|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
posted February 19, 2008 02:20 PM |
|
Edited by angelito at 14:20, 19 Feb 2008.
|
Quote:
Nonsense. Just nonsense. Once the overhead costs will drop, the companies will lower costs of their products. Why? Well, think about it.
Companies A, B, and C make an identical product for $10 and sell it for $16, thus making a $6 dollar profit.
Now imagine that the cost of production drops to $4. Now Companies A, B, and C make a product for $4 and sell it for $16, thus making a $12 dollar profit.
But the process doesn't stop here. Company C thinks, "Well, if I cut down on my profits per product, I can make a greater profit overall." So Company C cuts the cost of the product to $9 dollars. Now it only makes a $5 dollar profit. But, all of the people that used to buy the product from companies A and B will now buy Company C's product, so, even though the profit per product dropped, the amount of sales tripled, so Company C comes out ahead. Companies A and B have to drop costs or raise the quality of their products or both or go out of business.
This is how cuts in production costs are passed on to the consumer.
Nice example, but so far away from reality as the sun is from earth.
Only ONE example for you, so u kow how many parts u have left out in your example:
A loves BMW. Every 5 years, he buys himself a new BMW. It always costs 40.000 Euros. This is his 6th BMW currently.
B loves Mercedes. Every 5 years, he buys himself a new Mercedes. It always costs 40.000 Euros. This is his 6th Mercedes currently.
C needs a car. Every 5 years, he buys himself a new car. It is always a different brand. He only has 40.000 Euro to pay it, so he takes what he gets.
Toyota now develops a new model. Exactly same values as the BMW and the Mercedes. Same horsepower, same highspeed, same of anything.
Price: 37.500 Euro
Who will buy the Toyota and why?
Quote:
Hmm... depends on what the job is. If I were looking for a heart surgeon, I'd rather hire an expensive heart surgeon than ten orange pickers who apply for the job.
Lol. Are u really trying to make a serious discussion here?
Btw...these 10 orange pickers would come from Mexico instead of the USA, if there is no minimum wage.
In germany, there is the same problem refering to cutting asparagus or picking strawberries. Most of them come from Czechia or Poland.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted February 19, 2008 02:41 PM |
|
|
Not to mention it appears he glossed over the fact that adjusted for inflation the minimum wage here now is the same as in 1968. But prices are not anywhere near (even adjusted for inflation) that level. So the ammount people make stays the same, but cost continues to rise. Who do you think makes that money? Not the minimum wage people, that is for sure.
Now take into account that they have been outsourcing, cutting costs more, and getting tax breaks for doing so. Logically with all these cost reductions the price of goods (adjusted for inflation) would be much below the 1968 level, however this is not the case. In fact a dollar now buys less then what 42cents would have bought then, much less even adjusted for inflation.
So, since 1968...Minimum wage has stayed stagnent, outsourcing was started (and now they pay pennies on the dollar), and they are getting tax breaks. But cost continue to rise....hmmm interesting.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted February 19, 2008 02:47 PM |
|
Edited by Minion at 15:14, 19 Feb 2008.
|
Quote:
Yes, Minion, but you have to consider that in the US the median is higher than in Sweden.
Actually, GDP per capita in Sweden is higher.
But nevertheless that is a lousy (poor) excuse for the poverty in USA, which is a real issue. Out of the presidential candidates Edwards was the most concerned of this, and made his main goal reducing poverty.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 19, 2008 09:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
A loves BMW. Every 5 years, he buys himself a new BMW. It always costs 40.000 Euros. This is his 6th BMW currently.
B loves Mercedes. Every 5 years, he buys himself a new Mercedes. It always costs 40.000 Euros. This is his 6th Mercedes currently.
C needs a car. Every 5 years, he buys himself a new car. It is always a different brand. He only has 40.000 Euro to pay it, so he takes what he gets.
Toyota now develops a new model. Exactly same values as the BMW and the Mercedes. Same horsepower, same highspeed, same of anything.
Price: 37.500 Euro
Who will buy the Toyota and why?
C, of course. But you have to consider that there are a lot more people like C in the world than like A and B. And so BMW and Mercedes will have to compete for the Cs of the world.
Quote:
Lol. Are u really trying to make a serious discussion here?
Now you sound like ZanJerusalem.
Quote:
But prices are not anywhere near (even adjusted for inflation) that level.
No. The prices are lower. Far lower. A loaf of bread, for example, costs far less hours of work for the average person than it did back then.
Quote:
Actually, GDP per capita in Sweden is higher.
