son of witless wrote:
" It's not much of a point if you can't explain it. "
I gave you an explanation.
No you didn't. Your point was that I don't "seem to have a clue how free enterprise works." You didn't explain why it seems that way.
son of witless wrote:
I cannot give you an understanding of what I said.
LOL, ain't THAT the truth!
son of witless wrote:
" I never said taking care of their investors is a bad thing. Once again, you're arguing with your own misconceptions about what I'm actually saying. Besides, Harley-Davidson didn't have to buy $700 million in shares just to "take care of their investors". "
Their investors are the owners. They are in business to reward their shareholders. When they fail to do that they are out of business. If they chose to buy $ 700M in shares, that is their business.
Are you going to spend this whole conversation stating the obvious but irrelevant? I'm very impressed that you have a 101 understanding of basic capitalism, but none if this has any bearing on my argument. I already said taking care of the investors is not bad thing, you even quoted me on that. So what exactly are you arguing here?
I tell you what, I got a lot to do today, so I'm not going to read the rest of your rather long post... No offense but the first points you make seem rather pointless given my argument. How about you take another approach and stop assuming that I'm one of those 20-something hippies with a bag of weed and a subscription to left-wing rhetoric and realize that I'm a successful 50-something businessman who has co-founded three tech companies over his career, has NEVER registered Democrat in his life and simply doesn't agree with the prevailing rhetoric on the right? Maybe then we can have a better conversation about what I'm actually saying.
son of witless wrote:
" If you don't know what their basic problem IS, how do you know what it ISN'T? "
I see I failed to make myself clear, my mistake. I do not know why they have suffered a decline in sales. I do not ride motorcycles. That however is their basic problem.
I'm not sure riding motorcycles will make the problem any clearer for you, but it's easy enough to verify that slumping sales is evident. But again, this has no bearing on my argument. If you read my original post you might realize that Harley-Davidson is only an example of the problem I am presenting, which isn't about blaming anyone for slumping performance. I'm not saying Trump's tax cuts caused the problem Harley-Davidson is having. I'm saying Trump's tax cuts aren't really fixing the problem either which is exactly what Trump and Ryan were suggesting would happen.
Do YOU think spending $700 million on stock buybacks is going to help with this basic problem? Wouldn't some of that money be better spent on market research or factory redesign for more cost effective production? Or is Harley-Davidson hoping the investors themselves will all start buying hogs with all the money they're getting? I know one thing for sure, the slump in sales has resulted in a decline in their stock value and the buybacks are one way that investors can cut their losses through an increase in value per share and there's no reason why they can't divest after that like grabbing as much cash as you can before jumping off a sinking ship. You're correct in saying companies have an obligation to their investors but what seem to get so little attention among conservatives is that investors have no obligation to the company.
son of witless wrote:
" You really aren't putting the pieces together, are you? You keep trying to portray Harley-Davidson as a company struggling with sales (I guess thinking it will somehow excuse the layoffs) while completely missing the fact that they just spent $700 million on stock buybacks. Do you not see the irony here? "
WHAT ? ? ? ? Do you think that a company struggling with sales should not do a $ 700 M buy back ? Is that your IRONY ?
Again, I NEVER said a company struggling with sales should not do a $700 M buyback. The irony is the simple fact that a company can lay off 350 workers because of slumping sales and yet spend $700 million on buybacks.
son of witless wrote:
" To be clear, I am not blaming Fatass or his tax policy for the job cuts. I did point out that the tax policy didn't SAVE the jobs like Trump was suggesting they would, but that's not the same thing as blaming his policy FOR the job cuts. "
So if the Trump tax cuts fail to save jobs at even one company, then they are a failure ? Gezz ole Willockers you are a tough hombre.
