Friday, October 28, 2011

Unregulated Business?

from Pentax.com blog:

the benefits of Unregulated Business (Communist style)

China, ironically, seems like a perfect case study of business behavior in an unregulated manufacturing environment. We keep getting contaminated goods... here's the Drywall Snafu:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/18/bu...e&ref=business

QuoteQuote:
The Hunters are among thousands of homeowners in 38 states who have been searching for alternate housing because of worries about drywall in their homes that emits sulfur fumes and, many believe, makes them sick.

Many of the homeowners have bought or rented a second home, an expense that has pushed some to the brink. Others have had no choice but to sell at a big loss. Still others have continued living in their homes with air-conditioners running full blast to hold down the rotten-egg odor.

“My property right now has no value — it’s toxic,” said Aiasha Johnson, 30, a school teacher who lives with her husband and two children in Deerfield Beach, Fla., near Fort Lauderdale. Besides running the air-conditioning, Ms. Johnson said she painted the walls frequently to mitigate the smell.

“I can’t sell it. I can’t do anything,” she said.

Complaints about the drywall, or wallboard, which was mostly made in China, first surfaced a few years ago, and hundreds of lawsuits have been filed in state and federal court to recover money to replace it. The federal Consumer Product Safety Commission has received 3,500 complaints about the drywall and says it believes thousands more have not reported the problem.

But so far the relief has been negligible. Most insurance companies have yet to pay a dime. Only a handful of home builders have stepped forward to replace the tainted drywall. Help offered by the government — like encouraging lenders to suspend mortgage payments and reducing property taxes on damaged homes — has not addressed the core problem of replacing the drywall. And Chinese manufacturers have argued that United States courts do not have jurisdiction over them.

I say, let the Tea Partiers move to China for a taste of what they want for America, if they think our country is so wrong. That's right, right wingers: This is America, love it or leave it, bud, and go to China where they think like you.

(I'm LMAO at that! Always wanted to turn that one around...)

45 comments:

  1. Anonymous - how many people have YOU poisoned, LOL?

    ReplyDelete
  2. As I said, deep down, anonymous is not a capitalist by any stretch of the imagination.

    I can see him in his Mao suit waving his little red book at us telling us to get rid of the Fed and smash the state!

    I'm calling him Comrade anonymous from now on!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Take back the money....October 28, 2011 at 8:55 PM

    How about, we cancel or hold in escrow an equivalent amount in Chinese held US Debt, no payments non redeemable, as reparations for the Poisonous drywall the chineese sold us?

    Until they make good on their need to fix this ala BP Mobile.

    Sounds good to me, How about $20B.

    ReplyDelete
  4. That's a bit like positing a bushel of wheat for a barrel of oil--at that time, the arabs could have bought their wheat, have it flown to Paris in a concord, and sent to Saudi in the form of croissant.

    Likewise, China has too much of a stake in the US for the US to try anything like that.

    The US is the world's biggest debtor nation:

    United States with an external debt (as % of GDP): 101.1%
    Gross external debt: $14.825 trillion
    2009 GDP (est): $14.66 trillion
    External debt per capita: $48,258


    Thanks to the idiotic economic policies of the last 30 years.

    The bailiffs would be at your door if you tried that!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Love it or leave it, that's hilarious.
    In other words, all the thousands of businesses that have moved out of the US are commies. Sure, that makes sense. (shaking my head in disbelief)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Im guessing that in the summer you nice puritan folks spend your time reporting to the authorities on little girls and their unlicensed lemonade stands.

    ReplyDelete
  7. all the thousands of businesses that have moved out of the US are commies. Sure, that makes sense. (shaking my head in disbelief)

    Well, they aren't very patriotic.

    Are they?

    ReplyDelete
  8. eporting to the authorities on little girls and their unlicensed lemonade stands.

    Funny,that's what we thought you did for business.

    Thanks for confirming it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Wow,you are dumb.

