Posts by silvercrane38

casuallynx8 said:There is really no need for alarm... even if Ford decided to break ground on a massive manufacturing plant right here in the States, someone would find a way to sabotage the whole endeavor before the foundation was even poured. You can practically see it now: local sheriffs would be looking for their "incentives" to look the other way, and within days, a swarm of radical environmental groups would be out there protesting anything that moves. So, rest easy—there is absolutely no threat of Ford moving in, which means there is zero risk of any American workers having to actually answer to some wealthy German capitalist. Instead, everyone can continue to lounge comfortably on unemployment benefits, living off the hard work of the rest of the taxpayers. Sleep soundly, ☕

👍

James Hayes6 said:So, does joining the USA mean customs duties on goods from the USA just vanish?
I’ve heard that’s the deal—that prices for those products should actually drop by the amount of the duty!
Because let's be real, we import a massive amount of food and other stuff from the USA!!

Which basically means lower prices for everyone!!

Good morning!

Between 2008 and 2011, American banks raked in nearly $12 billion in interest, while paying out only about $6 billion of their own. That leaves a net interest income of roughly $6 billion. To put that scale into perspective, that sum alone could have covered the entire annual federal pension payouts and the operating costs for the whole national healthcare system.
The situation with fees and service charges was even more lopsided during those four years. Banks collected a total of $2.5 billion in various commissions and fees, yet they only paid out about $750 million for similar costs. This resulted in a net fee income of approximately $1.75 billion from their clients. All of this occurred during a four-year stretch where the American economy shrank by about ten percent and the standard of living for the average citizen—the very people serving as the banks' primary clients—collapsed by at least twenty percent. Despite that, the end result was a $2.2 billion profit for American banks after all corporate taxes were settled.

http://www.nytimes.com/News/Banking_and_Fees

It’s a bit of a recurring theme. I remember back during the height of the Iraq Crisis, a news crew in New York City decided to poll people on the street about how they would resolve the conflict. Most of them didn't even blink before suggesting we just drop an atomic bomb on them.

The kind of predatory austerity we’re seeing in Greece and several other nations is steadily eroding any remaining goodwill toward the West. It's an instinctive reaction; people naturally gravitate toward powers that project a more humanitarian image. Naturally, Russia views this as a prime opportunity to expand its sphere of influence. When neoliberal capitalism cares for nothing but the bottom line, it creates a vacuum. We can expect sympathy for Russia to surge, particularly in those countries currently being bled dry by the banking lobby.

Kevin Gonzalez79 said:That’s essentially paying in advance. I am not entirely certain if they will still require a flat monthly fee of $6.75 after this change takes effect. It could be a beneficial move for owners of vacation homes that sit vacant during the winter months.

I fail to see why they never implemented a similar structure for landline services

The real question now is whether these vouchers will have an expiration date, much like how prepaid minutes work with major US mobile carriers.

Switching to prepaid electricity—is this about exercising absolute control over our consumption patterns, or is it just a move by the utility companies to protect themselves against unpaid bills? And why on earth are they rolling this out right before the next rate hike?

Let's go ahead and add The Bonnie Blue Flag state—Texas—to the list.
http://i44.tinypic.com/j6sked.png

Everything the socialists fed us about their utopia was a complete fabrication, yet unfortunately, every warning they issued regarding capitalism turned out to be spot on.

Charles Ramos7 said:Or maybe higher interest on savings accounts.😁

Banks could potentially follow a precedent set by the European Union—much like the Greek debt jubilee—and wipe out 50% of business loans and 50% of consumer debt.😁😁

Charles Ramos7 said:Some good news at last! 👍
If things were looking this bright in other sectors of the economy, we’d be living in a golden age. ☕

Truly excellent news. It suggests there is plenty of room to maneuver if we want to see interest rates drop further...👍👍

http://www.businesspulse.com/2011/10/...us-economy-update/

BNY Mellon reported pre-tax profits of $1.17 billion for the first nine months of 2011, leaving them with a net profit of $941.9 million.

JPMorgan Chase also saw steady performance through the first three quarters of 2011, posting an after-tax profit of $1.052 billion—a notable increase of $214 million compared to the same timeframe last year.

Harold Wright6 said:But what does any of that have to do with keeping redundant staff on the payroll?

It’s a direct link. It's simple math: if unemployment rises, payroll taxes and various other levies for you and me will inevitably climb right along with it.

Harold Wright6 said:I definitely look, and honestly, it’s depressing to see how much money goes toward "charity" payouts for people who shouldn't even have jobs in government or any other public service.

There you have it. It seems the entire burden of layoffs is always dumped squarely on our shoulders, alongside the cost of propping up the federal bureaucracy and various public sectors. Instead of this, the government should be implementing actual employment incentives: tax breaks, providing free land for manufacturing ventures, or even establishing tax-free zones in underdeveloped regions of the country. Such moves would ultimately stimulate the economy through increased consumer spending and housing demand.

Harold Wright6 said:If that's the case, why don't you just pull some cash out of your own pocket and pay a salary to someone who isn't even working? Since giving a paycheck to an unproductive worker is basically just charity that hurts the company and everyone else, why not just do it?

I have to wonder if you've ever actually bothered to look at the line items on your own pay stub (assuming you even have one)?

mistybison10 said:Actually, that isn't foolishness at all, because making noise is necessary, whereas clinging to redundant staff is what truly fails; labor is nothing more than a response to demand, and if a task can be completed with fewer hands, there is absolutely no reason to do otherwise. We constantly witness this absurd tendency to put "work" on a pedestal as if it were some sacred ritual, when in reality, it is merely the provision of a component or service, no different from manufacturing a screw or any other trivial object. Once the demand for those screws vanishes, you stop ordering them, and quite logically, you no longer require the laborer either.

As for how Verizon manages its internal affairs, that is hardly our concern, but rather the sole responsibility of their owner, because if he chooses to let go of the wrong people, he is the one who will ultimately suffer the consequences.

Your reasoning follows a very logical path, strictly adhering to that classic capitalist mindset—especially when you consider the possibility of someone running you off the road in the near future because of it. $3.25 Since there isn't enough food to go around—which is hardly a surprise when you consider that the greed of these neo-capitalists knows no bounds—the system will eventually engineer its own internal collapse.

Carl Foster8 said:Nobody is encouraging them, but nobody is stopping them either since it's their legal right.
I assume if you ran a company, you wouldn't risk the whole thing just to save a few employees. If you did, the likely outcome would be everyone losing their jobs.

The competition is keeping prices steady, and if the market is stagnant, that isn't really the provider's problem.

Of course, it's always the low-level workers who get blamed for a company's collapse, while management and the executive suite remain completely blameless.

Carl Foster8 said:If you cut taxes, you have to cut spending somewhere else or just pile on more debt.

Verizon is laying people off at Verizon, then goes out and buys another company just so they don't have to deal with layoffs anymore.

I suppose a failing business buying another failing business to somehow "offset" losses is supposed to make sense? Is that the kind of logic they feed to the unwashed masses?

So, Bnet is offloading layoffs while simultaneously acquiring Bnet? Who exactly are they trying to play for fools here? A dysfunctional government is easily the biggest drag on the American economy. It makes zero sense why the state doesn't incentivize employers through lower taxes or reduced levies to encourage hiring.