ever, private industry will be very happy. But don't expect the same standard of living.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Gipper]

Gipper, et al,

LaHood is saying the exact same thing that I am saying.





Almost every single one of those 15,000 projects was infrastructure related. But no industry is just going to fix the power grid just because it needs fixed. They need to maximize their wealth, that means a contract; from the government.


(COMMENT)

What is wrong with this? Is that you don't see how much in capital improvements was made. You don't see how much of that money went to supplies and equipment on the US economy. All your seeing is the total cost of the projects divided by the number of prime contractor employees. That is very simplistic view.


(COMMENT)

I never argued against this. But no private industry gears-up because jobs are needed. They gear-up because someone is paying them for an end-product.


(COMMENT)

I don't disagree. But first the government had to order something, and have a project. The war was a huge project. But private industry didn't just benevolently gear-up tank plant, aircraft assembly, and ship building on their own.


(COMMENT)

Yes, I hear this all the time. Private industry want to be exempt from child labor laws, the safety regulations, the environmental code, and every other little thing sweatshop infringement that they don't have to worry about when they go overseas. I hear all this whining before. They want the cost of labor to go down, so that they can be competitive with Penang, Malaysia;Xiamen, China;Bracknell, UK;Manila, PhilippinesChennai, India;HortolandiaandPorto Alegre, Brazil;Bratislava, Slovakia;Łódź, Poland,Panama City in Panama,DublinandLimerick, Ireland.

All the outsourcing is always blamed on the government, but that is entirely misrepresenting that facts.

Most Respectfully,
R

You agree with LaHood??? He spent $738,000 per job...that is an example of what I am saying. Government is most inefficient and always wastes resources. This is why they should not be allowed to build anything.

Why do have deficits for as far as the eye can see? Because of government waste and over spending. Every day we hear about the outrageous salaries and benefits government workers have somehow obtained. Government by it's very nature is corrupt and inefficient. As such, it must be ruthlessly controlled.

I can agree that outsourcing is not only the fault of an oppressive government. Yes, there are nations where cheap and slave labor exists. Here again is an example of what I am saying. Government should limit the importation of goods into the US from nations where labor is exploited. But, our government never does. And why? Because the very corporations exploiting cheap third world labor have bought off our stinking politicians.

 

[Cruella]

As far as child labor laws go in other countries, ask yourself this; What would that child's life be like if they weren't able to get that money?

Then ask yourself another question; Why does it cost so damn much to live in this country? One reason only, it's called "Government".

My dad was a blue collar worker his whole life and he was able to buy a home, two cars, raise a family, and save money for his retirement. He never made a lot of money, but life for him was a whole lot simpler and affordable. It's not the same anymore because of lawyers and government.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

There is only ONE WAY--one way--to control government.
You must starve it of CASH.
Deny it funding.
Plain and simple and irrevocably correct.
No other way exists.

This is also why the House of Representatives--the people's house--is the most important leg of the separate powers.

 

[GenSeneca]

The US capitalist private sector is all about the maximization of wealth, not the development and progress of a nation.

I had to correct the "capitalist" part... What we have now is not Capitalism, it's Cronyism. That aside, the pursuit of profit in a Free Market is what leads to the greatest possible progress for ours, or any, nation. Cronyism impedes growth, it redirects resources to special interests that cannot keep from going bankrupt, much less be profitable, without generous and unwarranted subsidization by the tax payers: GM, Solyndra, bank bailouts, etc. All the money that was given to subsidize (i.e. reward) failure was taken from those who were successful, punishing their success and reducing their ability to become even more successful.

The ethical problems of business are exemplified by the "to big to fail" bailouts

That "ethical" problem is 100% on the shoulders of government, not business. Businesses, even the ones "too big to fail" cannot bail themselves out. A company that fails to remain fiscally solvent should go bankrupt, no matter what it's size, and that's exactly what would happen in a Free Market. Propping up failing business models, with tax payer money, is the European way and it only serves to impede the "development and progress of a nation". We, as a nation, would be better off to let losers fail so that winners can take their place, that's the American way.

 

[GenSeneca]

Government should limit the importation of goods into the US from nations where labor is exploited.

If it's legitimately slave labor, i.e. when the worker is not given a choice and physically forced into labor, then I'd agree. However, so long as the worker chooses, by his own free will, to work in a sweatshop, then he's not being exploited and it would be morally wrong for the US government to limit the importation of goods made by such foreign labor.

 

[Cruella]

So what does that do to a third world employee exactly? Obama's brother lives on about $20 a month/year? in the "Dreams of his father's" country. If he had a job making $3 a day, what would his annual salary be then? He might even be considered a rich person by their standards.