    Economy is tanking in the USA and people need jobs,businesses get whopping huge tax breaks for "creating jobs", but the jobs are created in third world countries.

    Some patriots.

    They want the benefits, but not the obligations of citizenship.

    I know as an anarchist, that's an alien concept to you--being a citizen and having obligations as well as rights.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Pooch, you are either for regulations or you aren't? Which is it.

    WOW! You finally admit the economy is tanking. Hallafrickinjuah!
    So, the FED and central banks can cause an economy to crash, starting with creating bubbles and interest rates, and not a karat of gold to be found anywhere.

    It seems as though you are suggesting that the thousands of American citizens that cross into Mexico every single day to work in their factories are unpatriotic.
    You might have a hard time convincing them.
    And are you suggesting that Toyota should not have a factories in this country. That they are unpatriotic to Japan?

    Sorry pouch, you don't seem to have a very consistent view.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Nice Company you gotOctober 28, 2011 at 10:43 PM

    Would be a shame if anything happened to it

    "That's a bit like positing a bushel of wheat for a barrel of oil--at that time, the Arabs could have bought their wheat, have it flown to Paris in a concord, and sent to Saudi in the form of croissant."

    No actually it is more like:

    BP on an installment plan: Under the terms of the agreement, BP will make installments of $5 billion a year for four years, including $5 billion in 2010, according to the White House. To assure that $20 billion will be available, BP will put up U.S. assets as insurance. As it adds cash to the fund, BP will be able to reduce the assets being held.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2010/06/getting-shit-done/185749/

    So tell them to put up.....

    No actual legal finding of guilt just put up now....

    Chop chop.....

    Or is rule of law only good for companies/countries that Obama likes?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Nice Company, let's see, the person who owes money and is going broke is saying, I won't pay you.

    That's really funny.

    China writes off the debt and stops lending to the dead beat.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Ok lets have a quick discussion about China...October 29, 2011 at 3:57 PM

    If you are up for it....

    How large are the US Debt obligations held by the People's Republic of China?

    ReplyDelete
  14. it did not seem to bother them......


    http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=77687

    ReplyDelete
  15. Laci The Dog said...

    Nice Company, let's see, the person who owes money and is going broke is saying, I won't pay you.

    That's really funny.

    China writes off the debt and stops lending to the dead beat.


    Right....... China is going stop putting it's excess capital in the strongest economy in the world, over 20 billion?

    Yeah that'll happen.....

    ReplyDelete
  16. As of May 2011 the largest single holder of U.S. government debt was China, with 36 percent of all foreign-held U.S. Treasury securities.

    As of January 2011, foreigners owned $4.45 trillion of U.S. debt, or approximately 47% of the debt held by the public of $9.49 trillion and 32% of the total debt of $14.1 trillion. The largest holders were the central banks of China, Japan, the United Kingdom and Brazil.

    World Nut News? That's nearly as good as Weekly World News!

    I prefer the Economist.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Thank you Jimmy Carter....October 29, 2011 at 4:54 PM

    You fucking halfwit, way to stand up to for the American investor.

    http://www.globalsecuritieswatch.org/may30_2003_memo.pdf

    On May 11, 1979, the United States and the People’s Republic of China entered into an
    Agreement Concerning the Settlement of Claims (the “1979 US – China Agreement”). The 1979
    US – China Agreement, by its terms, settled the “claims of the United States and its nationals
    against the PRC arising from any nationalization, expropriation, intervention, and other taking of,
    or special measures directed against, property of nationals of the United States on or after October
    1, 1949 and prior to the date of this Agreement”.

    ReplyDelete
  18. So china didn't default on their debt?

    ReplyDelete
  19. I'm not sure what your point is the agreement has a definite time period:

    "on or after October 1, 1949 and prior to the date of this Agreement"

    The date of the agreement was May 11, 1979.

    So, that is only applicable from October 1, 1949 to May 11, 1979.

    Thomas--I think you've got it the wrong way around. The US is one of the top debtor nations.

