--Hello America, How does this double talk work. We are led to believe that illegals are taking our jobs - when its clear that the big corporations are giving our jobs to cheap laborers. Thus, if we deport the illegals they become another source of cheap laborer in Mexico, so we're still screwed by the corporations. OH and IN keep an eye on Chyrsler.
While I think it sucks when people lose thier jobs why is a Mexican auto worker less deserving of a job in an auto plant than an American auto worker?
but this is where americans fail to acknowledge their role in this situation ... you want to pay low prices for your goods and stuff - well, these are the consequences ... imagine if people were willing to pay the true cost for goods and services?? ... that is why america subscribes to imperialism - growing wealth through exploitation ... and we are part and parcel of that scheme ...
That's bull. when I go to the supermarket, I SHOP AROUND for the LOW PRICE. I don't sit the prices. Companies like GM, Nike, Microsoft, etc. that built their factories in other countries for the purpose of cheap labor and no taxes turn around and sell a pair a shoes that cost [$30 total $10 in labor, $20 in materials], ship it to America and sell it for $150. They could have just as easily put that shoe on the market for $90 doubling their profit, why go for triple? Simple because people don't understand that the NBA and NFL and most of all major professional sports teams get their shoes for FREE either as a team sponsorship or FREE for individuals as promotional contracts. Yet, there's no discount for the kid that wants to be the next Mike. Now that people buy the knock of brands, they've increase the price. Its not the consumer, its the lack of competition among corporations. Take a look at this. because it tells me that when the competition is gone, a corporation can sit its own price and in most cases, the product that has that high price tag, is a product that people need or are use to in their daily activities.
Chrysler and Nissan (NSANY) announced a partnership Monday to build vehicles for each other in what may mark the start of a new wave of similar get-togethers amid falling sales in the auto industry.
Chrysler will build Nissan's next generation of full-size pickups at a plant in Mexico. The truck will replace the Titan, made at Nissan's Canton, Miss., plant, starting in 2011, the two companies said.
[so Mississippi can expect some layoffs] start your nest egg now.
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
no real time for a reply cos i gotta go but real quicki didn't mean 'our media' as in it's mine, altho some of it is paid for by the public. i meant it as in our form of media that is the accepted avenues, i'll have to get into that later.
also, this is not just about nader, funny how some ppl only focus on that one part of my op. i mean it overall. when i watch the news i'm pretty sure there's more important things going on in the world other than what celebrity is in trouble or whatever...
also, the show that's on during my lunch and last break on cnn constantly has oil execs on pushing for more oil and coal. there's rarely any talk of renewables or other sources except for the execs to say it's not realistic and the host agree. that is pushing their corporate agenda.
gotta run, i'll reply later tonight
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
While I think it sucks when people lose thier jobs why is a Mexican auto worker be less deserving of a job in an auto plant than an American auto worker?
Oh for pete's sake, this has nothing to do with a "Mexican" auto worker being less deserving of a job.
It's about corporations closing down plants, stores and factories and moving them to foreign countries to exploit the cheap labor, environmental and financial laws of these countries, then turning around to sell the product back at a higher price. Remember the title of the thread is corporate dictatorship.
I happen to think that a way to fight this would be for States to heavily penalize companies that do this.
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
That's bull. when I go to the supermarket, I SHOP AROUND for the LOW PRICE. I don't sit the prices. Companies like GM, Nike, Microsoft, etc. that built their factories in other countries for the purpose of cheap labor and no taxes turn around and sell a pair a shoes that cost [$30 total $10 in labor, $20 in materials], ship it to America and sell it for $150. They could have just as easily put that shoe on the market for $90 doubling their profit, why go for triple? Simple because people don't understand that the NBA and NFL and most of all major professional sports teams get their shoes for FREE either as a team sponsorship or FREE for individuals as promotional contracts. Yet, there's no discount for the kid that wants to be the next Mike. Now that people buy the knock of brands, they've increase the price. Its not the consumer, its the lack of competition among corporations. Take a look at this. because it tells me that when the competition is gone, a corporation can sit its own price and in most cases, the product that has that high price tag, is a product that people need or are use to in their daily activities.
Chrysler and Nissan (NSANY) announced a partnership Monday to build vehicles for each other in what may mark the start of a new wave of similar get-togethers amid falling sales in the auto industry.
Chrysler will build Nissan's next generation of full-size pickups at a plant in Mexico. The truck will replace the Titan, made at Nissan's Canton, Miss., plant, starting in 2011, the two companies said.
