[Politics_CurrentEvents_Group] Re: why companies go out of business

Of course, Singapore is no paradise, but have you ever compaired the life in Singapore with the life in North Korea?

--- In Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com, "Sheep&Goatlady" <springcreek@...> wrote:
>
> and the laws there are not the kind you would want here,, like caning some
> one if they stratch a car,, restricted in what they can do and how they
> live, plus for all the weatlh they have , folks live like little ants, one
> on top of another,
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "zeus32117" <zeus32117@...>
> To: <Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 5:10 AM
> Subject: [Politics_CurrentEvents_Group] Re: why companies go out of business
>
>
> I think that it isn't possible for a government to enable companies to
> maximize their profits. A government can interfere with wealth creation
> more, or interfere with it less. According to what I have read, the
> government of Singapore interferes with wealth creation less than that of
> any other country. The government of Hong Kong was interfering with wealth
> creation even less than that of Singapore. That may have changed after Hong
> Kong became a part of China.
>
> --- In Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com, "Walt L" <muleshet@>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Are you asking if I would have let then go
> > "under?" IMO, that would have been a very bad mistake at a bad time. I
> > have been a strong critic of their business practices, and their UNIONS
> > as well, for many years. I see them paying back the help they got, and
> > some sense coming back to wages, and profits. Walt
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com, "zeus32117"
> > <zeus32117@> wrote:
> > >
> > > You have said that the government has enabled big business to maximize
> > profit. Are you talking about Chrysler and General Motors?
> > >
> > > --- In Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com, "Walt L"
> > muleshet@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In 1980, I might have blamed Unions. At that
> > > > time they controlled a bout 40% of the work force. Today it is
> > around
> > > > 15%. Since those days, Government has enabled big biz to maximize
> > > > profits. NAFTA, and other "free trade" agreements have been ABUSED
> > in
> > > > every way possible. Walt
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com, "zeus32117"
> > > > <zeus32117@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The greater the tax burden and the regulatory burden on companies
> > in
> > > > U.S. is the more of an incentive U.S. companies have to do business
> > in
> > > > another country instead of doing business here.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com,
> > "Sheep&Goatlady"
> > > > springcreek@ wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Well, Susan, recently there was a doctumentary Mardi Gai made in
> > > > china,, it is about those beads they give away during Mardi Gra,,
> > rather
> > > > interesting to watch,, you ought to get informed,, And doctumentary
> > > > about clothes being made off shore, one jacket cost to make and
> > > > materials ,72 cents,, sold here in the US for over 30 dollars, that
> > is a
> > > > example,, what kind of profit does one jacket made? well over 1000
> > > > percentage,
> > > > > > Are you serious about investing? the stock market is doing well,
> > how
> > > > come there is so many folks out of work? investments are going over
> > > > seas, not here in the US,, the US has become a nation of consumers
> > not a
> > > > nation of producers,, the US agri world is one of the few things
> > left
> > > > that is made in america,,,
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: Susan
> > > > > > To: Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2010 4:09 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Politics_CurrentEvents_Group] why companies go out
> > of
> > > > business
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Business go out of business for a huge variety of reasons.