    Nice, how the right has sold out the US.

    ReplyDelete
  20. China holds 1.137 trillion of 15.trillion (approx) or 7.5 to 8%, or about 1.3% of the 82 trillion of the worlds total bond market.

    Nearly all of the $822 billion average daily trading volume in the U.S. bond market takes place between broker-dealers and large institutions in a decentralized, over-the-counter (OTC) market. However, a small number of bonds, primarily corporate, are listed on exchanges.

    Let them sell.....

    ReplyDelete
  21. China had $750 billion in outstanding pre 1939 obligations to US citizens/institutions, they defaulted on this debt in 1979.....

    China tacitly recognized its liability for the sovereign defaulted debt of predecessor Chinese governments in 1987 when it entered into a treaty with Great Britain that recognized Chinese financial responsibility for Chinese Government bonds issued prior to the 1949 change of
    governments.

    ReplyDelete
  22. China is not going to divest itself of it's safest/strongest holdings if the US actually had the balls to hold them responsible for criminal practices....

    ....over how much do you think all that drywall is worth? 20 billion?

    The world will move on, you should too.....

    ReplyDelete
  23. You're really funny, Thomas.

    You're saying that someone (in this case, the US) is in the hole and doesn't pay their debts is in a position to tell the person holding the money what to do!

    Yeah, right.

    call me stupid!

    Check out your infrastructure lately? Notice that the military is having to withdraws and came close to not paying the troops a few times!

    The US is in nearly as bad a shape as the Soviet Union in 1990.

    And we all know what happened to the Soviet Union!

    ReplyDelete
  24. You're saying that someone (in this case, the US) is in the hole and doesn't pay their debts is in a position to tell the person holding the money what to do!

    I am saying that the debter is in as much trouble as the sebtee....

    Check out your infrastructure lately? Notice that the military is having to withdraws and came close to not paying the troops a few times!

    Oh you mean that time when Obama decided to ignore his obligations to the troops during the debt ceiling 'crisis' this summer?

    That problem paying the troops?

    And Obama is solving the deployment problem by opening up a new war or two, or is that three more wars and before bringing home the troops in IRAQ....

    And you know what Maybe we should get out of Europe and let them fend for themselves...

    ReplyDelete
  25. Obama's obligation?

    Wow, Thomas, it's pretty bad that you don't know how has the "power of the purse" in the US Government.

    I'll give you a hint--it's found in Article I, Section 8, clauses 1 & 2.

    You might have a point in a Parliamentary system, but your founding fathers wanted separate branches.

    And the president doesn't pay the bills.

    ReplyDelete
  26. This was not Obama....

    President Obama promised on Thursday to veto a House Republican bill that would keep the government open for one extra week and cut $12 billion in spending, while also funding the military through the remainder of the fiscal year.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/07/obama-veto-threat-government-shutdown_n_846187.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%7C54889

    ReplyDelete
  27. Congress wants to slow down borrowing, Obama threatens veto if US govt does raise the debt limit.....

    He signs legislation that pays the bills and threatens veto if he does not to borrow more money.....

    Boehner, is a failure for backing down.

    ReplyDelete
  28. And Obama is a failure for failing to reign in spending....

    ReplyDelete
  29. Obama has done his share to reign in spending; Congress holds the purse strings, Obama has signed and also proposed measures in that respect.

    What he hasn't done is cripple the economy by approving bad spending cuts or too tight a contraction at a time when we need to be doing things good for growth and jobs.

    And what else he has done is to properly look at the issue of unfair and regressive taxation. I strongly disapprove of him extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy; that was wrong and bad. He should hold the Congress hostage the way they have tried to hold him hostage, until the Republican extremists do what the overwhelming majority want them to do - raise taxes on the wealthy back to the level of the Clinton era -- not as high as the Reagan era, although I wouldn't object to that either.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Obama has done his share to reign in spending; Congress holds the purse strings, Obama has signed and also proposed measures in that respect.