[so Mississippi can expect some layoffs] start your nest egg now.
but you have to exercise your power as a consumer ... example, i was looking for a shoe - the most eco-friendly socially responsible shoe i could find was one made by patagonia ... i had to goto a store to have them specially order it because they don't sell them here for various reasons ... sure, it was a pain but my money is one of the only things i have to exercise change and choice ...
if i was gm - why would i want to build a car here in oshawa? ... the labour might be good and the plant efficient but labour costs are 10 x what they are elsewhere ... how can i manufacture a car that is meant to compete with other companies but sell it for a premium if the consumer isn't willing to pay that premium ...
sure, i pay premiums for food and things for a lot of stuff but in general, people shop based on price and convenience ... the majority do not consider the consequences of that price ...
While I agree that corporations excert an enormous amount of influence in our society, a popularly elected president still has to be popularly elected - i.e. gets most of the votes. "The people," however, seem to be shrinking into a smaller and smaller subset of the population.
And to that population? Well, if they're all fooled, then the most rational short term solution is to do away with democracy. After all, as far as I can tell, people are voting for the wrong candidates. And I'm being honest with that last sentence.
But the sentence before? What if they're not all fooled? What if, by it's very nature, large scale democracy (like a presidential election), always trends toward the "mushy middle"? That the media doesn't report on fringe candidates as much, because "the people" simply aren't interested in them? Or are "the people" not interested in them because the media won't report? Real chicken or the egg situation right there.
Rationally, a "fringe" or "radical" candidate cannot be elected president, because then that candidate would cease to be "radical" or "fringe." Louisiana is vastly different than Oregon - but it helps for a candidate to try and reach the most in both; and, let's be honest, our similarities are pretty bland.
You pose some interesting questions here, questions that I have thought about myself. I always found it interesting how my somewhat conservative dad and my left leaning materialist mother (materialist in the definition you gave, the scientific definition) always seemed to end up voting for the same guy with the exception of the last presidential race.
I think the 'mushy middle' is common ground for most. For a candidate, being in the middle reaches out to more of the populace. I believe most see things in shades of gray opposed to black and white and are willing to compromise & give something or someone a shot, even if that someone does not hold every single exact position as you. But they happen to be representing views that most closely represent yours.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Oh for pete's sake, this has nothing to do with a "Mexican" auto worker being less deserving of a job.
It's about corporations closing down plants, stores and factories and moving them to foreign countries to exploit the cheap labor, environmental and financial laws of these countries, then turning around to sell the product back at a higher price. Remember the title of the thread is corporate dictatorship.
I happen to think that a way to fight this would be for States to heavily penalize companies that do this.
The only reason I used the Mexican/American example was because the story you used was one of an Auto plant being built in Mexico. I still don't understand why people think when companies are looking for workers they should automatically give the jobs to Americans before any other country (as if Americans are some how more deserving).
And how do you know anyone is being exploited? Just because people are being paid less doesn't mean their are being exploited. If GM opens up a plant in Mexico yes they will probably be paid less than their US or Canadian counterparts, but at the same time their cost of living is considerably less. Hell by Canadian employment standards some people might say that a lot of US workers are being exploited.
when I go to the supermarket, I SHOP AROUND for the LOW PRICE. I don't [set] the prices.
There is simply not enough laughter in my body to adequately respond to this post.
Do you not understand what you're saying here? If your primary standard as a consumer is the "LOW PRICE", why are you then surprised when the market responds to your standard and, even more importantly, how can you not see your role in this???
Nike's profit margin on a shoe is not 300%. It is 14%. However, you're not buying Nikes at a "supermarket" anyway. The profit margins on the things you are buying there is likely far less than 14%, and the cost of those things is being driven by consumers like yourself who foolishly demand LOW PRICES and HIGH COSTS at the same time.
no real time for a reply cos i gotta go but real quicki didn't mean 'our media' as in it's mine, altho some of it is paid for by the public. i meant it as in our form of media that is the accepted avenues, i'll have to get into that later.
Cool -- duly noted.
also, this is not just about nader, funny how some ppl only focus on that one part of my op. i mean it overall.
Ok -- "overall" in what sense? Should we be giving Lyndon Larouche equal time to John McCain?
when i watch the news i'm pretty sure there's more important things going on in the world other than what celebrity is in trouble or whatever...
"Important" based on whose standard? I suspect that more people in America are more interested in celebrity troubles than they are in the recent Asian disasters or problems in the Middle East.
also, the show that's on during my lunch and last break on cnn constantly has oil execs on pushing for more oil and coal. there's rarely any talk of renewables or other sources except for the execs to say it's not realistic and the host agree. that is pushing their corporate agenda.
Whose "corporate agenda"??? CNNs? CNN has devoted nearly countless hours to non-technical, misinformed discussions about oil, coal, renewables, global warming, and every other two-bit energy issue.
To say that renewable use is not "realistic" in terms of satisfying the world's energy demand is not pushing an agenda, it's stating something very close to fact.
Ok -- "overall" in what sense? Should we be giving Lyndon Larouche equal time to John McCain?
