Values Displaced

Published on December 31, 2005 By stevendedalus In Politics

Raising the standard of living of the poor cannot be done without reducing the ridiculously high standards of the very wealthy to make room for a wider middle class. Top corporate executives continue to receive perks and bonuses for unremarkable structuring of its production plants and rather remarkable for their eye on the bottom line to please stockholders while having little concern for their employees’ well-being by mergers, increasing outsourcing of labor and cutting benefits. When $10 million birthday parties and $700K watches become common among the most affluent means the country is reincarnating the Court of Louis XIV. When athletes spend more time buying jewelry and outlandish fashion than Willie Mays used to spend time playing stickball with the kids in Harlem, it is time to rollback the absurd contracts that relentlessly pilfer from loyal fans. When the entertainment industry pampers and lavishes astronomical pay and royalty to its stars, it is time to reassess the validity of allowing the moguls hands-off decision-making.

That a company like Wal-Mart, which produces nothing and a major distributor of imported goods, yet becomes the biggest employer in the country, is indicative of a nation losing its will to industrialize and modernize its infrastructure. That powerhouses like GM and Ford are on the decline owing to the government’s irresponsibility in not providing universal health care in which foreign makers luxuriate is another sign that the nation is unwilling to come to grips with reality. And why the poor will always be slighted because of the nation’s expertise in muddling through as substitute for vision.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com

Comments (Page 4)

Daiwa

on Jan 02, 2006

You clothe universal health care with socialized medicine to denigrate the concept. The system we have now is based on profit and therefore seeks patients that are the most risk free to the extent that there are millions who cannot even get insurance if they could afford it, or the cost is prohibitive. We are all being "taxed" by soaring costs of insurance, Medicaid and the millions of uninsured who cannot pay their catastrophic hospital bills.

I assure you, universal health care IS socialized medicine. You are quite correct about the indirect tax our current system imposes. But I don't believe universal health care will solve the problem.

There was a time when insurance companies sold "insurance" - the pooling of premiums from the many to insure against the misfortune of the few. There was a coverage known as "major medical" - you could self-insure for the small stuff (doctor visits, etc.) but have coverage for serious illness or injury. If you had a health problem before obtaining insurance, they might rider (exclude) it for a period of time, say 2 years, but you could at least get coverage for everything you didn't yet have. The largest of the insurance companies was non-profit.

Insurance companies now sell premium notices, preferably to people least likely to need healthcare, and they won't sell to you at all if you've ever had a hangnail. Major medical policies are practically impossible to come by. Millions of dollars are siphoned off by layers of management which contribute not one iota to the amount or quality of healhcare delivered. The government turns over Medicare premiums to health plans which then invest it in financial instruments and hold onto it as long as they can to squeeze as much as possible out of it before spending any of it on patient care, and reward the CEO's & CFO's with fat bonuses when they do it "well". Other than that, the system's just about perfect.

Cheers,
Daiwa

kingbee

on Jan 02, 2006

The government turns over Medicare premiums to health plans which then invest it in financial instruments and hold onto it as long as they can to squeeze as much as possible out of it before spending any of it on patient care, and reward the CEO's & CFO's with fat bonuses when they do it "well

so, if anyone was at all innarested in cutting out the middleman...

ParaTed2k

on Jan 02, 2006

For example, two people are trying for the same job. Which is "fair", giving the job to the person who needs it more, or the one who deserves it more?
Now you're implying charity, not value.

No, I'm talking about a question that employers have to answer every day. I'm talking about the kind of questions that hiring someone almost always comes down to. It's also a good example of how a "fair shake" is not as simple as it would seem... and down right dangerous when used in policy making or rhetoric.

Fairness is NEVER fair and equality is NEVER equal.

Socialized medicine is a mistake because of how much it costs. What is the tax level of countries that provide (choke) "free" medical care?
You clothe universal health care with socialized medicine to denigrate the concept.

No, I just don't fall into the "buzzword" of the day. If you are talking about government funding of all healthcare, then have the guts to call it what it is. "socialized health care" or "universal health care", if there is a difference at all, please, enlighten me. Does spelling it different make it more palatable to you?

drmiler

on Jan 02, 2006

from the link I posted from Reuters I would like you to show me one negative number associated with FoMoCo

1. click on the 'more' link immediately beneath the 'net margin' category (there's an orange arrow so you can't hardly miss it) to see ford's income statement, balance sheet and cash flows figures.

2. scroll down to 'cash flows'

3. add all three figures.

4. scroll down all the way to the three year 'net income' listings.

5. note there is no figure yet for the last quarter (s/b out on wednesday i believe).

So I would have to guess that you must have missed this line.

Gross Profit $29,946.0

Note there is no negative sign in front of it which means they were in the black as of the time of the report and NOT in the red like you seem to believe.

drmiler

on Jan 02, 2006

'Why give a 3 year warranty on a vehicle you "know" will end up in the shop? This makes no sense! When it goes into the shop, they send the mfg a bill for fixing the vehicle. Which they must then pay. Which lowers their profit margin for the vehicle in question. That is just simple economics. Artifically churning the market does "nothing" for their bottom-line.'

Drmiler, if you were a manufacturer of second-rate vehicles, which option would you go for?

1) Advertise your vehicles as having 6 months warranty only, and watch unconvinced consumers flock to buy from the competition (profit = none); or
2) Advertise your vehicles as having 3 years warranty, sell plenty, and pay for them to be fixed when they go wrong within the warranty period (profit = standard mark-up less cost of repair),

So, it makes perfect sense whenever it might lead to the difference between a sale and no sale.