Only because they spend next to nothing on defense, and all the taxes they pay come back to the people in some way, unlike here in the US, where it gets tied up in the war or to pay off our debt.
Quote:
Out of the presidential candidates Edwards was the most concerned of this, and made his main goal reducing poverty.
Out of the presidential candidates Edwards was by far the worst. He claimed to be for the poor, yet got a $4000 haircut. And he had no understanding of economics.
And regarding universal health care, also think about this. Having universal health care would toss personal responsiblity out of the window. Some fat*** who eats donuts every day could get care at the expense of people who lead a healthy life.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted February 20, 2008 01:36 AM |
|
|
Well, you are too focused on those who have caused an illness to themselves, that you neglect all the others, who make the majority. But since US has problems with obesity, they can be made partly responsible for their illness. In Finland we have talked about raised costs for those who smoke cigarettes. I don't like the idea, because I believe that the system can take care of everybody. It is not that people WANT to get sick. I believe in helping out even the dumbest ones.
Btw, you have not seen the documentary Sicko, haven't you?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 20, 2008 01:50 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Well, you are too focused on those who have caused an illness to themselves, that you neglect all the others, who make the majority.
Though they may not form the majority of the population, they would use a disproportionate amount of money set aside for health care.
Quote:
It is not that people WANT to get sick.
But it's their fault for smoking.
Quote:
I believe in helping out even the dumbest ones.
People's stupidity should come back to them.
Quote:
Btw, you have not seen the documentary Sicko, haven't you?
Sicko is left-wing propoganda.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted February 20, 2008 01:55 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Btw, you have not seen the documentary Sicko, haven't you?
Sicko is left-wing propoganda.
Ugh, don't be such a fundamentalist. Moore has also won awards for his documents, so it is not all bad. And I take that as you haven't watched it.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 20, 2008 02:17 AM |
|
|
Just because a movie wins a lot of awards doesn't mean that it's true.
And I'm no fundamentalist.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted February 20, 2008 03:17 AM |
|
Edited by Minion at 03:20, 20 Feb 2008.
|
Quote:
Just because a movie wins a lot of awards doesn't mean that it's true.
And I'm no fundamentalist.
I don't understand why you attack something you haven't seen? You have no interest in the content of the document. All untrue nevertheless. You believe in its wrongness so strongly that you need to attack it. That in my book makes you a fundamentalist.
I simply asked if you had seen it...
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 20, 2008 03:22 AM |
|
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted February 20, 2008 03:41 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Sicko represents quite a one-sided view, doesn't it?
LOL. If that is all that comes out of you on the matter, meaning no real substance on the issue, there is no point in discussing this. There is no history book, no document made in the history of mankind that wasn't a reflection of the ones who wrote/directed it. I say lets forget about this, as you insist that the Oscar nominations, Critics choice awards, Peoples choice awards, CFCA Awards, Writers Guild of America nomination etc. all have all come to a piece that just flat lies to your face 
Not that you have even stated where you get your criticism from...
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 20, 2008 03:44 AM |
|
|
So you really think I should watch Sicko? Maybe I should. Then you should read "Naked Economics" by Charles Wheelan. It explains everything better than I can.
Putting that aside, think about it. Canadians come to the US for treatment. Don't they like their health care system? People don't fly to North Korea for treatment, they fly to the US.
Again, don't misinterpret me as saying that the US health care system is good. It has plenty of room for improvement. We just need to improve it correctly.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted February 20, 2008 04:13 AM |
|
|
Quote:
So you really think I should watch Sicko? Maybe I should. Then you should read "Naked Economics" by Charles Wheelan. It explains everything better than I can.
I can tell you it won't kill you. I am sure you can tell pure propaganda when you see it, and fact when it is given to you (which always, you can check if it matches) Definately I can recommend. It is not merely about pro-universal health care, while it does give you that systems benefits. It is very good at opening ones eyes to how how utterly rotten the system is, how desperately change is needed. I have to say it, it is Sick. Maybe I will read that book, especially if you announce that you have watched the documentary 
Quote:
Putting that aside, think about it. Canadians come to the US for treatment. Don't they like their health care system? People don't fly to North Korea for treatment, they fly to the US.
True, no one is questioning the quality. The most sophisticated and complex operations are probably best done in USA. But the vast majority of health care does not go around that, but regular procedures. And how utterly impossible the insurance companies make it for anyone to get treatment in the first place. How ridiculously expensive all the medicine is, when you do get treated.
Quote:
Again, don't misinterpret me as saying that the US health care system is good. It has plenty of room for improvement. We just need to improve it correctly.