> > > > > > Labor costs go up too much due to unions, the product is out
> > dated
> > > > and more. It is the employees fault if they demand so much the
> > company
> > > > can't make money. When that happens people won't invest their money
> > in
> > > > the company.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't want to sound insulting but do you have any idea how
> > > > business works let alone capitalism? I don't have a business degree
> > but
> > > > know enough to know how it works. I really think you need to educate
> > > > yourself about this subject.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 10:20 AM, iloveubuntulinux valchaulinux@
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > most companies go out of business due to the ineptitude of those
> > > > running them or under capitalization or corruption. It isn't the
> > fault
> > > > of employees.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com, "zeus32117"
> > > > <zeus32117@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why do you think most companies go out of business?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com,
> > > > "Sheep&Goatlady" springcreek@ wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Unions allow sub standard employees to keep their jobs? how
> > many
> > > > union workers do you know? Bad teachers? I guess you know nothing
> > about
> > > > teaching,, teachers have a contract, and they are renew very often
> > on a
> > > > yearly basis,
> > > > > > > > and you are very wrong about UPS,, you know nothing about
> > them,,
> > > > One a driver gets one accident while working for ups , that can be
> > fired
> > > > on the spot,, You still have no clue about them at all,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > From: Susan
> > > > > > > > To: Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, December 24, 2010 10:50 AM
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Politics_CurrentEvents_Group] Re: Health
> > reform
> > > > for all Americans - St Pete Times
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I find your comments interesting at best. I think you need
> > to
> > > > look at all types of companies and who owns them. Not all companies
> > are
> > > > run by those who work at them by far. It is ridiculous to assume so
> > and
> > > > very closed minded.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Unions allow sub-standard employees to keep their jobs when
> > > > otherwise they would be replaced. I don't know if you read the news
> > but
> > > > there are huge numbers of bad teachers out there who cannot be fired
> > > > because of tenure and the unions. UPS for example has to jump
> > through
> > > > hoops to fire employees who preform badly as in sleeping in the
> > trucks,
> > > > constantly late to work or not showing up at all. Unions are too big
> > and
> > > > need to go.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 10:17 AM, iloveubuntulinux
> > valchaulinux@
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com, Susan
> > > > <sailorgirl43@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Some corporations are like that but in the past 10 years
> > > > corporations have
> > > > > > > > > been eliminating their bloat to make money, pay people and
> > > > please their
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > share holders. the people they pay are those running the
> > > > company and those folks are also often very big shareholders so it
> > is a
> > > > form of self dealing
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Private corporations are much more streamed lines than the
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > government because they do answer to others. that is a
> > myth.
> > > > the biggest shareholders now are those running the corp. They got
> > stock
> > > > options and now run the place
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I have never seen such waste as
> > > > > > > > > in government and especially when the workers have a union
> > to
> > > > defend their
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > bad actions. unions don't defend 'bad actions' of workers.
> > > > They defend against bad actions of management and the management is
> > all
> > > > self dealing since they both run the corporation and own large
> > chunks of
> > > > its stock
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 12:42 AM, iloveubuntulinux
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > valchaulinux@:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > the govt is just like the big corporations - top heavy
> > with
> > > > those who are
> > > > > > > > > > fat and lazy and rake in the dough. And the actual work
> > is
> > > > done by human
> > > > > > > > > > beings with families who are (in private industry)
> > easily
> > > > discarded but in
> > > > > > > > > > the govt have at least some rights
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com,
> > Susan
> > > > sailorgirl43@
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > There are surveys done and money is counted when it
> > comes
> > > > in to
> > > > > > > > > > charities,
> > > > > > > > > > > very simple to find out.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > There is huge waste in the all government. It is top
> > heavy
> > > > and so money
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > wasted by the thousands. Evangelical Christians don't
> > > > restrict donations.
> > > > > > > > > > > Where do you get this stuff.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Sheep&Goatlady
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > springcreek@:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Are they? How do you know what other folks donate?
> > Waste
> > > > money in
> > > > > > > > > > giving a
> > > > > > > > > > > > decent health care to folks? Heatlh care to child?
> > To
> > > > have safe food on
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > table? To ensure women get decent wages? that is a
> > waste
> > > > of money? Do
> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > know what the nieghbor next door gives? there was a
> > > > gentleman on tv,,
> > > > > > > > > > his
> > > > > > > > > > > > ID was hidden, that gave away 100 dollar bucks to
> > > > needy,, Do you know
> > > > > > > > > > who he
> > > > > > > > > > > > was? No,, and most evangelical christians restrict
> > who
> > > > they give their
> > > > > > > > > > money
> > > > > > > > > > > > too,, some folks give without making a big to do
> > about
> > > > it,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > > > *From:* Susan sailorgirl43@
> > > > > > > > > > > > *To:* Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 21, 2010 4:16 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > *Subject:* Re: [Politics_CurrentEvents_Group] Health
> > > > reform for all
> > > > > > > > > > > > Americans - St Pete Times
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The group of people who give the most money away
> > > > > > > > > > > > are Evangelical Christians. There are many million
> > and
> > > > billionaires who
> > > > > > > > > > give
> > > > > > > > > > > > tons of money to needy people. It is not that people
> > > > don't want to give
> > > > > > > > > > > > because they do. They resent paying high taxes to
> > people
> > > > who waste the
> > > > > > > > > > money
> > > > > > > > > > > > in big government machine.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 7:51 PM, elaine mckay
> > > > glyndon47@:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> I don't understand why many conservatives focus on
> > > > getting more money
> > > > > > > > > > > >> and never on giving something to humanity, even in
> > > > their own country.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Not everyone can afford life giving treatment and
> > so
> > > > die? thats so
> > > > > > > > > > wrong.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> I don't have class envy because in Australia we
> > don't
> > > > have that class
> > > > > > > > > > > >> system.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Everyone is entitled to free health care and
> > education.