    Really anytime in the two years that his party held both the senate and house did he threaten veto because of too much spending?

    ReplyDelete
  31. - raise taxes on the wealthy back to the level of the Clinton era -- not as high as the Reagan era, although I wouldn't object to that either.

    Right..... the tail end of the Reagan Era 28%

    Clinton 39.5%

    ReplyDelete
  32. The average of the tax rate for the wealthy during the Reagan years, not just your cherry picked number. That Reagan tax rate was approximately 50%

    "But I was surprised to learn that the tax rate the wealthiest Americans paid on the top portion of their earnings at the end of Ronald Reagan's first term was much higher -- 50%."

    from
    http://politics.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977623449

    Tax Comparison: Obama vs Reagan, Nixon, Eisenhower
    March 13, 2009 03:33 PM EDT
    views: 60339 | 2 people recommend this | comments: 148

    I received this chart, from The Washington Monthly, in an email this morning. I thought I would pass it along in case you have not seen it.

    The media has been obsessing about President Obama's plan to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans—from 35% to 39.6%.

    But I was surprised to learn that the tax rate the wealthiest Americans paid on the top portion of their earnings at the end of Ronald Reagan's first term was much higher -- 50%.

    Under Richard Nixon it was 70%, and under Dwight Eisenhower it was actually 91%.

    Go check out the chart. It follows tax rates back to 1920. Very illuminating.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Yet over all those years US.gov only collects about 19.5% from everyone.....

    ReplyDelete
  34. I think everyone can agree that the economy was much better off during the Clinton years. I suggest we roll back all tax rates and government spending to the last Clinton budget (spending adjusted for inflation) and go from there. We will soon be back to our glory days of the later 90s.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I'd even take the Clinton years adjusted for inflation hell lets go.....

    Across the board all budgets take the same hit....

    And quit borrowing money.....

    Because only the evil bankers win.....

    ReplyDelete
  36. Quit borrowing money, Thomas sez. This from a guy whose every comment reveals that he is a reichwhining rebumblican. Funny, that we never heard anything from you guys from 1981-1993 and 2001-2009.

    This:

    "It seems as though you are suggesting that the thousands of American citizens that cross into Mexico every single day to work in their factories are unpatriotic."

    from the anonymanyfacelesscommenters is likely based on this source (http://weeklyworldnews.com/headlines/38036/americans-head-to-mexico-for-jobs/).

    It's difficult to believe that anyone stupid enough to believe shit like this can actually read and type, but the evidence is there.

    ReplyDelete
  37. This from a guy whose every comment reveals that he is a reichwhining rebumblican. Funny, that we never heard anything from you guys from 1981-1993 and 2001-2009.

    DoC have you not been listening to LtD sanctimonious lectures at all.....

    Congress controls the budget.....

    1981-1992 Dem Congress all the way.

    HOW DARE YOU!!!!!!!, besmirch the blessed Ronaldus Wilson Raygun....HOW DARE YOU!!!!!!

    Congress increased every budget the blessed one's submitted budgets..... every single time....

    2001-2007 Republican Congress.

    Yeah Republicans....

    And there is a reason that Bush Jr. submitted supplemental funding for the Iraq war..... so it would not be added to the baseline.....

    2007-2009 Dems running the Show.

    Boo Democrat Party...

    And three times more deficit spending....OMG!!!than BUSHITLER!!!!eleventyone1111!!!!

    "It seems as though you are suggesting that the thousands of American citizens that cross into Mexico every single day to work in their factories are unpatriotic."

    I don't know who you are talking to but, personally I think it would be fantastic if Mexican nationals could come into this country work on an agricultural visa, get taxed properly on the books and.... then.... go.... home.

    Rather than come here undocumented work off the books, forcing wages down.

    I personally think that us.gov should fine businesses $50,000 per illegal caught in their employ, and reward $40,000 of that to the informant.

    I would pick cabbages at a proper wage.....