"Important" based on whose standard? I suspect that more people in America are more interested in celebrity troubles than they are in the recent Asian disasters or problems in the Middle East.
Whose "corporate agenda"??? CNNs? CNN has devoted nearly countless hours to non-technical, misinformed discussions about oil, coal, renewables, global warming, and every other two-bit energy issue.
To say that renewable use is not "realistic" in terms of satisfying the world's energy demand is not pushing an agenda, it's stating something very close to fact.
How did John McCain get the kind of support and following that he has now? And why does he automatically deserve more coverage just because he's the republican nominee?
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
How did John McCain get the kind of support and following that he has now?
By being a Republican senator running for president.
And why does he automatically deserve more coverage just because he's the republican nominee?
He doesn't "deserve" any coverage. The media is granting him coverage because they believe granting that coverage puts them at a competitive advantage as a news provider.
By being a Republican senator running for president.
He doesn't "deserve" any coverage. The media is granting him coverage because they believe granting that coverage puts them at a competitive advantage as a news provider.
So the amount of coverage they are giving the mainstream candidates has nothing to do with merit then?
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
The only reason I used the Mexican/American example was because the story you used was one of an Auto plant being built in Mexico. I still don't understand why people think when companies are looking for workers they should automatically give the jobs to Americans before any other country (as if Americans are some how more deserving).
And how do you know anyone is being exploited? Just because people are being paid less doesn't mean their are being exploited. If GM opens up a plant in Mexico yes they will probably be paid less than their US or Canadian counterparts, but at the same time their cost of living is considerably less. Hell by Canadian employment standards some people might say that a lot of US workers are being exploited.
Ask a maquiladora worker.
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
So the amount of coverage they are giving the mainstream candidates has nothing to do with merit then?
Often times, not at all, if by "merit" you mean their own personal ideologies, speaking styles, or other individual characteristics. The media here is operating no differently than the typical voter -- they fixate on the major-party candidates, regardless of the merit of those candidates or their opponents.
In terms of national elections, the media is going to focus more on the candidates that already have a large base of support. This makes perfect sense from their perspective and should shock no one. In the event that an unknown candidate gets a swell of support, however, the media will tend to follow to an extent. Perot got heavy coverage during the 92 election after people started gravitating to him in large numbers. We saw a similar dynamic with Ron Paul in this election cycle -- once he started making waves with an unexpected minority of voters, he started getting coverage.
Third party candidates like Nader or Barr are likely to get absolutely no coverage in a close election because, frankly, the vast majority of the voters don't care about anything outside the Dem/Rep match-up. I'm sure they might say they care, but if you put a Keith Olbermann commentary about McCain v Obama against a Charlie Rose interview with Ralph Nader, the Olbermann piece will trounce the Rose interview.
So the amount of coverage they are giving the mainstream candidates has nothing to do with merit then?
Sadly, I think it has to do more with the bottom line (ratings), how many viewers they get and being 'cutting edge'. More viewers and prestige.....who is happens to have the 'it' factor, to maintain their audience. This as far as the media's perspective.
I think it is important to have a charismatic front man for your cause, because of the above factors. That might be Nader's problem. Probably why Paul had problems. Sadly, these are things that need to be considered..............now, that Gonzales guy has a little bit of flair, but Nader?
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Often times, not at all, if by "merit" you mean their own personal ideologies, speaking styles, or other individual characteristics. The media here is operating no differently than the typical voter -- they fixate on the major-party candidates, regardless of the merit of those candidates or their opponents.
In terms of national elections, the media is going to focus more on the candidates that already have a large base of support. This makes perfect sense from their perspective and should shock no one. In the event that an unknown candidate gets a swell of support, however, the media will tend to follow to an extent. Perot got heavy coverage during the 92 election after people started gravitating to him in large numbers. We saw a similar dynamic with Ron Paul in this election cycle -- once he started making waves with an unexpected minority of voters, he started getting coverage.
Third party candidates like Nader or Barr are likely to get absolutely no coverage in a close election because, frankly, the vast majority of the voters don't care about anything outside the Dem/Rep match-up. I'm sure they might say they care, but if you put a Keith Olbermann commentary about McCain v Obama against a Charlie Rose interview with Ralph Nader, the Olbermann piece will trounce the Rose interview.
Oh I agree and am certainly not shocked.
I just find it rather amusing at times, sad at others, how people continue to perpetuate this cycle even after decades of the same awful result....then have the audacity to criticize and incessantly complain about the outcome of their own actions.
'Boy, this sure sucks...let's keep it going!'
also: Perot had tons of money and Paul has been quite clever to use the internet as he has...and he still only gets mentions as being some fringe thinker with no chance.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I just find it rather amusing at times, sad at others, how people continue to perpetuate this cycle even after decades of the same awful result....then have the audacity to criticize and incessantly complain about the outcome of their own actions.
