I found this editorial moving because it not only sums up whats going on now across the country, but also whats been going on in places like Detroit, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana and other rust belt cities and towns. The gist of it is an established manufacturer is facing liquidation in bankruptcy. Not a new story all to itself, but the fact that a major "Too big to fail" bank is the one favoring liquidation as they digest $10 billion in Tarp loans and stand to get more, its reprehensible. I know people say thats free market capitalism - except its not. Capitalism would favor the manufacturers producing products on a level playing field and let the best organization win. When clothes manufactures are being penalized at home, attacked by labor, taxed to the hilt and then expected to compete against a holding company getting tax breaks for owning plants in Delhi there's a problem. More sickening is that the creditors are they themselves essentially bankrupt. The coziness between Washington and wall Street is frightening.
it's funny EP i am not a big union guy, even though my grandfather was in one. i think that unions and management structures for the passed 60 years or so have been in a death embrace, and this is what we're left with.
my question is this; if the Bush Treasury did not run screaming with their hair on fire into the Capitol, what do you think would have happened? i have always been curious to see what the world might have been like if no one did anything to shore up the financial institutions. just like i am curious to see what might happen with Pakistan.
Regardless - Im not pro union, but Im pro domestic industry. This article was written by a union man. One of the few times I'll ever agree with them.
Indeed beta - what would have happened if we didnt bail out the banks - would hartmarx ( Hart Schaffer Marx) been able to get capital from another source? It seemed likr the credit crisis was more about fear of default rather than actual default - nobody knew where anyone stood, because they were all bull shitting each other.
But back to the general theme - what will this country look like with nothing original or unique left? I grew up next to the Zenith TV factory and Entamens Plant - both gone. They were uniqe places to get fresh baked goods or TV repairs. Every town has a unique thing thats dead, dying or diseased nowadays it seems.
credit crisis is just a scam used to further centralize power. its another step in what c a fitts refers to as the slow burn. lots more good info on her solari blog
I found this editorial moving because it not only sums up whats going on now across the country
Negatory, some parts of the country are doing just fine. Some are exceeding expectation.
"but also whats been going on in places like Detroit, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana and other rust belt cities and towns."
No offense but they deserved it. The flight of any social class-- rich, poor, black or white-- will cause areas to implode. Fudging tax basins and emptying cities-- in an effort to cause a disadvantage to another group of people-- is a deplorable practices that has occurred far too often in this country under the guise of "freedom" and "property rights."
"The gist of it is an established manufacturer is facing liquidation in bankruptcy."
Sorry but most businesses in this country make exceptionally crappy products. Most people everywhere do the same. Hartmarx made good money with some of its old designers but they've lost them all over the years.
Their new designers? They suck. They really do. It's bad when some of your labels go back to factories in Europe-- where seamstresses and tailors are more expensive-- because they can't get the quality they need.
Not a new story all to itself, but the fact that a major "Too big to fail" bank is the one favoring liquidation as they digest $10 billion in Tarp loans and stand to get more, its reprehensible.
No, it's not. Hartmarx has done some pretty awful things in terms of shady business practices.
I know people say thats free market capitalism - except its not. Capitalism would favor the manufacturers producing products on a level playing field and let the best organization win.
You can say this about anything though. Technically, if the free market worked like it did... you'd see far less suburbs. the government shouldn't be in the business of subsidizing the automotive industry by providing nearly free roads everywhere. The government has essentially been giving auto manufacturers a trillion dollars a year in "welfare."
When clothes manufactures are being penalized at home, attacked by labor, taxed to the hilt and then expected to compete against a holding company getting tax breaks for owning plants in Delhi there's a problem.
Dude, Hartmarx got in big trouble for outsourcing its Tommy Hilfiger to bona fide slave labor.
More sickening is that the creditors are they themselves essentially bankrupt. The coziness between Washington and wall Street is frightening.
So, this is how this country works now. FDR got rid of cities functioning as businesses a long time ago. Government, as a money maker, was deemed to scary back then. We privatize the successes and socialize the failures. People use to be able to depend on smaller government because smaller government use to actually make money.
So, this is how this country works now. FDR got rid of cities functioning as businesses a long time ago. Government, as a money maker, was deemed to scary back then. We privatize the successes and socialize the failures. People use to be able to depend on smaller government because smaller government use to actually make money.
That's what the Federal Reserve System does. It was created in 1913.
I know make-- I was talking about how utilities, housing, some businesses and what not were governmental businesses. That small government didn't depend on tax revenue as much as they were making a ton of money elsewhere.
When you take away the ability of government to do business for fairness... your taking away the government's ability to do anything other than tax and spend.
When trash service was privatized-- instead of the government just charging you a retail price for trash pickup, they now just tax you to pay a private company a retail price.
So, instead of just paying the government 50 cents a pound (fake figure)... you're now paying the government 65 cents to pay a company 50 cents.
In one instance, you're technically not paying a tax... in the other you are.
hillandrock - I agree with you but its an ebb and floe that knows no end. Private sector provides a good service in an area. Then the area grows and multiple overlapping companies provide services and inefficient overlap is created. Then consolidation and government take over happen and prices go down. After years of consolidation prices rise and institutional inefficiancy take root. Then privatization happens. Its a never ending circle.
Im against privitisation of most government services actualy. Theres no reason to transfer payment, nor is there a reason to sell off the taxpayers' assets like airports and highways, but understand - unless a government can actualy provide the service at a reasonable cost devoid of political patronage and hacks wasteing the money ( Im thinking of a certain midwestern city here) whats the lesser of the 2 evils?
