The Economics Discussion Thread

MaDDoG020 wrote: 7% has got to beat the 40% odd that we know about in South Africa. I struggle to understand how I am to blame for Apartheid and am too pale and too male to qualify for any decent paying job in this country. My education is now useless and has been for a long time. Apparently my Bcomm Industrial Psychology degree is obsolete because of the colour of my skin hence I have spent the last ten years manufacturing signs, something I really learned to love and have made a good living out of however not my first choice it must be said. I have had to summarily dismiss three members of staff this year not because of colour but because of lack of ability to complete the work, which is combined with a poor attitude and a believe that they are owed something for nothing.   I am now currently disadvantaged. So when the so called previously disadvantaged members of our society eventually are considered advantaged will that then make me previously disadvantaged and will I qualify for the same BEE deals they do now? The three major auto companies of the USA qualify for these deals in our country because they structured themselves in such a way that they can still rape our country of its limited wealth as well. My point, no my question thus becomes if you save the money you spend daily on destroying Iraq for its oil via a war that should be over, will you not be able to solve the current crisis in the united states? I am unsure of the figures but I know it must be in the millions you spend daily on bombing that country??????

Easy Livin wrote: Admin comment.   Careful now. Welcome to the forum Maddog. Please be aware though that we have strict rules when it comes to discussions about race, religion etc.   You may find you are able to express views of the type you have published above more freely on other sites. You're welcome to discuss prog matters ad-infinitum of course.   Just a friendly pointer....

Not to mention if you spell color with a u u are totally whacked.


Edited by Slartibartfast - December 20 2008 at 06:04

IVNORD wrote: Vompatti wrote: I assumed an economical discussion would have much less words in it.   We can't economize on words...   Back to the original question... it would be interesting to hear from people from oil producing countries. Countries like Russia, Venezuela, Iran (not much hope of finding a proghead there though). Their revenues fell tremendously, some 70% from peak to trough in 4 months

Ah, the irony, the oil producing countries are starting to hurt.  Serves them right I guess.


Edited by Slartibartfast - December 20 2008 at 06:03

I assumed an economical discussion would have much less words in it. 

Edited by Slartibartfast - December 16 2008 at 06:59

Lookout!!!! Shoes!!!!

I now return your to your regularly scheduled thread.


Edited by Slartibartfast - December 16 2008 at 07:09

Running a company involves trying please different interests.  Stockholders, management, labor, suppliers, customers.  Everyone wants something and it can only truly work if none of the parties involved becomes overly greedy and you are selling what people actually want.  The Big 3 were short sighted when they gave away the house to the unions.  The unions were greedy but they thought they had to be.  And the care companies had cars to build and caved.  But this all happened back in the salad days when Japan was not a powerhouse in the auto industry and it seemed like Americans would always be buying cars non-stop.  The Big 3 are fairly slow moving when trying to conform to consumer demand.  They try to sell what people want, but people are stupid and buy cars too often and that are too extravagant.  Sooner or later, reality was going to set in and it has in a big way.  If the Big 3 would have been more conservative in expanding, shareholders would have been complaining that they should be selling more.  It is a fine line to walk.  People generally only see the short term and want to ride a wave without thinking about the long term cost.   But the people who think about the long term may not be around tomorrow because the competition is killing them today.

Slartibartfast wrote: jimmy_row wrote: ^ well considering that the unionized labor is a huge reason that the big 3 need a handout, I would doubt your assertion.  I think the global economy part is right on though...but there isn't much we can do about it - the packaging and shipping away of labor at the expense of quality and domestic production is just sort of what happens in this environment.  There will be huge consequences no matter what our politicians decide to do, so people will complain either way.  We seem to have an apocalypse-mentality about our society in general, which in turn fuels the economic downturn. Unionized labor is not the reason two of the big three are seeking a loan.  Since when is driving down wages a good idea?

Unfortunately, jimmy is right. Unionized labor has become such a clusterf**k over the last 20-30 years that unions have gone from being something necessary to protect workers' rights and assure fair and competitive wages to nothing more than a whole bunch of political red tape. And these days it always seems that the unions are demanding more, more, more when companies can't afford to pay $75/hr wages. When wages get too high, that means that some some of the factory workers are unfortunately going to lose their jobs, and oddly enough, it's often the fault of the people who are supposed to support the workers and provide backbone. It's an absolute disgrace to me. Sometimes I wonder if unions are any better than the Rebuplicans and Democrats these days.

Granted, unions are only a part of the problem. Like I said before, the only way for the big 3 to survive would be to declare bankruptcy and restructure, but the unions would never let them do that.

debrewguy wrote: Just because I make a request in negotiations does not require you to accept. At a certain point, the big three could have said, short term pain for long term gain.

In case you didn't notice, every time they tried the unions would go on strike.

Slartibartfast wrote:    Since when is driving down wages a good idea?

It's always been this way.