    Businesses get away with it because there is no real penalty for breaking the law...illegals get away with it because there is no fear of getting caught.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Tommy, Tommy, Tommy...

    Y'know, I don't really give a shit that you're an idiot. It does bother me that you'll repeat a lie like this one:

    "And three times more deficit spending....OMG!!!than BUSHITLER!!!!eleventyone1111!!!!"

    with a straight face.

    I mean, do you really expect anyone to bother reading anything else you write when you pass along bullshit of that degree of stenchiness?

    You and some others here are all about "Free Markets" when it means you can pay less for landscaping or other stoop labor and when you can buy the ExtraGigundo box of whatever at Wal-Mart 'cuz it's made in China of Vietnam or some other place where people get paid a buck380 a day (or month) with no benefits. Otoh, you don't want porous borders 'cuz the econoterrarists from Mexico and points south will INVADE and steal our jobs (at least the jobs that pay so little that most people already living here won't do them).

    "I don't know who you are talking to but, personally I think it would be fantastic if Mexican nationals could come into this country work on an agricultural visa, get taxed properly on the books and.... then.... go.... home."

    That's not the way it works, sparky. If they're paying taxes then somebody else is too, for state and federal income taxes unemployment, SS and Medicare. This would do two things, immediately.

    The first is that it would make the price of landscaping, hottopping, fencing and a host of other labor intensive jobs (especially in the border and gulf states) go through the roof as the cost of hiring undocumented workers, paying them minimum wage (at least) and having their employers pay the normal taxes and fees would make the average cost for all of those services become considerably more expensive.

    The other thing that would happen is that when those "guest workers" return to Mexico, the Mexican gummint would prolly scream bloody murder about the U.S. becoming unjustly enriched by collecting monies from their citizens that they are not going to see any benefit from. But, then, getting something for nothing is truly a reptilican trait, despite their trying to blame that particular vice on the liebrals.

    ReplyDelete
  39. The first is that it would make the price of landscaping, hottopping, fencing and a host of other labor intensive jobs (especially in the border and gulf states) go through the roof as the cost of hiring undocumented workers, paying them minimum wage (at least) and having their employers pay the normal taxes and fees would make the average cost for all of those services become considerably more expensive.

    Again so what.... it sure sound like you are mad that you will have to pay someone more to cut your lawn.......too bad, do it your damn self.

    But it sure sounds like you are turning capitalist on me.....

    ....also you do not pay attention...

    Your anti gun gang is always saying that you need more laws and that is the only way to reduce gun crime is to write more laws.

    I come along and say that a law that fines a businesses $50,000 per illegal caught in their employ, and rewards $40,000 per illegal caught of that to the informant.

    If you make the hiring of illegals unattractive thru punitive financial punishment.... companies will obey.... give business a good background check system and allow them to put ICE in contact with suspected illegals.


    So the cost of labor goes up isn't that a good thing, the worker gets paid more...... as long as they are here legally

    Using illegals in the labor force depresses wages and prices legal citizens out of the work force.....

    You could cut unemployment to 4% this way....

    The other thing that would happen is that when those "guest workers" return to Mexico, the Mexican gummint would prolly scream bloody murder about the U.S. becoming unjustly enriched by collecting monies from their citizens that they are not going to see any benefit from.

    Again so what, if they were here under a legal system you could establish avenues for refunding employee contribution FICA, Federal and State when you file not on the front end, and not the employers share, but also as a legal imigrant you would not be able to collect SSI retirement since you did not pay in.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Thomas, I am with you on your proposal, it makes sense, it is reasonable, it is proactive.

    Excellent. Is this yours, or someone else's set of numbers - just want to give credit where credit is due, besides to you.

    Why this won't work, imho, is that the right, the conservatives, want to stupid things like build more walls and fences, and electrify them (dear God,but Herman Cain is a stupid man) and shoot illegal immigrants, but what they don't want to do is to come up with a sane, sensible change that would better deal with immigration and labor needs.