May 8, 09 3:40 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
It would be a shame if our president had to get his suits from overseas
I retitled this thread because it wasnt getting any comments;
link
I found this editorial moving because it not only sums up whats going on now across the country, but also whats been going on in places like Detroit, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana and other rust belt cities and towns. The gist of it is an established manufacturer is facing liquidation in bankruptcy. Not a new story all to itself, but the fact that a major "Too big to fail" bank is the one favoring liquidation as they digest $10 billion in Tarp loans and stand to get more, its reprehensible. I know people say thats free market capitalism - except its not. Capitalism would favor the manufacturers producing products on a level playing field and let the best organization win. When clothes manufactures are being penalized at home, attacked by labor, taxed to the hilt and then expected to compete against a holding company getting tax breaks for owning plants in Delhi there's a problem. More sickening is that the creditors are they themselves essentially bankrupt. The coziness between Washington and wall Street is frightening.
it's funny EP i am not a big union guy, even though my grandfather was in one. i think that unions and management structures for the passed 60 years or so have been in a death embrace, and this is what we're left with.
my question is this; if the Bush Treasury did not run screaming with their hair on fire into the Capitol, what do you think would have happened? i have always been curious to see what the world might have been like if no one did anything to shore up the financial institutions. just like i am curious to see what might happen with Pakistan.
the world is just so boring right now.
Regardless - Im not pro union, but Im pro domestic industry. This article was written by a union man. One of the few times I'll ever agree with them.
Indeed beta - what would have happened if we didnt bail out the banks - would hartmarx ( Hart Schaffer Marx) been able to get capital from another source? It seemed likr the credit crisis was more about fear of default rather than actual default - nobody knew where anyone stood, because they were all bull shitting each other.
But back to the general theme - what will this country look like with nothing original or unique left? I grew up next to the Zenith TV factory and Entamens Plant - both gone. They were uniqe places to get fresh baked goods or TV repairs. Every town has a unique thing thats dead, dying or diseased nowadays it seems.
credit crisis is just a scam used to further centralize power. its another step in what c a fitts refers to as the slow burn. lots more good info on her solari blog
Negatory, some parts of the country are doing just fine. Some are exceeding expectation.
"but also whats been going on in places like Detroit, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana and other rust belt cities and towns."
No offense but they deserved it. The flight of any social class-- rich, poor, black or white-- will cause areas to implode. Fudging tax basins and emptying cities-- in an effort to cause a disadvantage to another group of people-- is a deplorable practices that has occurred far too often in this country under the guise of "freedom" and "property rights."
"The gist of it is an established manufacturer is facing liquidation in bankruptcy."
Sorry but most businesses in this country make exceptionally crappy products. Most people everywhere do the same. Hartmarx made good money with some of its old designers but they've lost them all over the years.
Their new designers? They suck. They really do. It's bad when some of your labels go back to factories in Europe-- where seamstresses and tailors are more expensive-- because they can't get the quality they need.
Not a new story all to itself, but the fact that a major "Too big to fail" bank is the one favoring liquidation as they digest $10 billion in Tarp loans and stand to get more, its reprehensible.
No, it's not. Hartmarx has done some pretty awful things in terms of shady business practices.
I know people say thats free market capitalism - except its not. Capitalism would favor the manufacturers producing products on a level playing field and let the best organization win.
You can say this about anything though. Technically, if the free market worked like it did... you'd see far less suburbs. the government shouldn't be in the business of subsidizing the automotive industry by providing nearly free roads everywhere. The government has essentially been giving auto manufacturers a trillion dollars a year in "welfare."
When clothes manufactures are being penalized at home, attacked by labor, taxed to the hilt and then expected to compete against a holding company getting tax breaks for owning plants in Delhi there's a problem.
Dude, Hartmarx got in big trouble for outsourcing its Tommy Hilfiger to bona fide slave labor.
More sickening is that the creditors are they themselves essentially bankrupt. The coziness between Washington and wall Street is frightening.
So, this is how this country works now. FDR got rid of cities functioning as businesses a long time ago. Government, as a money maker, was deemed to scary back then. We privatize the successes and socialize the failures. People use to be able to depend on smaller government because smaller government use to actually make money.
That's what the Federal Reserve System does. It was created in 1913.
Hill,
We can have small government like they do in Somalia. I hear it's a Libertarian Paradise!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0&feature=player_embedded
I know make-- I was talking about how utilities, housing, some businesses and what not were governmental businesses. That small government didn't depend on tax revenue as much as they were making a ton of money elsewhere.
When you take away the ability of government to do business for fairness... your taking away the government's ability to do anything other than tax and spend.
When trash service was privatized-- instead of the government just charging you a retail price for trash pickup, they now just tax you to pay a private company a retail price.
So, instead of just paying the government 50 cents a pound (fake figure)... you're now paying the government 65 cents to pay a company 50 cents.
In one instance, you're technically not paying a tax... in the other you are.
hillandrock - I agree with you but its an ebb and floe that knows no end. Private sector provides a good service in an area. Then the area grows and multiple overlapping companies provide services and inefficient overlap is created. Then consolidation and government take over happen and prices go down. After years of consolidation prices rise and institutional inefficiancy take root. Then privatization happens. Its a never ending circle.
Im against privitisation of most government services actualy. Theres no reason to transfer payment, nor is there a reason to sell off the taxpayers' assets like airports and highways, but understand - unless a government can actualy provide the service at a reasonable cost devoid of political patronage and hacks wasteing the money ( Im thinking of a certain midwestern city here) whats the lesser of the 2 evils?
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.