American Bridge Built In China Then Shipped To California

thoughtone

Rising Star
Registered
source: New York Times


<!--open abColumn --><!--cur: prev:--><NYT_HEADLINE version="1.0" type=" ">Bridge Comes to San Francisco With a Made-in-China Label</NYT_HEADLINE>

26bridge-span-articleLarge-v2.jpg
Ryan Pyle for The New York Times
Workers at Shanghai Zhenhua finish the welding on a section of the eastern span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge.



Jim Wilson/The New York Times

The San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. The replacement eastern span is on the right, with the city of San Francisco beyond.​



At a sprawling manufacturing complex here, hundreds of Chinese laborers are now completing work on the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge.

Next month, the last four of more than two dozen giant steel modules — each with a roadbed segment about half the size of a football field — will be loaded onto a huge ship and transported 6,500 miles to Oakland. There, they will be assembled to fit into the eastern span of the new Bay Bridge.

The project is part of China’s continual move up the global economic value chain — from cheap toys to Apple iPads to commercial jetliners — as it aims to become the world’s civil engineer.

The assembly work in California, and the pouring of the concrete road surface, will be done by Americans. But construction of the bridge decks and the materials that went into them are a Made in China affair. California officials say the state saved hundreds of millions of dollars by turning to China.

“They’ve produced a pretty impressive bridge for us,” Tony Anziano, a program manager at the California Department of Transportation, said a few weeks ago. He was touring the 1.2-square-mile manufacturing site that the Chinese company created to do the bridge work. “Four years ago, there were just steel plates here and lots of orange groves.”

On the reputation of showcase projects like Beijing’s Olympic-size airport terminal and the mammoth hydroelectric Three Gorges Dam, Chinese companies have been hired to build copper mines in the Congo, high-speed rail lines in Brazil and huge apartment complexes in Saudi Arabia.

In New York City alone, Chinese companies have won contracts to help renovate the subway system, refurbish the Alexander Hamilton Bridge over the Harlem River and build a new Metro-North train platform near Yankee Stadium. As with the Bay Bridge, American union labor would carry out most of the work done on United States soil.

American steelworker unions have disparaged the Bay Bridge contract by accusing the state of California of sending good jobs overseas and settling for what they deride as poor-quality Chinese steel. Industry groups in the United States and other countries have raised questions about the safety and quality of Chinese workmanship on such projects. Indeed, China has had quality control problems ranging from tainted milk to poorly built schools.

But executives and officials who have awarded the various Chinese contracts say their audits have convinced them of the projects’ engineering integrity. And they note that with the full financial force of the Chinese government behind its infrastructure companies, the monumental scale of the work, and the prices bid, are hard for private industry elsewhere to beat.

The new Bay Bridge, expected to open to traffic in 2013, will replace a structure that has never been quite the same since the 1989 Bay Area earthquake. At $7.2 billion, it will be one of the most expensive structures ever built. But California officials estimate that they will save at least $400 million by having so much of the work done in China. (California issued bonds to finance the project, and will look to recoup the cost through tolls.)

California authorities say they had little choice but to rebuild major sections of the bridge, despite repairs made after the earthquake caused a section of the eastern span to collapse onto the lower deck. Seismic safety testing persuaded the state that much of the bridge needed to be overhauled and made more quake-resistant.

Eventually, the California Department of Transportation decided to revamp the western span of the bridge (which connects San Francisco to Yerba Buena Island) and replace the 2.2-mile eastern span (which links Yerba Buena to Oakland).

On the eastern span, officials decided to build a suspension bridge with a complex design. The span will have a single, 525-foot tower, anchored to bedrock and supported by a single, enormous steel-wire cable that threads through the suspension bridge.

“We wanted something strong and secure, but we also wanted something iconic,” said Bart Ney, a transportation department spokesman.

A joint venture between two American companies, American Bridge and Fluor Enterprises, won the prime contract for the project in early 2006. Their bid specified getting much of the fabricated steel from overseas, to save money.

<!--forceinline-->California decided not to apply for federal funding for the project because the “Buy America” provisos would probably have required purchasing more expensive steel and fabrication from United States manufacturers.


China, the world’s biggest steel maker, was the front-runner, particularly because it has dominated bridge building for the last decade. Several years ago, Shanghai opened a 20-mile sea bridge; the country is now planning a much longer one near Hong Kong.

The selection of the state-owned Shanghai Zhenhua Heavy Industries Company was a surprise, though, because the company made port cranes and had no bridge building experience.

But California officials and executives at American Bridge said Zhenhua’s advantages included its huge steel fabrication facilities, its large low-cost work force and its solid finances. (The company even had its own port and ships.)

“I don’t think the U.S. fabrication industry could put a project like this together,” Brian A. Petersen, project director for the American Bridge/Fluor Enterprises joint venture, said in a telephone interview. “Most U.S. companies don’t have these types of warehouses, equipment or the cash flow. The Chinese load the ships, and it’s their ships that deliver to our piers.”