'Boy, this sure sucks...let's keep it going!'
Absolutely. However, this goes both ways. Most third party candidates are completely awful at engaging the electorate.
also: Perot had tons of money and Paul has been quite clever to use the internet as he has...and he still only gets mentions as being some fringe thinker with no chance.
Perot did have tons of money, but he wasn't buying airtime from CNN or the evening news programs -- they were putting him on there because a significant portion of their viewership was actually interested in hearing from him. And while Paul was treated like a "fringe thinker with no chance", that's exactly what he was! He had no chance at winning that election. And I was pleasantly surprised that he got a number of chances at giving long interviews during which, unfortunately, he often demonstrated that he was not really up to the task of engaging a large portion of the populace.
Sadly, I think it has to do more with the bottom line (ratings), how many viewers they get and being 'cutting edge'. More viewers and prestige.....who is happens to have the 'it' factor, to maintain their audience. This as far as the media's perspective.
I think it is important to have a charismatic front man for your cause, because of the above factors. That might be Nader's problem. Probably why Paul had problems. Sadly, these are things that need to be considered..............now, that Gonzales guy has a little bit of flair, but Nader?
Yeah, I know! Gonzalez seems a bit shy sometimes, though....he really needs to get out there and be bold and vocal more often. I could definitely stand seeing more of him.
Nader is definitely not going to win the popularity contest. And the popular guys often don't have the all the smarts and intellect that we need in leadership roles but the dry, nerdy types do.
It's a paradox.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I just find it rather amusing at times, sad at others, how people continue to perpetuate this cycle even after decades of the same awful result....then have the audacity to criticize and incessantly complain about the outcome of their own actions.
'Boy, this sure sucks...let's keep it going!'
People are not willing to learn consciously, so they'll continue to learn unconsciously by consequences. And they continue to blame the other guy and therefore do not acknowledge how very powerful they are - or how accountable they are for what they create.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
And I was pleasantly surprised that he got a number of chances at giving long interviews during which, unfortunately, he often demonstrated that he was not really up to the task of engaging a large portion of the populace.
I think he did what was needed...he put ideas out their in people's minds that weren't there before. It would be nice if the media didn't have to put their spin on it...calling him unelectable when that's up to the people to decide come November. How can the media know who people will vote for? What if the people decided they shared Paul's or Nader's views and wanted to support them? What's keeping people from voting for them then? Could it be the line they are fed all the time via the media about how their vote would be 'wasted'? I cetainly know I've heard it enough here and actually received a pm last night stating the same line of reasoning.
Perot's money got him more exposure. Why do you think candidate's raise all the money for their campaigns?
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
People are not willing to learn consciously, so they'll continue to learn unconsciously by consequences. And they continue to blame the other guy and therefore do not acknowledge how very powerful they are - or how accountable they are for what they create.
Yes, I agree.
If only they'd start realizing it's their very own actions or lack of them and the fact that they act powerless to change these things through their own more boldly placed pro-actions instead of the usual re-actions that causes their reality to remain exactly what it is.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
There is simply not enough laughter in my body to adequately respond to this post.
Do you not understand what you're saying here? If your primary standard as a consumer is the "LOW PRICE", why are you then surprised when the market responds to your standard and, even more importantly, how can you not see your role in this???
Nike's profit margin on a shoe is not 300%. It is 14%. However, you're not buying Nikes at a "supermarket" anyway. The profit margins on the things you are buying there is likely far less than 14%, and the cost of those things is being driven by consumers like yourself who foolishly demand LOW PRICES and HIGH COSTS at the same time.
Maybe it was the lack of a paragraph separation that triggered the laughter.
What I said is when I go to a supermarket I SHOP AROUND FOR THE LOWEST PRICE. If the market was responding to not only my standards but many others all across America, then the STANDARD MARKET PRICE would reflect that fact I brought a product on sale and in some cases used a coupon which brought the product price down even further. Thus, wholesale price of that product should be reduce, allowing the supermarket to make its base price reduce, which in turn would reduce the regular price of the product to the consumer.
I truly don't understand what you mean or how you see that I'm demanding Low Prices and High costs at the same time.
What I don't appreciate as a consumer is greed. Greed is where corporations like Nike come into play. Your bright, you knew I was making a point on two different matters, why try to dummy it down. Nike is only one example, when it comes to profit. Here are some interesting statistics, you can view at your convenience.
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
If only they'd start realizing it's their very own actions or lack of them and the fact that they act powerless to change these things through their own more boldly placed pro-actions instead of the usual re-actions that causes their reality to remain exactly what it is.
