Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Stupidity
Date:	3/21/2016 8:22:52 PM

On the local news tonight talking  about Obama's opening relations with Cuba.  Some Alabama official said that some local company already has a contract there to go build a manufacturing facility over there.  Short term - great news for that company, but no jobs for Alabamians.  Long term - stupid.  Creating a facility so they can go out and compete with us. 

Have we learned nothing?   

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	Stupidity
Date:	3/21/2016 9:07:33 PM

I wonder if the global nature of commerce works against American entrepreneurship.  The concept that built so much wealth before international borders melted, while being true to the maximize profits objective, does so at the expense of the American worker.

Name:	wix -	Reply
Subject:	Borders melted....
Date:	3/21/2016 9:50:28 PM

The border melting I've seen only involves jobs and investments leaving the US, while illegal uneducated, freebie wannabes pour into the US.  Other countries have maintained their borders at our expense.

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Borders melted....
Date:	3/21/2016 10:26:28 PM

Talk is cheap.Anyone refused to invest their 401k in a US company that manufacturers overseas? Of course not cause you want to increase the value of your portfolio as stock prices rise based on increased company profits from using foreign labor. It is called capitalism.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Then again maybe not.....
Date:	3/22/2016 8:34:36 AM

I have no intention of doing business in Cuba but I can't say that I blame them given the hostile environment buisinesses face in the U.S.  Between regulations, taxes and the high cost of labor it is no surprise that a company would expand their business with manufacturing operations on other countries.  Maybe we should look at why a business would make a rational decision to do so and fix those problems.  Businesses are not social experiments and they do not exist to create jobs for one group of people over another.  They exist to provide products and services at a reasonable price that generates a return to the shareholders for the risks taken.

As for the opening of relations with Cuba, I have no objection to doing so although dear leader is certainly making us look like fools.  Forst he lands in Cuba and is met by some lower level government official.  Slap in the face.  Then you have Castro insulting the U.S. and dear leader basically agrees with him.  Slap in the face.  It's no wonder they replaced the face of Che with Obama as they are fellow travelers.  For once Trump said something I agree with, had it been him and he wasn't being met by Castro he would have turned around and gone home.  In reality, he would have never gone in the first place without the knowledge that he would have been met by Castro and would have had free access to the media in Cuba to rightly condemn totalitarianism and the lack of freedom.  

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Borders melted....
Date:	3/22/2016 8:46:51 AM

GF, you are exactly right.  Investors place their risk capital with companies that provide the best possible return.  The sad part is the unwillngness to ask why companies have to flee the U.S. to get those better returns.  This is easily explained as I do below.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Then again maybe not.....
Date:	3/22/2016 3:16:04 PM

I have seen it far too long. Companies take short term gains without consideration of the long term effect.  They'll be the first to whine about the international competition and how unfair it is. I spent the last 10 years of my career hearing about it.  Yes, they may lose some investors initially, but other investors will take their place.  If we are going to whine about the loss of jobs, then we need to stop helping these other foreign companies to compete with us.  It's insanity.   I've seen very large companies transfer technology to foreign companies, and then cry when they don't get the contract the next year.  You have got to weigh short term gains, against long term effects. 

Now MM, will explain to me the error of thinking to me, because he is a short term gains kind of guy.

And GF, yes, I carefully consider what a company is doing before I invest my money with them, because I am a long term kind of investor.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Then again maybe not.....
Date:	3/22/2016 4:10:49 PM

Now, now, I don't disagree with you in the least about the focus on short term gains.  This is especially relevant for publicly traded companies that live and die by their stock price which is impacted by quarterly results.  But unless you want to change the primary purpose of a business from what it should be into a social experiment that is not going to change.

All I am saying is that you need to look at the structural reasons why it makes more sense to move manufacturing or service jobs to other countries.  If it didn't I can assure you there is no built in desire to stick it to the American worker.  Businesses would love to keep it simple because it is no small task, nor is it without risk to open operations in a foreign country.  There is a lot of risk, which is why the only place we have expanded into is Canada where we speak the same language, have similar laws, a stable currency, etc.  Otherwise there is too much risk for the additional ROI.  But when the ROI as compared to domestic operations outweighs the risk they will move ahead.  That is a rational decision and is the right decision, again unless and until you change the reason for business to exist.

So the question in my mind is how do we address the systemic challenges in the U.S. so that the ROI here is comparable or the additional ROI by exporting jobs isn't sufficiently large enough to take on the risk.  Some of those challenges like the cost of labor may be insurmountable.  But every regulatory burden, laws like Obamacare, raising minimum wage, workers comp, etc. all add to the cost of each worker and make the economics of exporting jobs more attractive.  We can't have our cake and eat it too.  Just look to Europe to see how badly that works.  Many other systemic burdens can be fixed with the right political will.  But as long as the left spins everything as the rich versus the poor nothing will change and the working class will continue to be screwed.  And as long as they fall for the class envy BS they will continue to vote against their own interests.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Then again maybe not.....
Date:	3/22/2016 6:27:04 PM

I'm not necessarily talking about moving jobs off shore.  What I am really saying is companies who contract with a foreign country/government to build a manufacturing facility, then sell them the equipment,  teach them how to use the equipment, and the manufacturing process, and them leave them to it knowing full well that the company will compete with them.  I understand why companies move their production facilities overseas to take advantage of lower costs.  While I blame the companies for short term gains, I also blame the government for letting it happen and making it easier for it to happen. I realize that publically held companies get special pressure for profits and GF is unfortunately right when he says that people with 401Ks want to see them go up. 

I realize that I have a limited view that deals mainly with the defense sector, but I have heard about it in other sectors.  And in the defense sector, I have seen companies take sensitive military technology and trade it away for the short term gain.  One example is a very well known airplane company, that developed a specialized seat for the fighter pilot.   They agreed for the Chinese manufacture of the seat in order to sell a certain number of commercial airplanes to the Chinese government.  (this is known as offset - when a country demands something unrelated to the contract to happen in order for the deal to go through.  This takes many forms, but that is another discussion).  Needless to say that they did this without getting the permission of the U.S. government, and they were fined heavily.  But this particular company thought it was more cost effective to pay the fine and make the sale. 

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Got it this time
Date:	3/22/2016 7:57:51 PM

I agree with you that this is stupid.  Back in the 1990s we did a number of mill closure projects for our pulp and paper clients. They were all excited because the Chinese bought their paper machines and paid way more than scrap prices.   Note that a new paper machine costs around $100M.   Fast forward ten years and they were complaining about the Chinese dumping cheap paper on the U.S. Market.  All subsequent mill closure projects we worked on the cut the paper machines up and sold them for scrap.  Duh!