Despite the American union complaints, former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, strongly backed the project and even visited Zhenhua’s plant last September, praising “the workers that are building our Bay Bridge.”

Zhenhua put 3,000 employees to work on the project: steel-cutters, welders, polishers and engineers. The company built the main bridge tower, which was shipped in mid-2009, and a total of 28 bridge decks — the massive triangular steel structures that will serve as the roadway platform.

Pan Zhongwang, a 55-year-old steel polisher, is a typical Zhenhua worker. He arrives at 7 a.m. and leaves at 11 p.m., often working seven days a week. He lives in a company dorm and earns about $12 a day.

“It used to be $9 a day, now it’s $12,” he said Wednesday morning, while polishing one of the decks for the new Bay Bridge. “Everything is getting more expensive. They should raise our pay.”

To ensure the bridge meets safety standards, 250 employees and consultants working for the state of California and American Bridge/Fluor also took up residence in Shanghai.

Asked about reports that some American labor groups had blocked bridge shipments from arriving in Oakland, Mr. Anziano dismissed those as confused.

“That was not about China,” he said. “It was a disagreement between unions about which had jurisdiction and who had the right to unload a shipment. That was resolved.”
 
Capitalistic Corportistic Outsourcing Gone Amuck with help of politicians on the take!

source: Foreign Policy

<!-- BLOG POST --><!-- BLOG HED -->How much will San Francisco's Chinese bridge really cost?



<!-- END BLOG HED --><!-- ARTICLE BODY -->
arnold_picnik_0.jpg

<META name=ProgId content=Word.Document><META name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12"><META name=Originator content="Microsoft Word 12"><LINK rel=File-List href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5Ckeatingj%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><LINK rel=themeData href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5Ckeatingj%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_themedata.thmx"><LINK rel=colorSchemeMapping href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5Ckeatingj%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_colorschememapping.xml"><STYLE></STYLE>

The Dutch have a saying: Goed Koop is Duur Koop, Cheap is Expensive.

That came to my mind yesterday as I read in the Sunday New York Times of the new San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge having been made in China and now being readied for shipment to San Francisco where the its modules will be placed on their supports and snapped together like an erector set.

I am old enough to remember the pride my parents took in telling me of the completion in the middle of the Great Depression of the Golden Gate Bridge, then the world's longest suspension bridge. In that trying time, the bridge, almost entirely made in America, was a symbol of hope because it demonstrated that Americans could still do great things when properly led and organized.

Now, in these trying times as Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke tells us the economic recovery from the Great Recession is stumbling for reasons he doesn't understand, it seems that we take pride in what China can do for us. Thus California Department of Transportation program manager Tony Anziano told the Times "they've (the Chinese) produced a pretty impressive bridge for us." In this, Anziano was only following the lead of former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger who strongly backed the Chinese project on the basis of an estimated $400 million saving to the state and who praised "the workers that are building our Bay Bridge" during a visit to China last September.

In view of the quality problems that have arisen with major construction projects in China such as the Three Gorges Dam and the High Speed Railroad lines that have recently had to be speed restricted, U.S. industry and union groups have raised questions about the safety of the new bridge. But those who have awarded the contracts to the Chinese say their audits have convinced them of the engineering integrity of the projects. Furthermore, they say, American companies don't have the fabrication facilities, warehouses, or deep financial pockets to do these kinds of very large scale projects. " I don't think the U.S. fabrication industry could put a project like this together," Brian A. Petersen, project director for American Bridge/Fluor Enterprises, told the Times.

So it's cheaper to do it in China and anyhow Americans can't do that kind of stuff anymore seems to be the essence of the story. But is that really the case?

Let's look first at the cost question. The Times notes that 55-year old steel polisher Pan Zhongwang arrives at work at 7 a.m. and leaves at 11 p.m. seven days a week earning $12 a day and a bed in the company dorm. So the $400 million estimated saving is largely a result of cheap Chinese labor. But is that a pure saving? If California and/or the United States have no unemployed workers who could make steel or polish it or do fabrications, then it is a pure saving. But last time I looked both California and the United States have close to 10 percent reported unemployment and closer to 15 percent if we count part time workers who want full time work and those who have become discouraged from even looking for work. Now those unemployed workers get some unemployment compensation and their health care has to be paid for by public means if they can't pay it themselves, and the banks have to repossess their homes when they can't make the mortgage payments, and then states and the Feds have to bail out the banks. I can count way over $400 million in unemployment costs pretty quickly and that's without even considering the downward pressure on all wages in the United States that arises from the import of these low wage products in the midst of high unemployment. I mean, I guess we could have had a cheaper Golden Gate Bridge in 1937 if we had just brought over a bunch of Chinese workers to do the job. But that would have defeated the purpose of building the bridge which was a major project in the effort to cut U.S. unemployment in the midst of the Depression.