I hear you. We differ quite on the views of how its done though.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 20, 2008 02:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And how utterly impossible the insurance companies make it for anyone to get treatment in the first place.
Hence my plan.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted February 20, 2008 03:12 PM |
|
|
The more I think about it, given that McCain is the Republican nominee, the more I think that Obama would be well served to pick Wes Clark as his running mate.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted February 20, 2008 04:10 PM |
|
|
That's a good point, I think Wes Clark would help combat (haha combat) McCain's war hero thing. I don't think Obama would need the help though honestly. McCain has a long uphill battle that I don't think he can win if he wants to win the general election.
____________
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted February 20, 2008 05:49 PM |
|
Edited by Consis at 17:53, 20 Feb 2008.
|
Well...
I think it's over. The party nominations have it wrapped up. And that is thanks to Howard Dean of all people. Thank God for Howard Dean! Thanks to him my party will not drag itself into oblivion. Thanks to him the super delegates will go the way of the voters. My party is safe thanks to him. If for some reason the super delegates were allowed to decide the nomination then I would formally leave my party and become a republican.
I finally feel very good about my party and my country. I feel good that our historic democratic rights will be upheld. Obama has won. I feel good about it but I also have a nagging warning flashing in the back of my mind.
It seems like every time this country elects a president that is too good to be true then he is assassinated. I know without question that racism is alive and well in much of the world. I wonder what it would mean to have a black man as the leader of the strongest nation on earth. I think my problem is that every time I hear Obama's speeches I keep telling myself, "Dear God in heaven if this man is able to do what he is saying then it's almost like a dream come true". I still don't think he can do much of anything in healthcare but that's only one issue. As I look at all the other things he promises to do I am utterly awe stricken with the power of "What if". What if.....just WHAT IF! What if he really can do what he says he can? I never thought it possible in all my dreams because in all my life and in all my travels I have become all too familiar with some rich and powerful guy immovable in his wealth and position to make any sort of meaningful changes. I think the country is headed for another Kennedy Camelot. Let's hope and pray we don't lose it to some government assassination plot. If Obama wins the presidency the nation will be so high with enthusiasm and optimism that they will be especially vulnerable to such a devastating event.
Why would I say such a thing? Because I always plan for the worst. If Obama is elected president then what could be worse than having our dreams taken from us? I am happy, elated, excited, and afraid all in the same. I am uncertain of the future.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 20, 2008 09:36 PM |
|
|
First, you're jumping to conclusions. This race still isn't over.
Secondly, if you put all your hopes and dreams on one person, you're bound to be disappointed.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted February 20, 2008 09:39 PM |
|
|
Can I get an
"Amen" to all the above (referencing Consis' post).
As my husband and I watched the end of his presidential campaign announcement a little over a year ago, the first thing outof our mouths was "Good -- NOW GET HIM OUT OF THERE BEFORE SOMEBODY SHOOTS HIM!!!!"
Very shortly thereafter he was assigned secret service coverage. The secret service was completely revamped after the Kennedy assassination. Nothing's fool proof of course, but it's alot more thorough than it used to be.
To Consis & mvass --
While mvass has a good point, the point to Obama is not that he's going to do it all for us. The point to Obama is that he's getting all of us to do it ourselves. He's pulling us together. He's getting people involved on a long-term basis. The Obama fabric will be the beginning of governmental change at the community, county and state levels. Our fabric is incredibly strong precisely because it assumes we are largely responsible for the outcome here. The election is just the beginning of our work. Put your hopes and dreams in your country, make it into what you want it to be. The change is in everyone, all of us, not just the Oval Office.
[EDIT] Gootch -- ADDRESS PLEASE! (Leave me a message at home or e-mail me or something)
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted February 20, 2008 10:32 PM |
|
|
Um, I haven't gotten around to saying this yet. But all this talk about Obama "pulling us together", "uniting people" etc.....
I conclude the exact opposite. That he will be the most divisive president in a very long time.
Extreme liberalism and a one party monoploy is NOT the way to unite the country. Look what we are just getting over with a one party monopoly for 6 years.
It's easy to think that two parties opposing each other is what causes division. I say it forces compromise and gives us a sense of checks and balances. Without that opposing force, one party can too easily run away with their idealism.
10-20 years ago i would never had said this. But I truly believe more and more that the two chambers of Congress and the Presidency should always be split between the parties. It not only forces compromise, but it also forces one party to double check their own beliefs and soulutions. One party monopoly makes it far too easy for a one party frenzy to take place. I believe we NEED that opposing force.
____________
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