This is why I hold all individuals responsible for what they choose including for handing their power away and for choosing unconsciously. To do otherwise is imbalanced...looking upon anyone as a victim. There is no justification that can make them the victim.
I've been a huge "victim" in all kinds of ways ... mental illness, sexual assault, abuse, etc. I was always powerful...I only needed to connect with it. And it was by my own self-victimization, which mirrored how others saw me, that perpetuated the problem. There was a huge payoff for me to stay unconscious, to choose unconsciously, and to be unaware of what was going on.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I think he did what was needed...he put ideas out their in people's minds that weren't there before. It would be nice if the media didn't have to put their spin on it...calling him unelectable when that's up to the people to decide come November. How can the media know who people will vote for? What if the people decided they shared Paul's or Nader's views and wanted to support them? What's keeping people from voting for them then? Could it be the line they are fed all the time via the media about how their vote would be 'wasted'? I cetainly know I've heard it enough here and actually received a pm last night stating the same line of reasoning.
Basically what you're saying here is that it would be nice if the media was objective. I absolutely agree! However, the people in the media have as much of a right as you or I to be subjective blowhards spouting their opinions. Those of us who don't like it need to look elsewhere, plain and simple.
The fact of the matter is that objective media and hard reporting are not what the majority of people are interested in. They want media that agrees with them, gets their blood going, or, for whatever reason, scares the shit out of them. It is what it is and I have a tough time blaming the mainstream media for giving people what they're asking for.
Perot's money got him more exposure. Why do you think candidate's raise all the money for their campaigns?
Candidates raise money to campaign. They need money to travel, to hire staff, to buy ads, and do all sorts of things. Media exposure is not really a product of a candidate's money. Rather, media exposure is a byproduct of what campaigns are using their money for -- establishing a base of interested voters. If you get that support, you'll get your coverage.
If the media started devoting attention to third parties, certainly third parties would likely see an upswing in support. But that upswing might carry their 2% to 5%. Meanwhile, the ratings of the media would swing down precipitously. So it's tough to blame the media for not giving Ralph Nader lots of airtime when the effect of that would be to simply push voters to a talking head on another network talking about "war" this or "crisis" that.
This is why I hold all individuals responsible for what they choose including for handing their power away and for choosing unconsciously. To do otherwise is imbalanced...looking upon anyone as a victim. There is no justification that can make them the victim.
I've been a huge "victim" in all kinds of ways ... mental illness, sexual assault, abuse, etc. I was always powerful...I only needed to connect with it. And it was by my own self-victimization, which mirrored how others saw me, that perpetuated the problem. There was a huge payoff for me to stay unconscious, to choose unconsciously, and to be unaware of what was going on.
I agree.
Well said
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Maybe it was the lack of a paragraph separation that triggered the laughter.
What I said is when I go to a supermarket I SHOP AROUND FOR THE LOWEST PRICE. If the market was responding to not only my standards but many others all across America, then the STANDARD MARKET PRICE would reflect that fact I brought a product on sale and in some cases used a coupon which brought the product price down even further. Thus, wholesale price of that product should be reduce, allowing the supermarket to make its base price reduce, which in turn would reduce the regular price of the product to the consumer.
Are you saying that the market didn't respond to you by selling you a good at the price it sold you that good? That makes no sense.
What you paid for the product was its price. Coupons, sales, or not. Obviously the market recognized that you wanted a price as low as you could bear and gave it to you.
I truly don't understand what you mean or how you see that I'm demanding Low Prices and High costs at the same time.
If you're buying the cheapest good available, the market will continue to try to keep the cost of goods low. To do that, they need to pay less to their suppliers and labor which in turn drives down wages. Those who demand high wages and low prices contradict themselves. Fortunately, however, you're demanding low prices with your money and demanding high wages with your voice, and your dollars will trump your voice. So don't be shocked when you're $1 loaf of bread came from wheat fields full of indentured servants.
What I don't appreciate as a consumer is greed. Greed is where corporations like Nike come into play. Your bright, you knew I was making a point on two different matters, why try to dummy it down. Nike is only one example, when it comes to profit. Here are some interesting statistics, you can view at your convenience.
LOL...it sounds like what you don't appreciate is other people's greed. You'll damn Nike's profit on a 14% margin using slave labor, but celebrate your own on a 10% coupon.
Thanks for the link. Yes, sweatshops do exist. They are at best questionnable, at worst horribly criminal. But the reason they exist is not just because of some businessman's love of "profit". Rather, they exist largely because of some consumer's love of "LOW PRICES".
Basically what you're saying here is that it would be nice if the media was objective. I absolutely agree! However, the people in the media have as much of a right as you or I to be subjective blowhards spouting their opinions. Those of us who don't like it need to look elsewhere, plain and simple.