Then there is the issue of American capability. I wonder how the Chinese got these capabilities that Americans apparently no longer have. It was by building their own projects for themselves and developing the capabilities. Twenty years ago China didn't have companies that could do most of this kind of work. But the Chinese didn't call the Americans in to build their bridges for them. They invested in developing the capacities necessary to build their own bridges. That's what we did when we built the Golden Gate. People and corporations learn by doing and if they don't do they don't learn and they don't invest and then they can never do.

And the cost of never being able to do is extremely high - a lot more than $400 million. So I say the new San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge is not only not inexpensive. It's going to cost us a fortune.

How apt that this was all carried out by the Terminator. It's definitely going to terminate a lot of California and American jobs, companies, and skills.
 
Great articles, both. Thanks for posting.

Now that I've thanked you, I like to express my disgust that we didn't find a way, in this country, to have constructed that bridge and other projects that we're simply giving away.

In and around 2006 during the construction boom and in the immediate aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, gypsum board (dry wall or interior wall board, whatever one might call it regionally) became in short supply in this country. Suppliers looked to China and that country exported some 600 million pounds of rock to the U.S.

Around 2008, strange things began to happen in homes constructed with the Chinese rock. A/C units began to fail miserably. In the south, its damn near impossible to live in a home without A/C. The bright shiney copper pipes and fittings on appliances, water heaters, etc., were neither bright nor shiney, in fact, they had turned a dark brown or blackish color. Of course, black is beautiful, but not if its copper pipe -- which represented a corrosion that caused the pipes & fittings to fail and, in some cases, become almost spongy. Add to that the terrible rotten-egg or fresh-gun-shot smell, which caused upper respiratory problems -- and, well, you get the picture.

The companies importing the Chinese manufactured drywall into this country, like the steel fabricator in the stories above, have the "full financial force of the Chinese government behind" them. Of course, suits are pending as we speak, pulled together in an action called MDL (Multi-District-Litigation) in Federal District Court in New Orleans. So, with the full financial force of the Chinese government behind the company, one would expect everyting to be OK. Right?

Wrong.

The SOB's are trying desparately to avoid the American people, the harmed they've caused and the jurisdiction of the U.S. Federal Courts in every way known to man. There are probably 15-20,000 thousand homes affected and untold individuals afflicted. Not a got damn dime.

In the meantime, we're debating in this country the algebraic equation - - the role of government in economic development: the capitalist purest on the one hand, and reasonability on the other. On the third-hand, the Chinese appears to have solved "X" already.
 
We should RE-learn the basics of capitalism 101 from the Chinese.
Work, save, invest and go back to work and repeat the whole cycle over and over again.
THAT is capitalism.

You don't work, you don't eat! ! !

Printing money to finance your expenditures like there's no tomorrow is not capitalism

The new Bay Bridge, expected to open to traffic in 2013, will replace a structure that has never been quite the same since the 1989 Bay Area earthquake. At $7.2 billion, it will be one of the most expensive structures ever built. But California officials estimate that they will save at least $400 million by having so much of the work done in China. (California issued bonds to finance the project, and will look to recoup the cost through tolls.)

very telling! California got it all figured out
 
We should RE-learn the basics of capitalism 101 from the Chinese.
Work, save, invest and go back to work and repeat the whole cycle over and over again.
THAT is capitalism.

You don't work, you don't eat! ! !

Printing money to finance your expenditures like there's no tomorrow is not capitalism



very telling! California got it all figured out


We should RE-learn the basics of capitalism 101 from the Chinese.

Finally, you admit it! Capitalism thrives best in dictatorships.


Now let me see you back away from this one.
 
Finally, you admit it! Capitalism thrives best in dictatorships.


Now let me see you back away from this one.

<hr noshade color="#FF0000" size="4"></hr>

"Chattel slavery was replaced by neoslavery."
--George Jackson-- from Soledad Brother: The Prison Letters of George Jackson


China is the world's largest neo-slave labor camp.

The nine men pictured below are the supreme oligarch dictators who control the lives and aspirations of 1,300,000,000 (1.3 Billion) Chinese people.

15329703-6a6.jpg

China's Politburo-The Supreme Unelected Leaders

DEMOCRACY NOT PERMITTED!!!!! NO DISSENT PERMITTED!!!!

Capitalist businessmen world-wide love this arrangement. Fly into Beijing, sit down at a huge ancient conference table with these nine guys, cut your deal $$$$$$$$$$, get back on your private jet, stop off in Hong Kong for the celebration, Expensive Alcohol, Drugs (Viagra), Hoe's, Hoe's, Hoe's; it's a wonderful life!!

No worry about environmental pollution laws, no labor unions, no investigative media (free press), no worry about pensions or 401k matching contributions, no worker health care expenses, no chance of being sued if a worker gets blown up making your product. This is the ultimate predatory capitalist wet dream - 'the disposable worker'. This is even better than robots, it's cheaper.