> > > > If you want
> > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > >> you pay for it, and thats fine.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> it's called looking after you fellow man, or having
> > a
> > > > social
> > > > > > > > > > concience.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> --- On *Mon, 20/12/10, patrick mc govern
> > mcgvrn_ptrck@*
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> From: patrick mc govern mcgvrn_ptrck@
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Subject: [Politics_CurrentEvents_Group] Health
> > reform
> > > > for all
> > > > > > > > > > Americans -
> > > > > > > > > > > >> St Pete Times
> > > > > > > > > > > >> To: "free" freethinkersclub@yahoogroups.com, "dea"
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > >> DuanesEverythingandAnything@yahoogroups.com, "pcc"
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > >> politics_currentevents_group@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Received: Monday, 20 December, 2010, 10:42 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Health reform for all Americans
> > > > > > > > > > > >> By Eric H. Holder Jr. and Kathleen Sebelius,
> > Washington
> > > > Post
> > > > > > > > > > > >> In Print: Wednesday, December 15, 2010
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> In March, New Hampshire preschool teacher Gail
> > O'Brien,
> > > > who was unable
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > >> obtain health insurance through her employer, was
> > > > diagnosed with an
> > > > > > > > > > > >> aggressive form of lymphoma. Her subsequent
> > > > applications for health
> > > > > > > > > > > >> insurance were rejected because of her condition.
> > With
> > > > each round of
> > > > > > > > > > > >> chemotherapy costing $16,000, she delayed treatment
> > > > because she knew
> > > > > > > > > > her
> > > > > > > > > > > >> savings wouldn't last. . Then President Barack
> > > > Obama signed the
> > > > > > > > > > Affordable
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Care Act. Thanks to this law, O'Brien is getting
> > > > treatment through a
> > > > > > > > > > > >> temporary program that provides affordable coverage
> > to
> > > > people who have
> > > > > > > > > > been
> > > > > > > > > > > >> shut out of the insurance market because of a
> > > > pre-existing condition.
> > > > > > > > > > Even
> > > > > > > > > > > >> better, she knows that in 2014 insurers will be
> > banned
> > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > discriminating
> > > > > > > > > > > >> against any American with pre-existing conditions.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> That's what makes the recent lawsuits challenging
> > the
> > > > Affordable Care
> > > > > > > > > > Act
> > > > > > > > > > > >> so troubling. Roughly 20 cases question the new
> > law's
> > > > individual
> > > > > > > > > > > >> responsibility provision, which says that Americans
> > who
> > > > can afford to
> > > > > > > > > > must
> > > > > > > > > > > >> maintain basic health coverage.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Federal courts in Michigan and Virginia have upheld
> > the
> > > > law as
> > > > > > > > > > > >> constitutional, but Monday, a federal court in
> > Virginia
> > > > reached the
> > > > > > > > > > opposite
> > > > > > > > > > > >> result. These and other cases will continue through
> > our
> > > > courts as
> > > > > > > > > > opponents
> > > > > > > > > > > >> try to block the law. But these attacks are wrong
> > on
> > > > the law, and if
> > > > > > > > > > allowed
> > > > > > > > > > > >> to succeed, they would have devastating
> > consequences
> > > > for everyone with
> > > > > > > > > > > >> health insurance.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> The majority of Americans who have health insurance
> > pay
> > > > a higher price
> > > > > > > > > > > >> because of our broken system. Every insured family
> > pays
> > > > an average of
> > > > > > > > > > $1,000
> > > > > > > > > > > >> more a year in premiums to cover the care of those
> > who
> > > > have no
> > > > > > > > > > insurance.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Everyone wants health care to be affordable and
> > > > available when they
> > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > >> it. But we have to stop imposing extra costs on
> > people
> > > > who carry
> > > > > > > > > > insurance,
> > > > > > > > > > > >> and that means everyone who can afford coverage
> > needs
> > > > to carry minimum
> > > > > > > > > > > >> health coverage starting in 2014.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> If we want to prevent insurers from denying
> > coverage to
> > > > people with
> > > > > > > > > > > >> pre-existing conditions, it's essential that
> > everyone
> > > > have coverage.