Maybe if this country didn't have every aspect of our lives taxed and regulated, we would be in a hell of a lot better shape financially.

 

[RoccoR]

GenSeneca, et al,

This is where I get a litte confused.

... ... ...
That "ethical" problem is 100% on the shoulders of government, not business. Businesses, even the ones "too big to fail" cannot bail themselves out. A company that fails to remain fiscally solvent should go bankrupt, no matter what it's size, and that's exactly what would happen in a Free Market. Propping up failing business models, with tax payer money, is the European way and it only serves to impede the "development and progress of a nation". We, as a nation, would be better off to let losers fail so that winners can take their place, that's the American way.

(COMMENT)

I don't disagree that there are ethics problems in government; not at all. But in comparison to the top of the food chain in the private sector, the ethics in government are almost angelic. Right now, in the news, you can see all sorts of examples just within the last half year:

• Standard Chartered Bank which settled with New York regulators on Wednesday for $340 million. The charge: allegedly engaging in illegal transactions with Iranian clients.
• J.P. Morgan Chase engaged in risky trades (derivatives) that grew from $2 billion to about $7 billion.
• Several U.S. municipalities have sued Barclays as libor rates also have an effect on bond rates. Those municipalities believe that they were cheated out of millions. The world trades an estimated $315 trillion worth of derivatives using libor, according to the New York Times.
• Knight computers purchased stocks on the New York Stock Exchange, artificially inflating some stock prices. Knight held onto $7 billion thanks to the error. They are calling it a "trading error."
• The U.S. offshoot of ING, ING Direct, was recently purchased by Capitol One. The bank is accused of moving $2 billion in transferred Iranian money.

The ethics are taught, both in the academic environment and on the OJT Floor of business. It is to make money at any cost, whether you put US cities and counties in bankruptcy, trade with a hostile power, fix bond rates, Or, hold money that is not yours to hold.

To put the problem in the simplest terms, the interests of the client continue to be sidelined in the way the firm operates and thinks about making money. Goldman Sachs is one of the world’s largest and most important investment banks and it is too integral to global finance to continue to act this way. The firm has veered so far from the place I joined right out of college that I can no longer in good conscience say that I identify with what it stands for.
SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/opinion/why-i-am-leaving-goldman-sachs.html?

We don't always hear the elocution from the mouth of the criminal enterprise; but here it is. (Well worth the reading.)

And here is the confusion. While Greg Smith is the exception to the rule, there were many leaders in the institution of the "To Big to Fail" Gang of crooks and criminals, that already set the example for the industry. How do we know that, because they are still doing it.

• Angelo Mozilo: The son of a butcher, Mozilo co-founded Countrywide in 1969 and built it into the largest mortgage lender in the U.S. Countrywide wasn't the first to offer exotic mortgages to borrowers with a questionable ability to repay them. In its all-out embrace of such sales, however, it did legitimize the notion that practically any adult could handle a big fat mortgage. In the wake of the housing bust, which toppled Countrywide and IndyMac Bank (another company Mozilo started), the executive's lavish pay package was criticized by many, including Congress. Mozilo left Countrywide last summer after its rescue-sale to Bank of America. A few months later, BofA said it would spend up to $8.7 billion to settle predatory lending charges against Countrywide filed by 11 state attorneys general.
• Joe Cassano: Before the financial-sector meltdown, few people had ever heard of credit-default swaps (CDS). They are insurance contracts — or, if you prefer, wagers — that a company will pay its debt. As a founding member of AIG's financial-products unit, Cassano, who ran the group until he stepped down in early 2008, knew them quite well. In good times, AIG's massive CDS-issuance business minted money for the insurer's other companies. But those same contracts turned out to be at the heart of AIG's downfall and subsequent taxpayer rescue. So far, the U.S. government has invested and lent $150 billion to keep AIG afloat.
• Frank Raines: The mess that Fannie Mae has become is the progeny of many parents: Congress, which created Fannie in 1938 and loaded it down with responsibilities; President Lyndon Johnson, who in 1968 pushed it halfway out the government nest and into a problematic part-private, part-public role in an attempt to reduce the national debt; and Jim Johnson, who presided over Fannie's spectacular growth in the 1990s. But it was Johnson's successor, Raines, who was at the helm when things really went off course. A former Clinton Administration Budget Director, Raines was the first African-American CEO of a Fortune 500 company when he took the helm in 1999. He left in 2004 with the company embroiled in an accounting scandal just as it was beginning to make big investments in subprime mortgage securities that would later sour. Last year Fannie and rival Freddie Mac became wards of the state.
• Kathleen Corbet: By slapping AAA seals of approval on large portions of even the riskiest pools of loans, rating agencies helped lure investors into loading on collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) that are now unsellable. Corbet ran the largest agency, Standard & Poor's, during much of this decade, though the other two major players, Moody's and Fitch, played by similar rules. How could a ratings agency put its top-grade stamp on such flimsy securities? A glaring conflict of interest is one possibility: these outfits are paid for their ratings by the bond issuer. As one S&P analyst wrote in an email, "[A bond] could be structured by cows and we would rate it."
• Read more: 25 People to Blame for the Financial Crisis http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,1877351,00.html