The nine Chinese Politburo Supreme shot-callers all become Billionaires and their chosen surrogates become multi-millionaires. The other 99.999% of the population hopes to be permitted to work for a company like Foxconn. Foxconn is considered the middle-class Chinese dream job.

<div id="kadoo_video_container_17544957-551"><object height="288" width="360" id="video_detector_17544957-551"><param value="http://divshare.com/flash/video_flash_detector.php?data=YTo2OntzOjU6ImFwaUlkIjtzOjE6IjQiO3M6NjoiZmlsZUlkIjtpOjE3NTQ0OTU3O3M6NDoiY29kZSI7czoxMjoiMTc1NDQ5NTctNTUxIjtzOjY6InVzZXJJZCI7czo3OiIxMzE0NjMzIjtzOjQ6InRpbWUiO2k6MTMzNTc2NDYxMjtzOjEyOiJleHRlcm5hbENhbGwiO2k6MTt9&autoplay=default&id=17544957-551" name="movie"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><param name="wmode" value="opaque"></param><embed wmode="opaque" height="288" width="360" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" src="http://divshare.com/flash/video_flash_detector.php?data=YTo2OntzOjU6ImFwaUlkIjtzOjE6IjQiO3M6NjoiZmlsZUlkIjtpOjE3NTQ0OTU3O3M6NDoiY29kZSI7czoxMjoiMTc1NDQ5NTctNTUxIjtzOjY6InVzZXJJZCI7czo3OiIxMzE0NjMzIjtzOjQ6InRpbWUiO2k6MTMzNTc2NDYxMjtzOjEyOiJleHRlcm5hbENhbGwiO2k6MTt9&autoplay=default&autoplay=default&id=17544957-551"></embed></object></div>

Contractors assemble products for Apple and virtually every other major electronics company at Foxconn. Foxconn is a Shenzhen, China based company, a Taiwanese manufacturing behemoth who reportedly assembles half of the world’s electronics.

Workers often labor for anywhere from 12 to 16 hours straight or longer, standing interminably and finding little compensation for the inevitable health problems and unpaid overtime that result from such treatment. There are also child laborers at Foxconn, who often lived with their coworkers in cramped company dormitories under constant surveillance for any hint of complaint or possible worker organization into a labor union.

This is what the Koch brothers & other US based oligarchs want for America. This toxic outcome is already brewing. In Texas the largest employer is WalMart -poverty wages; no overtime permitted. America is becoming a Third World Country as the top 3% percent wealthy in the US (majority owners of stocks, bonds, stacks-of-cash) become increasingly wealthier.

Madison Ave. (the advertising industry) just produced a 'white paper' telling corporate america that the traditional US middle class is GONE! & it's not coming back, and that they should concentrate their advertising efforts in the US almost completely to the top 3% percent because that is where the $$$$$$$$ money and growth is. I'll post the nexus of this white paper in a separate post. It's a mega-trend all "reality-based" US citizens need to be aware of.

If you look at the numbers daily as I do you can see it. WalMart has had EIGHT Consecutive Quarters of Sales Decline. WalMart bosses say "American shoppers are running out of money faster than before". No kidding! WalMart shoppers, the working class & the working poor don't have enough money anymore to buy the 20 roll toilet tissue pack or the 10 box Kellog's cereal pack. No, they can only buy these items one-at-a-time so they ditch WalMart and go to Dollar Stores where they have the option to buy smaller quantities of staple items. WalMart traditional customers HAVE NO FUCKING MONEY.

Meanwhile Mercedes-Benz US sales are booming setting a record in June BMW US sales booming. Neiman Marcus, Bergdorf Goodman, luxury retailers booming.

These are the mega-trends of where we are headed in the US. Most US citizens are asleep watching <s>FOX</s> FAKE News talking about how bad unions are, & teachers are paid too much etc. etc.

China is NOT the fascist economic model you want emulated here in the US if you are interested in civilization over barbarism.


<hr noshade color="#0000FF" size="6"></hr>

idLWCw.PNG



"For A Factory, It's Pretty Nice": Apple Boss Steve Jobs Defends Conditions At Chinese Factory Where 10 Workers Have Jumped To Their Deaths



June 2010

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...conditions-10-suicides.html?printingPage=true

Apple boss Steve Jobs has spoken out for the first time about a string of suicides at one of the firm's Chinese factories.<div align="right">
<!-- MSTableType="layout" --><img src="http://i.min.us/idH9XY.PNG" align="right"></div><SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00"><b>Since January this year 10 young workers have killed themselves by jumping from the roof of the factory building at Foxconn in southern China.</b></span>

<b><SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">Jobs today described the worker's deaths as 'troubling' but insisted that the factory 'is not a sweatshop'.</span></b>

'It's a difficult situation,' he said at the All Things Digital conference, an annual gathering of A-list technology and media executives in California

'We're trying to understand right now, before we go in and say we know the solution.'

idLYK4.jpg


<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">Newly Installed Nets</span> :eek::confused::eek::eek: to prevent workers from jumping to their deaths are pictured outside one of the Foxconn's factory buildings in the township of Longhua, in southern Guangdong province, China


But Mr Jobs defended the conditions at the factory.