The fact of the matter is that objective media and hard reporting are not what the majority of people are interested in. They want media that agrees with them, gets their blood going, or, for whatever reason, scares the shit out of them. It is what it is and I have a tough time blaming the mainstream media for giving people what they're asking for.
Candidates raise money to campaign. They need money to travel, to hire staff, to buy ads, and do all sorts of things. Media exposure is not really a product of a candidate's money. Rather, media exposure is a byproduct of what campaigns are using their money for -- establishing a base of interested voters. If you get that support, you'll get your coverage.
If the media started devoting attention to third parties, certainly third parties would likely see an upswing in support. But that upswing might carry their 2% to 5%. Meanwhile, the ratings of the media would swing down precipitously. So it's tough to blame the media for not giving Ralph Nader lots of airtime when the effect of that would be to simply push voters to a talking head on another network talking about "war" this or "crisis" that.
And I agree with you, too actually. But I have a problem with the 'news' media representing itself as objective and presenting all sides when they clearly don't....they cover things, as you said, that boosts their ratings and leave people in the dark about so many topics and ideas and flat out mislead them about others. So, it's not really news or current events but rather entertainment. I'm not sure too many people understand that at all....even here.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
And I agree with you, too actually. But I have a problem with the 'news' media representing itself as objective and presenting all sides when they clearly don't....they cover things, as you said, that boosts their ratings and leave people in the dark about so many topics and ideas and flat out mislead them about others. So, it's not really news or current events but rather entertainment. I'm not sure too many people understand that at all....even here.
Comments
While I think it sucks when people lose thier jobs why is a Mexican auto worker less deserving of a job in an auto plant than an American auto worker?
That's bull. when I go to the supermarket, I SHOP AROUND for the LOW PRICE. I don't sit the prices. Companies like GM, Nike, Microsoft, etc. that built their factories in other countries for the purpose of cheap labor and no taxes turn around and sell a pair a shoes that cost [$30 total $10 in labor, $20 in materials], ship it to America and sell it for $150. They could have just as easily put that shoe on the market for $90 doubling their profit, why go for triple? Simple because people don't understand that the NBA and NFL and most of all major professional sports teams get their shoes for FREE either as a team sponsorship or FREE for individuals as promotional contracts. Yet, there's no discount for the kid that wants to be the next Mike. Now that people buy the knock of brands, they've increase the price. Its not the consumer, its the lack of competition among corporations. Take a look at this. because it tells me that when the competition is gone, a corporation can sit its own price and in most cases, the product that has that high price tag, is a product that people need or are use to in their daily activities.
Chrysler, Nissan announce partnership
By Chris Woodyard, USA TODAY
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2008-04-15-nissan-chrysler_N.htm
Chrysler and Nissan (NSANY) announced a partnership Monday to build vehicles for each other in what may mark the start of a new wave of similar get-togethers amid falling sales in the auto industry.
Chrysler will build Nissan's next generation of full-size pickups at a plant in Mexico. The truck will replace the Titan, made at Nissan's Canton, Miss., plant, starting in 2011, the two companies said.
[so Mississippi can expect some layoffs] start your nest egg now.
also, this is not just about nader, funny how some ppl only focus on that one part of my op. i mean it overall. when i watch the news i'm pretty sure there's more important things going on in the world other than what celebrity is in trouble or whatever...
also, the show that's on during my lunch and last break on cnn constantly has oil execs on pushing for more oil and coal. there's rarely any talk of renewables or other sources except for the execs to say it's not realistic and the host agree. that is pushing their corporate agenda.
gotta run, i'll reply later tonight
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Oh for pete's sake, this has nothing to do with a "Mexican" auto worker being less deserving of a job.
It's about corporations closing down plants, stores and factories and moving them to foreign countries to exploit the cheap labor, environmental and financial laws of these countries, then turning around to sell the product back at a higher price. Remember the title of the thread is corporate dictatorship.
I happen to think that a way to fight this would be for States to heavily penalize companies that do this.
but you have to exercise your power as a consumer ... example, i was looking for a shoe - the most eco-friendly socially responsible shoe i could find was one made by patagonia ... i had to goto a store to have them specially order it because they don't sell them here for various reasons ... sure, it was a pain but my money is one of the only things i have to exercise change and choice ...
if i was gm - why would i want to build a car here in oshawa? ... the labour might be good and the plant efficient but labour costs are 10 x what they are elsewhere ... how can i manufacture a car that is meant to compete with other companies but sell it for a premium if the consumer isn't willing to pay that premium ...
sure, i pay premiums for food and things for a lot of stuff but in general, people shop based on price and convenience ... the majority do not consider the consequences of that price ...
You pose some interesting questions here, questions that I have thought about myself. I always found it interesting how my somewhat conservative dad and my left leaning materialist mother (materialist in the definition you gave, the scientific definition) always seemed to end up voting for the same guy with the exception of the last presidential race.