So, what is the proper ethic. Could all these people be that wrong? All these big wheels walked away with hundres of millions of dollars in their pockets. Where is the line between right and wrong when it comes to private industries efficiency in bilking the client and the nation?
Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Gipper]

If it's legitimately slave labor, i.e. when the worker is not given a choice and physically forced into labor, then I'd agree. However, so long as the worker chooses, by his own free will, to work in a sweatshop, then he's not being exploited and it would be morally wrong for the US government to limit the importation of goods made by such foreign labor.

Agreed. I should know better than to think our corrupt and ineffective federal government could ever develop an effective policy of limiting the exploitation of foreign labor without damaging the employment prospects third world workers.

 

[GenSeneca]

This is where I get a litte confused.

The ethics of the private sector are corrupted by government, not the other way around. Additionally, any ethics problem in the private sector is much easier to correct than ethics problems in Washington. Unethical businessmen who don't get protected by an unethical government end up broke and/or in jail. However, the politicians in Washington write the laws determining what is legal and illegal, so there are virtually no limits to their ethical depravity.

Standard Chartered Bank which settled with New York regulators on Wednesday for $340 million. The charge: allegedly engaging in illegal transactions with Iranian clients.

Unlike government, you actually have a choice as to where you put your money in the private sector. If you don't like Standard Chartered Bank, don't give them any of your money. If they break the law then arrest the law breakers and force the company into bankruptcy, problem solved.

J.P. Morgan Chase engaged in risky trades (derivatives) that grew from $2 billion to about $7 billion.

How is that any of the government's business? Why do you care what JP Morgan does with it's investments? If you don't like how they operate, then don't give them any of your money. Let them do whatever they like with their money, just make sure they realize they won't be getting bailed out at taxpayer expense if they fail. You'll find that companies are much more likely to act responsibly and do the right thing when there is no tax-payer funded government safety net to fall back on.

Several U.S. municipalities have sued Barclays as libor rates also have an effect on bond rates. Those municipalities believe that they were cheated out of millions. The world trades an estimated $315 trillion worth of derivatives using libor, according to the New York Times.

Again, if they broke the law those responsible should be arrested and the company forced into bankruptcy, otherwise simply avoid doing business with that company. Problem solved.

Knight computers purchased stocks on the New York Stock Exchange, artificially inflating some stock prices. Knight held onto $7 billion thanks to the error. They are calling it a "trading error."

Did they break any laws? If not, then you could push for Knight to be fired from the NYSE and let some other company take their place. That $7 billion can be their severance package and it would be a pittance compared to the billions they will lose after being kicked out of the NYSE. Problem solved.

The U.S. offshoot of ING, ING Direct, was recently purchased by Capitol One. The bank is accused of moving $2 billion in transferred Iranian money.

If they broke the law, arrest the people responsible and force the company out of business.Otherwise, don't do business with ING. Problem solved.

The ethics are taught, both in the academic environment and on the OJT Floor of business. It is to make money at any cost, whether you put US cities and counties in bankruptcy, trade with a hostile power, fix bond rates, Or, hold money that is not yours to hold.

Because there are no consequences to those actions... So long as you have friends in Washington. Eliminate the ability to hide behind an equally unethical government and return to a system where the government actually protects individual rights and companies will either become paragons of virtue or find themselves out of business.

So, what is the proper ethic. Where is the line between right and wrong when it comes to private industries efficiency in bilking the client and the nation?

The line: Individual Rights. If a company violates them, they should be punished. Thanks to our current system of Cronyism, they instead get rewarded, or at the very least protected from the repercussions of their actions.

Capitalism addresses the source of the ethics problem - Government. Eliminate government's power to confer political favors on it's friends and punish it's foes, i.e. regulate business, and Cronyism vanishes. Once again businesses would be forced to succeed or fail on their own merit, without government or tax payer assistance, and nothing is more terrifying to unethical businessmen than the thought of having to make an honest living.