'You go in this place and it's a factory but, my gosh, they've got restaurants and movie theatres and hospitals and swimming pools. For a factory, it's pretty nice,' he said.

Jobs also used his speech to hit out at Adobe's Flash technology which he has refused to allow access to on either the iPad or the iPhone.

Adobe's Flash multimedia technology allows video and interactive media on the Web

But he described Flash as a 'waning' technology and said: 'We didn't start off to have a war with Flash or anything else. We just made a technical decision.'

He also used the speech to vow not to get into a search battle with Google, and waxed lyrical about the future of tablet PCs, which he said will one day replace PCs.

Jobs also talked about how he conceived the iPad even before the iPhone.

Apple released the iPad in April and it has quickly defined the tablet computer market, selling more than 2 million units in the first 60 days.

Apple is widely expected to unveil its newest iPhone next Monday, when Jobs delivers his keynote address at its developers conference in San Francisco.

Consumers have already been given a sneak look at the new iPhone which was famously lost by an Apple employee at a bar earlier this year and then purchased and displayed online by a technology blog.

Jobs said there was debate about whether the phone was simply picked up after being left at the bar, or actually stolen out of the employee's bag.

'This is a story that's amazing,' Jobs said. 'It's got theft. It's got buying stolen property.

'It's got extortion. I'm sure there's sex in there somewhere. Somebody should make a movie out of this.'



 
Last edited:
Finally, you admit it! Capitalism thrives best in dictatorships.

Now let me see you back away from this one.

Individual human rights issues certainly don't make China a democratic country. However, as a country, the way China handles its international issues (especially natural resource investment around the globe) is de facto CAPITALISM.

I don't care about their human rights issue since it's none of my business. However, I surely hope that our idiots in Washington learn how to deal with other countries and how to save and invest from China.

Bombing and killing people all around the world does more harm than good. Gaining advantage by making friends and doing amicable business is the way to go.
 
Individual human rights issues certainly don't make China a democratic country. However, as a country, the way China handles its international issues (especially natural resource investment around the globe) is <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">de facto</span> CAPITALISM.

De facto means, in fact, i.e., a situation or condition that exists as a matter of fact, as opposed to a situation or condition that exists because it is imposed or required or mandated, by law or as a matter of law, i.e., De jure.

The two terms were prominently used in this country in the 50's, 60's and 70's to describe segregation, i.e., schools, housing and neighborhoods, etc., in many parts of this country were segregated with whites attending schools or living almost exclusively in some areas and blacks the same in other areas. In some places, especially in the south, laws mandated segregation -- hence, the segregation was de jure. In other parts of the country the law didn't mandate it, but segregation existed nevertheless because of racial attitudes -- hence, de facto segregation.

I am curious why you invented the phrase "de facto capitalism." My curiousity arises because YOU and other so-called free marketeers go to great length to argue for the removal of all governmental interference (law) in the market place -- taking the position that laws only inhibit the free market.

Off the top of my head, I am not aware of any country which imposes capitalism by law (de jure), thus, if I am correct in that assumption, capitalism only exists, de facto -- as a matter of fact. If that is so, why did you attempt to distinguish the way China "handles its international issues, especially natural resource investment around the globe"? Were you not comparing China's "de facto methodology" to and/or distinguishing it from places where the methodology is "de jure" ???

Just curious.

QueEx
 
Individual human rights issues certainly don't make China a democratic country. However, as a country, the way China handles its international issues (especially natural resource investment around the globe) is de facto CAPITALISM.

I don't care about their human rights issue since it's none of my business. However, I surely hope that our idiots in Washington learn how to deal with other countries and how to save and invest from China.

Bombing and killing people all around the world does more harm than good. Gaining advantage by making friends and doing amicable business is the way to go.


Individual human rights issues certainly don't make China a democratic country. However, as a country, the way China handles its international issues (especially natural resource investment around the globe) is de facto CAPITALISM.

I don't care about their human rights issue since it's none of my business.

We (United States) had a period in history like that. It was called slavery. (Actually de facto capitalism is what we have. Capitalism is not in the Constitution. Know the difference!)

Bombing and killing people all around the world does more harm than good. Gaining advantage by making friends and doing amicable business is the way to go.

No shit Sherlock.

Capitalism would not have even existed if it weren't for military expansionism. Your limited knowledge of history to your convenient view of the so called free market fails to account for the United States role in helping China during WWII, WWI, Boxer Rebellion, etc. Europe has prospered with the aide of American war too. Come out of Never Never Land.
 
There is a lot of good stuff here. But I think a lot could be solved by having a free market system, as it relies on production and transactions, not compulsion. Pure capitalism and socialism are the two systems which have given birth to the neo-slavery Muck posted on.
 