I think the 'mushy middle' is common ground for most. For a candidate, being in the middle reaches out to more of the populace. I believe most see things in shades of gray opposed to black and white and are willing to compromise & give something or someone a shot, even if that someone does not hold every single exact position as you. But they happen to be representing views that most closely represent yours.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
The only reason I used the Mexican/American example was because the story you used was one of an Auto plant being built in Mexico. I still don't understand why people think when companies are looking for workers they should automatically give the jobs to Americans before any other country (as if Americans are some how more deserving).
And how do you know anyone is being exploited? Just because people are being paid less doesn't mean their are being exploited. If GM opens up a plant in Mexico yes they will probably be paid less than their US or Canadian counterparts, but at the same time their cost of living is considerably less. Hell by Canadian employment standards some people might say that a lot of US workers are being exploited.
There is simply not enough laughter in my body to adequately respond to this post.
Do you not understand what you're saying here? If your primary standard as a consumer is the "LOW PRICE", why are you then surprised when the market responds to your standard and, even more importantly, how can you not see your role in this???
Nike's profit margin on a shoe is not 300%. It is 14%. However, you're not buying Nikes at a "supermarket" anyway. The profit margins on the things you are buying there is likely far less than 14%, and the cost of those things is being driven by consumers like yourself who foolishly demand LOW PRICES and HIGH COSTS at the same time.
Cool -- duly noted.
Ok -- "overall" in what sense? Should we be giving Lyndon Larouche equal time to John McCain?
"Important" based on whose standard? I suspect that more people in America are more interested in celebrity troubles than they are in the recent Asian disasters or problems in the Middle East.
Whose "corporate agenda"??? CNNs? CNN has devoted nearly countless hours to non-technical, misinformed discussions about oil, coal, renewables, global warming, and every other two-bit energy issue.
To say that renewable use is not "realistic" in terms of satisfying the world's energy demand is not pushing an agenda, it's stating something very close to fact.
How did John McCain get the kind of support and following that he has now? And why does he automatically deserve more coverage just because he's the republican nominee?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
By being a Republican senator running for president.
He doesn't "deserve" any coverage. The media is granting him coverage because they believe granting that coverage puts them at a competitive advantage as a news provider.
So the amount of coverage they are giving the mainstream candidates has nothing to do with merit then?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Ask a maquiladora worker.
Often times, not at all, if by "merit" you mean their own personal ideologies, speaking styles, or other individual characteristics. The media here is operating no differently than the typical voter -- they fixate on the major-party candidates, regardless of the merit of those candidates or their opponents.
In terms of national elections, the media is going to focus more on the candidates that already have a large base of support. This makes perfect sense from their perspective and should shock no one. In the event that an unknown candidate gets a swell of support, however, the media will tend to follow to an extent. Perot got heavy coverage during the 92 election after people started gravitating to him in large numbers. We saw a similar dynamic with Ron Paul in this election cycle -- once he started making waves with an unexpected minority of voters, he started getting coverage.
Third party candidates like Nader or Barr are likely to get absolutely no coverage in a close election because, frankly, the vast majority of the voters don't care about anything outside the Dem/Rep match-up. I'm sure they might say they care, but if you put a Keith Olbermann commentary about McCain v Obama against a Charlie Rose interview with Ralph Nader, the Olbermann piece will trounce the Rose interview.
Sadly, I think it has to do more with the bottom line (ratings), how many viewers they get and being 'cutting edge'. More viewers and prestige.....who is happens to have the 'it' factor, to maintain their audience. This as far as the media's perspective.
I think it is important to have a charismatic front man for your cause, because of the above factors. That might be Nader's problem. Probably why Paul had problems. Sadly, these are things that need to be considered..............now, that Gonzales guy has a little bit of flair, but Nader?
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Oh I agree and am certainly not shocked.
I just find it rather amusing at times, sad at others, how people continue to perpetuate this cycle even after decades of the same awful result....then have the audacity to criticize and incessantly complain about the outcome of their own actions.
'Boy, this sure sucks...let's keep it going!'
also: Perot had tons of money and Paul has been quite clever to use the internet as he has...and he still only gets mentions as being some fringe thinker with no chance.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Absolutely. However, this goes both ways. Most third party candidates are completely awful at engaging the electorate.
Perot did have tons of money, but he wasn't buying airtime from CNN or the evening news programs -- they were putting him on there because a significant portion of their viewership was actually interested in hearing from him. And while Paul was treated like a "fringe thinker with no chance", that's exactly what he was! He had no chance at winning that election. And I was pleasantly surprised that he got a number of chances at giving long interviews during which, unfortunately, he often demonstrated that he was not really up to the task of engaging a large portion of the populace.