> > > > > > > > > > Imagine
> > > > > > > > > > > >> what would happen if everyone waited to buy car
> > > > insurance until after
> > > > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > > > >> got in an accident. Premiums would skyrocket,
> > coverage
> > > > would be
> > > > > > > > > > > >> unaffordable, and responsible drivers would be
> > priced
> > > > out of the
> > > > > > > > > > market.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> The same is true for health insurance. Without an
> > > > individual
> > > > > > > > > > > >> responsibility provision, controlling costs and
> > ending
> > > > discrimination
> > > > > > > > > > > >> against people with pre-existing conditions doesn't
> > > > work.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> The legal arguments made against the law gloss over
> > > > this problem even
> > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > >> opponents have sought to invent new constitutional
> > > > theories and dig up
> > > > > > > > > > old
> > > > > > > > > > > >> ones that were rejected 80 years ago.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Opponents claim the individual responsibility
> > provision
> > > > is unlawful
> > > > > > > > > > > >> because it "regulates inactivity." But none of us
> > is a
> > > > bystander when
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > >> comes to health care. All of us need health care
> > > > eventually. Do we pay
> > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > >> advance, by getting insurance, or do we try to pay
> > > > later, when we need
> > > > > > > > > > > >> medical care?
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> The individual responsibility provision says that
> > as
> > > > participants in
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >> health care market, Americans should pay for
> > insurance
> > > > if they can
> > > > > > > > > > afford
> > > > > > > > > > > >> it. That's important because when people who don't
> > have
> > > > insurance show
> > > > > > > > > > up at
> > > > > > > > > > > >> emergency rooms, we don't deny them care. The costs
> > of
> > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > uncompensated
> > > > > > > > > > > >> care - $43 billion in 2008 - are then
> > passed on
> > > > to doctors, hospitals,
> > > > > > > > > > small
> > > > > > > > > > > >> businesses and Americans who have insurance.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> As two federal courts have already held, this
> > unfair
> > > > cost-shifting
> > > > > > > > > > harms
> > > > > > > > > > > >> the marketplace. For decades, Supreme Court
> > decisions
> > > > have made clear
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > >> the Constitution allows Congress to adopt rules to
> > deal
> > > > with such
> > > > > > > > > > harmful
> > > > > > > > > > > >> economic effects, which is what the law does -
> > it
> > > > regulates how we pay
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > >> health care by ensuring that those who have
> > insurance
> > > > don't continue
> > > > > > > > > > to pay
> > > > > > > > > > > >> for those who don't. Because of the long-held legal
> > > > precedent of
> > > > > > > > > > upholding
> > > > > > > > > > > >> such provisions, even President Ronald Reagan's
> > > > solicitor general,
> > > > > > > > > > Charles
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Fried, called legal objections to the law
> > > > "far-fetched."
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> As these lawsuits continue, Americans should be
> > clear
> > > > about what the
> > > > > > > > > > > >> opponents of reform are asking the courts to do.
> > > > Striking down the
> > > > > > > > > > > >> individual responsibility provision means slamming
> > the
> > > > door on
> > > > > > > > > > millions of
> > > > > > > > > > > >> those like Gail O'Brien, who have been locked out
> > of
> > > > our health
> > > > > > > > > > insurance
> > > > > > > > > > > >> markets, and shifting more costs onto families who
> > have
> > > > acted
> > > > > > > > > > responsibly.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> It's not surprising that opponents, having lost in
> > > > Congress, have
> > > > > > > > > > taken to
> > > > > > > > > > > >> the courts. We saw similar challenges to laws that
> > > > created Social
> > > > > > > > > > Security
> > > > > > > > > > > >> and established new civil rights protections. Those
> > > > challenges
> > > > > > > > > > ultimately
> > > > > > > > > > > >> failed, and so will this one.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Rather than fighting to undo the progress we've
> > made,
> > > > and returning to
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >> days when one out of seven Americans was denied
> > > > insurance due to their
> > > > > > > > > > > >> medical histories, supporters of repeal should work
> > > > with us to
> > > > > > > > > > implement
> > > > > > > > > > > >> this law effectively. The initial decisions about
> > the
> > > > Affordable Care
> > > > > > > > > > Act
> > > > > > > > > > > >> will be reviewed on appeal. We are confident that
> > the
> > > > law will
> > > > > > > > > > ultimately be
> > > > > > > > > > > >> upheld.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> © 2010 Washington Post
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>