There is a lot of good stuff here. But I think a lot could be solved by having a free market system, as it relies on production and transactions, not compulsion. Pure capitalism and socialism are the two systems which have given birth to the neo-slavery Muck posted on.


Name a country where the "free market" system is in effect. Now or any time in history. I'll be waiting.
 
Name a country where the "free market" system is in effect. Now or any time in history. I'll be waiting.

They are often in areas your type would call unruly. Many parts of this country had it for a long time. Some ignorantly call it capitalism.

Now I know you'll do your polemicizing and cite places were there were abuses, but there has not been a system free of abuses. The current rent-seeking that goes on can only go on when government has the power to do so.

If we get back to a more free market condition, things will work out better than they are now.

Holla.
 
They are often in areas your type would call unruly. Many parts of this country had it for a long time. Some ignorantly call it capitalism.

Now I know you'll do your polemicizing and cite places were there were abuses, but there has not been a system free of abuses. The current rent-seeking that goes on can only go on when government has the power to do so.

If we get back to a more free market condition, things will work out better than they are now.

Holla.


In other words, this is just a political philosophy, never implemented successfully as a whole in any nation in history.

So to sum it up, you can't.
 
Interesting, one big-government scenario uses its power to enable businesses to save & produce to compete on a global stage.

The other big-government scenario uses its power to borrow to consume products that they didn't make nor can they afford.

Gee, I wonder which will succeed.
 
Interesting, one big-government scenario uses its power to enable businesses to save & produce to compete on a global stage.

The other big-government scenario uses its power to borrow to consume products that they didn't make nor can they afford.

Gee, I wonder which will succeed.

Honestly, I read the above and looked further up above to see what it was referring or relating to. I couldn't tell. :(

Just trying to understand; what are you referring to ? ? ?
 
thoughtoneIn other words, this is just a political philosophy, never implemented successfully as a whole in any nation in history.
Yup, just like yours (unless 14 trillion of debt with a bullet , as well as other things counts as success).:yes:
 
Yup, just like yours (unless 14 trillion of debt with a bullet , as well as other things counts as success).:yes:

Whoa, I was hoping to read the response to T.O.'s first question. I won't pretend to know what T.O., is getting at but he does raise what I believe is an important point. You said:

Pure capitalism and socialism are the two systems which have given birth to the neo-slavery Muck posted on . . .
T.O., asked and I think its a legitimate, if not completely logical, question -- Name a country where the "free market" system is in effect. Now or any time in history.

You never really answered that, no :confused:
 
Yup, just like yours (unless 14 trillion of debt with a bullet , as well as other things counts as success).:yes:


Selective recollection at it's best. I remember the back and forth you and I had back in the waning days of the GW regime (see US Economy thread). You did all you could to first ignore and then justify the mounting debt that was being accumulated. As long as it was off the books, there was little complaining from your side. Now that debt is the major talking point.

If the debt is the issue, return to Clinton's tax rates. I remember the debt increases were slowing and the budget was balanced with surpluses while unemployment plummeted.
 
Whoa, I was hoping to read the response to T.O.'s first question. I won't pretend to know what T.O., is getting at but he does raise what I believe is an important point. You said:
T.O., asked and I think its a legitimate, if not completely logical, question -- Name a country where the "free market" system is in effect. Now or any time in history.

You never really answered that, no :confused:


He won't and cannot answer it. Neither can Lamarr. Their has never been a period in the world much less the United States that Chicago School, Ayn Rand, libertarian, free market economics was implemented. Even during the Robber Baron period of the late 1800s, early 1900s. The capital the acquired initially was won by them through was and governments projects, the same way banks became wealthy. The US governments gave the railroads the rights of way to properties for little when they did charge and in the 1950s and early 1960s when the railroads became dangerous and ill maintained, they left it up to the government to take the losses, just like every other business external scenario in the history of business.
 
Interesting, one big-government scenario uses its power to enable businesses to save & produce to compete on a global stage.

The other big-government scenario uses its power to borrow to consume products that they didn't make nor can they afford.

Gee, I wonder which will succeed.

Let me attempt to clarify;

A healthy economy is one that saves & produces. In this instance, look at the activities of China. I label them as "big govt" because of their attempts to suppress human rights

An unhealthy economy is one the borrows to consume. In this instance, reference the U.S. They use their "big govt" authority to suppress economic freedom. The bigger our govt gets, the more freedom we lose, FACT!
 
This is not big picture view that was taken. This would have meant jobs which would have meant taxes. I guess since the jobs and the taxes might not be in California it probably didn't matter to them. I guess there was some benefits to Halliburton and KBR winning those government contracts. At least Americans were getting the jobs
 
He won't and cannot answer it. Neither can Lamarr. Their has never been a period in the world much less the United States that Chicago School, Ayn Rand, libertarian, free market economics was implemented. Even during the Robber Baron period of the late 1800s, early 1900s. The capital the acquired initially was won by them through was and governments projects, the same way banks became wealthy. The US governments gave the railroads the rights of way to properties for little when they did charge and in the 1950s and early 1960s when the railroads became dangerous and ill maintained, they left it up to the government to take the losses, just like every other business external scenario in the history of business.