I didn't say that either. I've made it pretty clear all along that Harley-Davidson is only one example. It was the statement in my original post that I highlighted in red, that shows the total for ALL the buyouts throughout the U.S. economy and the total average increase in wages nation-wide that drills the point I am making. You're so hung up on bickering about the example that you totally miss the bigger argument.
son of witless wrote:
" I don't think "America" is "in economic wars" against other countries. I know that's what your fat-daddy wants you to think because it makes his trade wars appear "patriotic" but I would have thought with all your massive knowledge about free-enterprise, you would know a little more about how globally integrated our economy really is. For instance, when your dreamy white knight slapped tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, he injured the American aerospace industry as a consequence by making their materials more expensive. "
Just because you " don't think "America" is "in economic wars" against other countries " does not make what you think correct.
br " I don't think "America" is &q... (
show quote)
I never said I did... the reason why I said "I don't think" is to clearly indicate it's an opinion and that it differs from your opinion that America *is* in an economic war, which is no more provable.
son of witless wrote:
how globally integrated our economy really is " have to do with anything ? ? ?
When the economy is globally integrated, which it is (and that's not my opinion, that *IS* a fact) supply-chains cross borders, a situation that depends on economic cooperation between nations not economic wars. I think (as in this is my opinion) that Trump's trade wars is like hand-to-hand combat with grenades where every attack has as much potential to harm you and your friends as it does your foes.
son of witless wrote:
The Chinese along with the rest of our trading partners take screwing America over on trade very seriously.
Well they do NOW thanks to Trump's belligerence.
son of witless wrote:
President Trump is the first pro American Trade President of the post WW2 era.
That has yet to be proven. Like I said, hand-to-hand combat with grenades... Trump's tariffs are pretty reckless and though he might score some points with specific industries he is nevertheless doing a LOT of damage to American trade in the process.
son of witless wrote:
A lot of what has gone on had to do with America taking care of nations like
W. Germany and Japan during the Cold War because they had lost their traditional markets.
That's actually not true. If you knew anything about the Marshal Plans you would know these were not the charitable give-aways as described by cold-war propaganda. They were business deals in which the U.S. leveraged the advantage of being the only developed nation that didn't get consumed by the war (too far to be bombed - only fought half the war) to secure economic advantages. Japan for instance, as part of the Marshal Plan was only allowed to buy oil from U.S. suppliers. Both Japan and Germany had paid the U.S back for all the money they borrowed plus interest way back in the 70's, but the propaganda just kept playing that "everyone owes the U.S." tune and it's become a pillar of conservative folklore.
son of witless wrote:
Then when China was opened up we allowed them to screw us on trade so as to engage them peacefully and to take advantage of cheap Chinese labor. In the post Cold War World, those strategies are killing us and Trump is discontinuing them.
China wasn't actually screwing us. They were just one of the few trading partners with the power to NOT be screwed by America. You're right to assume that conditions have changed in the post Cold War era. During the Cold War, a large part of the world was underdeveloped. The U.S. used something called free-trade to leverage our economic advantages over these third world countries by getting them to give up their protections and open their markets to the highest bidders, which of course wouldn't be the poor people of said country but wealthy investors from America and Europe. Many countries refused this unfair situation and decided to protect their industries anyway. The U.S. response was a three step process where the upon the failure of one step the next step is taken... These steps are generally public diplomacy, private negotiations (economic hitmen) and military intervention. China was one of the few countries that was able to stand up to all three approaches.
But things HAVE changed... You're right... Much of the third world is developing so the financial advantages in a free-market are no longer guaranteed to favor American business. So now that the free-market isn't as convenient for us we are doing the same thing that we used to attack other countries for doing... protecting our industries. The only differences are that we don't have a super-power threating to destroy us for our policies and as I've said, the economy is far more integrated globally now than it was during the Cold War, which make protectionism a lot less sensible that it used to be.
Trump has found a supporting base among the people that think our unfair Cold War advantages was just us being "great" and he is blowing sunshine up their asses about how we can be "great" again by being hard-asses. But it's going to be impossible for us to play that role as effectively as we did 30 years ago because we simply don't have the same advantages that we did then. Honestly, we could do a lot better for ourselves if we start earning respect like Obama was instead of acting like we still have this big stick and we're going to beat them up with it if they don't submit, especially when the whole world knows better.
I gotta go... I might catch the rest of you post later...