Yeah, I know! Gonzalez seems a bit shy sometimes, though....he really needs to get out there and be bold and vocal more often. I could definitely stand seeing more of him.
Nader is definitely not going to win the popularity contest. And the popular guys often don't have the all the smarts and intellect that we need in leadership roles but the dry, nerdy types do.
It's a paradox.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I think he did what was needed...he put ideas out their in people's minds that weren't there before. It would be nice if the media didn't have to put their spin on it...calling him unelectable when that's up to the people to decide come November. How can the media know who people will vote for? What if the people decided they shared Paul's or Nader's views and wanted to support them? What's keeping people from voting for them then? Could it be the line they are fed all the time via the media about how their vote would be 'wasted'? I cetainly know I've heard it enough here and actually received a pm last night stating the same line of reasoning.
Perot's money got him more exposure. Why do you think candidate's raise all the money for their campaigns?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Yes, I agree.
If only they'd start realizing it's their very own actions or lack of them and the fact that they act powerless to change these things through their own more boldly placed pro-actions instead of the usual re-actions that causes their reality to remain exactly what it is.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Maybe it was the lack of a paragraph separation that triggered the laughter.
What I said is when I go to a supermarket I SHOP AROUND FOR THE LOWEST PRICE. If the market was responding to not only my standards but many others all across America, then the STANDARD MARKET PRICE would reflect that fact I brought a product on sale and in some cases used a coupon which brought the product price down even further. Thus, wholesale price of that product should be reduce, allowing the supermarket to make its base price reduce, which in turn would reduce the regular price of the product to the consumer.
I truly don't understand what you mean or how you see that I'm demanding Low Prices and High costs at the same time.
What I don't appreciate as a consumer is greed. Greed is where corporations like Nike come into play. Your bright, you knew I was making a point on two different matters, why try to dummy it down. Nike is only one example, when it comes to profit. Here are some interesting statistics, you can view at your convenience.
http://www.independent.org/publications/working_papers/article.asp?id=1369
I've been a huge "victim" in all kinds of ways ... mental illness, sexual assault, abuse, etc. I was always powerful...I only needed to connect with it. And it was by my own self-victimization, which mirrored how others saw me, that perpetuated the problem. There was a huge payoff for me to stay unconscious, to choose unconsciously, and to be unaware of what was going on.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Basically what you're saying here is that it would be nice if the media was objective. I absolutely agree! However, the people in the media have as much of a right as you or I to be subjective blowhards spouting their opinions. Those of us who don't like it need to look elsewhere, plain and simple.
The fact of the matter is that objective media and hard reporting are not what the majority of people are interested in. They want media that agrees with them, gets their blood going, or, for whatever reason, scares the shit out of them. It is what it is and I have a tough time blaming the mainstream media for giving people what they're asking for.
Candidates raise money to campaign. They need money to travel, to hire staff, to buy ads, and do all sorts of things. Media exposure is not really a product of a candidate's money. Rather, media exposure is a byproduct of what campaigns are using their money for -- establishing a base of interested voters. If you get that support, you'll get your coverage.
If the media started devoting attention to third parties, certainly third parties would likely see an upswing in support. But that upswing might carry their 2% to 5%. Meanwhile, the ratings of the media would swing down precipitously. So it's tough to blame the media for not giving Ralph Nader lots of airtime when the effect of that would be to simply push voters to a talking head on another network talking about "war" this or "crisis" that.
I agree.
Well said
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Are you saying that the market didn't respond to you by selling you a good at the price it sold you that good? That makes no sense.
What you paid for the product was its price. Coupons, sales, or not. Obviously the market recognized that you wanted a price as low as you could bear and gave it to you.
If you're buying the cheapest good available, the market will continue to try to keep the cost of goods low. To do that, they need to pay less to their suppliers and labor which in turn drives down wages. Those who demand high wages and low prices contradict themselves. Fortunately, however, you're demanding low prices with your money and demanding high wages with your voice, and your dollars will trump your voice. So don't be shocked when you're $1 loaf of bread came from wheat fields full of indentured servants.
LOL...it sounds like what you don't appreciate is other people's greed. You'll damn Nike's profit on a 14% margin using slave labor, but celebrate your own on a 10% coupon.
Thanks for the link. Yes, sweatshops do exist. They are at best questionnable, at worst horribly criminal. But the reason they exist is not just because of some businessman's love of "profit". Rather, they exist largely because of some consumer's love of "LOW PRICES".
And I agree with you, too actually. But I have a problem with the 'news' media representing itself as objective and presenting all sides when they clearly don't....they cover things, as you said, that boosts their ratings and leave people in the dark about so many topics and ideas and flat out mislead them about others. So, it's not really news or current events but rather entertainment. I'm not sure too many people understand that at all....even here.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I completely agree.