You are right, there has been precious little time that there has been Anarchy. That is what you are alluding to. You confuse the laws to enforce contracts with the meddling and corruption of markets that you and your ilk always beg for, then bitch about when you get it.

However, during the beginning of every large republic, there simply is not enough government to go around, and they do not have the power to fuck with the productive in the way that your Socialist school of thought demands. That is when we get going. Then the unproductive and greedy get together and start picking winners and losers, and when it doesn't work (like your example above), you then bitch and moan about those who actually can produce and say "if it was not for the greedy (read: productive), we would not be in this mess".

It is funny that you give the greatest example yet (that you will of couse ignore, then deflect, then go on some straw man argument) above. Like you said "when they did charge...the railroads became dangerous" . When the gov got involved, they fucked it up !! Amtrak loses millions to this day.

Anyway, I'll let you get back to you destructive delusions about government being able to catch waterfalls.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, I read the above and looked further up above to see what it was referring or relating to. I couldn't tell. :(

Just trying to understand; what are you referring to ? ? ?

If I may use a term from another poster; typical Lamarr!
 
source: Reuters

As Mitt Romney cruises to his inevitable coronation as the Republican presidential candidate, increasing amounts of attention are being focused on his history at Bain Capital, where he made his fortune. Did he create 100,000 jobs, as he claims? Or is he a vulture and asset stripper?

Glenn Kessler has the definitive take on the job-creation claim, which he says is “untenable”; as he says, Romney’s method of counting jobs created when he wasn’t at Bain or when Bain wasn’t managing the companies in question doesn’t even pass the laugh test. Meanwhile, as Mark Maremont documents, Bain-run companies — even the successful ones — have an alarming tendency to end up in bankruptcy. And I think it’s fair to say that bankruptcy never creates jobs, except perhaps among bankruptcy lawyers.

The reality is that Romney would have been in violation of his fiduciary duty to his investors had he concentrated on creating jobs, rather than extracting as much money as he possibly could from the companies he bought. For instance, Worldwide Grinding Systems was a win for Bain, where it made $12 million on its initial $8 million investment, plus another $4.5 million in consulting fees. But the firm ended up in bankruptcy, 750 people lost their jobs, and the US government had to bail out the company’s pension plan to the tune of $44 million. There’s no sense in which that is just.

Romney’s company, Bain Capital, was a “private equity” firm — the friendly, focus-grouped phrase which replaced “leveraged buy-outs” after Mike Milken blew up. But at heart it’s the same thing: you buy companies with an enormous amount of borrowed money, and then dividend as much money out of them as you can. If they still manage to grow, you can make a fortune; if they don’t grow, they’ll likely fail, but even then you might well have made a profit anyway.

Private equity companies need growth, because they’re built on the idea of buying, restructuring, and then selling. They’re never in any business for the long haul: instead, they want to make as much money as they can as quickly as possible, sell out, and keep all the profits for themselves and their investors. When you sell, you want to maximize the price you can ask — and the way to do that is to show healthy growth. No one will pay top dollar for a company which isn’t growing.

Private equity is by no means unique in this respect: it happens at pretty much every public company, too. John Gapper, today, has a column about the way it destroys values at struggling technology companies:
Most public companies are run by people who hate folding ’em, and instead keep returning to the shareholders and bondholders for more chips…

Few senior executives, when debating options for a technology company in decline, admit defeat and run it modestly. Instead, they cast around for businesses to buy, or try to hurdle the chasm with what they have got. Sometimes they succeed but often they don’t, wasting a lot of money along the way.

It goes against their instincts to concede that the odds are so stacked against them that it is not worth the gamble. Mr Perez would have faced a hostile audience if he’d admitted it to the citizens of Rochester, Kodak’s company town in New York, but its investors would have benefited.
At many companies, then, both public and private, the optimal course of action is a modest one — run the business so that it makes a reasonable profit, and can continue to operate indefinitely. If you chase after growth, you often end up in bankruptcy: that’s one reason why the oldest companies in the world are all family-run. Families, unlike public companies or private-equity shops, don’t need growth: they’re more interested in looking after their business over the very, very long run.

There’s no limit at all to the amount of growth that the public companies will demand: in 2007, for instance, after a year when Citigroup made an astonishing $21.5 billion in net income, Fortune was complaining about its “less-than-stellar earnings”, and saying — quite accurately — that if they didn’t improve, the CEO would soon be out of a job. We now know, of course, that most if not all of those earnings were illusory, a product of the housing bubble which was shortly to burst and bring the bank to the brink of insolvency. But even bubblicious illusory earnings aren’t good enough for the stock market.