    If someone could reasonably sell this plan, it makes sense to me, along with a number of provisions of the Dream Act.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I will take a small bow, this is all mine....

    But NO Dream act.

    If you are here illegally and you are caught you must go home no other harm or foul unless you are a wanted criminal for other reasons beyond immigration., and apply from outside the US for MWS.


    Again NO amnesty.
    That was one of the worst things RR ever did, and an insult to those that came here legally, I speak from close personal experience twice over on that count.


    You must leave apply and then reenter the country. You could even allow for some of the fines to allow for homeward transportation....

    Why this won't work, imho, is that the right, the conservatives, want to stupid things like build more walls and fences.

    The southern border need to be secure...If only to protect US citizens from the Narco-terrorists.

    and electrify them (dear God,but Herman Cain is a stupid man),

    Cain is not stupid, a little too grandiose, and not a polished politician, but BO talked of 57 states and has had plenty of gaffes in his day...

    But if HC's his ideas but if his 9-9-9 plan is what it took to get the candidates talking about tax reform, the rest of the RINO-herd are a bunch of idiots....

    and shoot illegal immigrants, OK I have to call BS on this one, which of the EVIL-Rethuglicans-for-PREZ, has talked of shooting Illegal immigrants?

    but what they don't want to do is to come up with a sane, sensible change that would better deal with immigration and labor needs.

    Have to agree with you in part,

    (((shudder....who walked over my grave.....brrrrrr?!?!?!)))

    that neither party has come up with a plan that properly deals with illegal immigration....

    ReplyDelete
  42. Thomas wrote:
    But NO Dream act.

    If you are here illegally and you are caught you must go home no other harm or foul unless you are a wanted criminal for other reasons beyond immigration., and apply from outside the US for MWS.


    I am unwilling to enforce harsh sanctions on children who had no choice in coming here illegally - say those who came here under the age of 16 - compared to sanctions on those who were old enough to act legally and responsibly for that act. Further, one of the provisions of the DREAM act is to allow those who came here illegally to gain citizenship by serving in our military - which is the same offer we make daily to people in foreign countries. It is foolish to deny them that opportunity when they have a greater amount of their lives vested in loyalty to this country, to knowing our customs and history and language, while allowing it to complete foreigners. The bottom line is that these kids are caught in a mess not of their making, and it is cruel to rip them from what is for many of them the only home they know and love.

    I think there are many provisions in the DREAM Act which are fair, balanced and reasonable, and that it deserves more consideration.

    But Thomas - good one, applause from me, sincerely for your other proposal. I think it is excellent, and I hope you might be able to persuade your member of Congress or your Senator to turn it into legislation. It definitely has merit.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I would prefer an amnesty policy for illegal foreigners who are already in the States.

    ReplyDelete
  44. mikeb302000 said...

    I would prefer an amnesty policy for illegal foreigners who are already in the States.


    What have you done to remedy the situation in Italy?

    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/04/29/the_world_s_worst_immigration_laws

    Italy’s new immigration law contains a host of controversial new measures.
    The main one will make it a crime for someone to enter or stay in Italy without a visa or authorisation, and they will be liable to a fine of up to 10,000 euros. The fine is lifted if the immigrant agrees to leave the country. The length of time illegal immigrants can be kept in government holding centres will go up from two to six months. There is also a new measure aimed at stopping people from helping those living in the country illegally. Renting or offering accomodation to someone without the correct papers will be a crime, carrying a jail term of up to three years. The government will also set up a register of the homeless, to be kept by the interior ministry. A result of the new law will be that civil servants will be obliged to alert the authorities if they receive information about illegal immigrants. Another controversial measure is the setting up of citizen patrols to help provide security in certain suburbs. The volunteers, trained and registered by the authorities, will be told to inform the police and social services about any problems they come across. This new law, denounced by the opposition and human rights groups, is designed to go hand in hand with boosted sea patrols.

    ReplyDelete