Sorry but I'm not buying this theory. All they had to do was leave the warranty where it was at 1 year not increase it to 3 years. So like I said it makes no sense. Because when a warranty repair is done it's general practice to "soak" the mfg on the cost of repair. So it would not be cost effective for the mfg like you and kb seem to think.

garsgolfer

on Jan 02, 2006

you musta missed my comment #1. far as i know there is no 'key executive' union requiring delphi to pay millions in bonuses to 600 of its members for running the corporation into bankruptcy.

I wish folks such as yourself had the opportunity to taste the reality of those running American industry. There are basically four types of corporate execs.... The entrepreneur builder from zero, those that take the helm to make wholesale organizational changes allowing the company to reach the next land mark point, and those that manage them corporate America once stabilized. Then there the last category which is considered special. They're brought into a struggling company as a tactical solution in hopes of structuring a turn-around or keeping losses minimized for as long as possible until a overall strategic plan can be determined.

If company "A" is loosing 100M per year, it could easily get worse with costs as they are today. A percentage bonus has to be paid to get someone willing to step up. Sometimes it means moving profits from one segment to another in hopes of keeping the doors open longer, fending off closure or downsizing knowing it's imminent at some point. It's an ugly task requiring special skills and few want the charge....regardless of level.

Sure, there's poor judgment and wastage results but neither is the real perpetrator behind the likes of GM or Delphi when they start down the slippery slope of self-implosion. It's related to supply and demand issues and internal cost structures like the massive costs attributed to unions and 185,200 employees total. And, you reference 600... with international operations in Canada, Mexico, Europe, Middle East, Africa, Asia-Pacific and South America.

Keep in mind, payroll/union costs have become fixed requiring payment regardless of market pressures or operational costs. The bonus' paid out to those 600 willing to ride down the slope knowing their going to loose their jobs as well as others is nothing comparatively. Imagine eliminating all 600 you seem to blame, what do you think would happen to 184,600 employees then?

garsgolfer

on Jan 02, 2006

You're making my point of displaced value: the millions generated could be better directed toward more useful needs in a social system. You're simply accepting things as they are, rather than setting up a system that does the most good. Entertainment and sports are hogging too much of the pie, regardless of the consumer's indifference to things that matter most.

Your statement above speaks for socialism.... Is that your intent?

bakerstreet

on Jan 02, 2006

" You're making my point of displaced value: the millions generated could be better directed toward more useful needs in a social system. You're simply accepting things as they are, rather than setting up a system that does the most good. Entertainment and sports are hogging too much of the pie, regardless of the consumer's indifference to things that matter most."

*boggle*

This is like someone who stuffs their kid full of candy and then can't understand why they are fat. They are hogging too much of the pie because we are making them that much of the pie. So not only do you want to tell people who make the money how much they can make, but you want to make sure we don't voluntarily make them rich? They aren't holding a gun to the heads of people who buy tickets, and jackets, and caps, and everything else...

There's two ways of thinking about it, and you are taking the fascist stance. People as a whole can evolve to the point they'd rather put their money to better use, or we can create taskmasters to make up for our lack of empathy and hope they are more evolved when they start imposing that behavior on us. It has never, in the history of mankind, ever worked. It isn't working now, anywhere

Why? Because it demands something of us that we aren't designed for. We aren't ants. We are mammals, and not even herd animals, we are pack animals. The idea you are espousing is going to be disgusting to most people at a gut level for that reason. You might be able to get them to revolt against the rich, but you'll NEVER get them to not seek riches themselves.

We are genetically *about* bettering ourselves as much as possible. They'll take from the rich, sure, but you'll just have to steal it back from the social crusaders, and then someone else will have to steal it from you. Redistributing wealth simply becomes siezing wealth. One alpha male is replaced by another.

You'd just shift the means from business to bureaucracy.

bakerstreet

on Jan 02, 2006

You know, it just struck me. Steve is just taking the horror-show concept of imminent domain, and making it apply to our money. If the "society" can somehow better profit from the money we earn, then the state has a right to seize it and do what it wants to with it.

How ugly. How can you possibly rail against wire taps and government excess on one blog, and then pretend that this wouldn't be the last nail in the coffin. You'd just have a system wherein the Trumps of the world would become bureaucrats instead of businessmen, and social "justice" would be handing out poverty at the barrel of a gun.

ParaTed2k

on Jan 02, 2006

Good point BakerStreet!

Dr Guy

on Jan 02, 2006

That is what socialism and communism is. The government owns everything, and you are just a user of their resources.

garsgolfer

on Jan 02, 2006

The greed of these unions, combined with our excessive regulation of the industry combined with governmental demands for more and more safety features to make up for the half-plastic pieces of shit they have to build these days in order to meet minimum mileage and air pollution standards are what's caused this industry to struggle, not the fact that their CEO's fly around on private jets.

Your ideas are terrible. Repulsive, even

I like what you have to say...

UBoB

on Jan 02, 2006

That is what socialism and communism is. The government owns everything, and you are just a user of their resources.

But in pure communism and socialism the government is the people. So the people just use what they already, collectively own.

ParaTed2k

on Jan 02, 2006

Ubob, in pure communism and socialism "equality" is forced on the people by the government without the say of "the people". The people aren't given choices.

Draginol

on Jan 02, 2006

The premise of this article is flawed because it assumes that wealth is a zero-sum game. How much the wealthy make has little to nothing to do with how poor the poor are.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!