If you want to be fair to Mitt Romney, you could make the point that many of the companies he bought were highly risky, and would probably have gone bust anyway; in that sense he can’t be blamed if they eventually did just that. If a company is going to fail, you might as well squeeze the maximum amount of money out of it before it does. But doing that, at the margin, means more job losses, quicker job losses, and — as we saw at that steel company — a willingness to underfund staff pension plans and stiff the government with the bill. Mitt Romney turns out to have a personality which is highly suited to that kind of ruthlessly callous behavior; that’s how he became so incredibly wealthy. It’s an ugly part of capitalism; it might even be a necessary part of capitalism. But the one thing you can’t do is spin it as a great way of creating jobs.
 
Re: How capitalism kills companies

Interesting article. The writer is obviously hostile to capitalism, which is really just free men exchanging the goods-companies in this instance-that they have acquired for prices that they both agree on (unlike state managed institutions which force people to buy companies whether or not they agree on the price or find the business likely to succeed... Solyndra as the most prominent example so far... Some succeed some fail, but the point is I don't make the decision to purchase a share in the company). But if you don't want to get involved in the kind of risky capital manipulation that occured at Bain capital you don't have to. By Bonds in solid companies when you have the paper and get your %2.5 and move on (I would avoid munies and treasuries at this point...). That is why I prefer 401k's to pension plans. I get to invest MY money in stock's or Bonds that I think will pan out. If I am wrong then I'm the fool and I don't have anyone else to blame. With a pension, you just get charged and put your money in a big pot, if it works out good for you, but most likely your union head over promised and overextended your business and the pension is likely to drag your whole business into the gutter at which point I will either steal money from my neighbor (gvt bailout) or just be plain SOL because some idiot running the pension fund fucked up. But at least I was socially just right?
GTFOH

BTW... because I love my brothers and sisters on this board so much, I will give you a little bit of advice should the dear leader be reelected and the Reds, I mean Dems, win the house and Senate...

Get out of your 401k take the tax hit and Buy GOLD, Silver, Copper, Seeds, Canned food, Guns and ammunition. That's my advice. Take it or leave it. But if I were you, I would take it.
 
Re: How capitalism kills companies

Interesting article. The writer is obviously hostile to capitalism, which is really just free men exchanging the goods-companies in this instance-that they have acquired for prices that they both agree on (unlike state managed institutions which force people to buy companies whether or not they agree on the price or find the business likely to succeed... Solyndra as the most prominent example so far... Some succeed some fail, but the point is I don't make the decision to purchase a share in the company). But if you don't want to get involved in the kind of risky capital manipulation that occured at Bain capital you don't have to. By Bonds in solid companies when you have the paper and get your %2.5 and move on (I would avoid munies and treasuries at this point...). That is why I prefer 401k's to pension plans. I get to invest MY money in stock's or Bonds that I think will pan out. If I am wrong then I'm the fool and I don't have anyone else to blame. With a pension, you just get charged and put your money in a big pot, if it works out good for you, but most likely your union head over promised and overextended your business and the pension is likely to drag your whole business into the gutter at which point I will either steal money from my neighbor (gvt bailout) or just be plain SOL because some idiot running the pension fund fucked up. But at least I was socially just right?
GTFOH

BTW... because I love my brothers and sisters on this board so much, I will give you a little bit of advice should the dear leader be reelected and the Reds, I mean Dems, win the house and Senate...

Get out of your 401k take the tax hit and Buy GOLD, Silver, Copper, Seeds, Canned food, Guns and ammunition. That's my advice. Take it or leave it. But if I were you, I would take it.

The writer is obviously hostile to capitalism

You are obviously blind to it's evils.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/7B3Fw5TPJK8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Re: How capitalism kills companies

I am not blind to the evils of mankind. But I am a champion of freedom. And I don't believe in stealing from my neighbor.
 
Re: How capitalism kills companies

We elect people to manage the United States. Why can't workers elect a board or management to run a company?

All we have now is dictatorship rule at most of these companies.
 
Re: How capitalism kills companies

We elect people to manage the United States. Why can't workers elect a board or management to run a company?

All we have now is dictatorship rule at most of these companies.
 
Re: How capitalism kills companies

We elect people to manage the United States.

Why can't workers elect a board or management to run a company?


Because they don't own the company ? ? ? ya think , . , .


All we have now is dictatorship rule at most of these companies.

If its dictatorship you're complaining of, why are you proposing a dictatorship of the proletariat :confused:
 
Re: How capitalism kills companies

So an article addressing the ills of capitalism makes one hostile towards it? If the government has to "bail out" a pension plan isn't that also "stealing" from one's neighbor?

Capitalism is the economic engine that made this country great but it's also the same engine that led to a lot of it's ills, acknowledging it's flaws isn't a sign of hostility as much as it is a sign of responsibility.
 
Back
Top