masterrig 1 #76 December 20, 2008 I was referring more to the 'every day' items like shirts, underwear, jeans, tools and etc. The clothing items especially, are put together with surger machines rather than the manufacturer's using french feld seams. Sure, it's cheaper to use surgers rather than French feld seams but, clothing doesn't hod-up like it used to when production methods were better. As for tools from China or anything else, it's just cheap junk. I hope, the Made in the U.S.A. items you purchase are better than that. Here, it's really difficult to purchase items strictly made here in the U.S.A. We need to re-think our thinking... or something. I think, you get my drift? Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #77 December 22, 2008 Quote> But not when the govenment places all the environmental, safety and legal >liablility on these companies at the level they do today. Government puts exactly the same regulations on that Toyota plant. And Toyota isn't asking for a billion dollar bailout. Sounds like you need a new angle. Hmm, maybe not? http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D957UQPG0&show_article=1"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BDashe 0 #78 December 22, 2008 Quote And cheap labor is killing us. When the lights go out don't blame me. Then abolish labor unions... 'It's not my job to do x, y, and z Mr. Manager, pay me more' vs. 'thanks for the job, benefits, and pay'So there I was... Making friends and playing nice since 1983 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,118 #79 December 23, 2008 >Hmm, maybe not? You posted an article saying they were seeing a loss. I said that they weren't asking for a bailout and have to meet exactly the same regulations that US car companies do. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #80 December 23, 2008 Quote>Hmm, maybe not? You posted an article saying they were seeing a loss. I said that they weren't asking for a bailout and have to meet exactly the same regulations that US car companies do. and I posted an artcle showing they were hurting too. If the paint stays long enough what would be next? It all starts somewhere. So what your point?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,118 #81 December 23, 2008 >and I posted an artcle showing they were hurting too. So is every company on the planet. Most (including Toyota) will survive. Several (including GM, if you believe them) will fail unless the government gives them billions. Do you see any difference there? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #82 December 23, 2008 Quote>and I posted an artcle showing they were hurting too. So is every company on the planet. Most (including Toyota) will survive. Several (including GM, if you believe them) will fail unless the government gives them billions. Do you see any difference there? From the perspective you present in this post, yes I do see the difference. But the fact remains that overeaching government regulations are as big a part of the cause as anything."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #83 December 23, 2008 I get your drift, but I disagree with it. If you buy nothing from abroad, it is certain that no one can buy anything from you. Shutting down world trade is what made the depression of 80 years ago. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #84 December 23, 2008 QuoteQuote>and I posted an artcle showing they were hurting too. So is every company on the planet. Most (including Toyota) will survive. Several (including GM, if you believe them) will fail unless the government gives them billions. Do you see any difference there? From the perspective you present in this post, yes I do see the difference. But the fact remains that overeaching government regulations are as big a part of the cause as anything. It's sad indeed that companies like yours are no longer allowed to belch unlimited SO2 and toxic mercury into the air, like they used to before government regulations came along. Sad indeed that Angelenos can breathe the air in LA these days, thanks to regulations on NOx and CO emissions. Truly sad that toxic dyes can no longer be used in foodstuffs. Sad that new drugs actually have to be tested for safety before being introduced (unlike Thalidomide). Sad that companies trying to do an "Enron" now have to deal with more stringent accounting procedures, how can those CEOs get rich enough any more.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #85 December 23, 2008 Quote Sad that companies trying to do an "Enron" now have to deal with more stringent accounting procedures, how can those CEOs get rich enough any more. SOX compliance doesn't seem to have really ended the problem, and is a real pain in the ass. It still feels to me like the Patriot Act of accounting: a rushed reaction to a crisis. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #86 December 23, 2008 QuoteI get your drift, but I disagree with it. If you buy nothing from abroad, it is certain that no one can buy anything from you. Shutting down world trade is what made the depression of 80 years ago. It's hard to buy nothing from abroad, when abroad is where strategic minerals like cobalt, tin, nickel, chromium, platinum, diamond, gold, and manganese are found. Without these we'd have no steel (among a host of other things).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #87 December 23, 2008 QuoteQuote Sad that companies trying to do an "Enron" now have to deal with more stringent accounting procedures, how can those CEOs get rich enough any more. SOX compliance doesn't seem to have really ended the problem, and is a real pain in the ass. It still feels to me like the Patriot Act of accounting: a rushed reaction to a crisis. Well, that's generally the case. Labor unions were a legitimate reaction to employer excesses of the 19th and early 20th centuries, but arguably they too have long since reached the point of being a pain in the ass.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,118 #88 December 23, 2008 >SOX compliance doesn't seem to have really ended the problem . . . Agreed, but it is reducing the problem of acid rain and particulate production. Acid rain declined in NY by 20% after the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1990. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #89 December 23, 2008 Quote>SOX compliance doesn't seem to have really ended the problem . . . Agreed, but it is reducing the problem of acid rain and particulate production. Acid rain declined in NY by 20% after the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1990. I'm guessing by "it" you're referring to government regulation, not Sarbanes-Oxley. That act is probably contributing to deforestation, and increasing particulate production (toner). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #90 December 23, 2008 Quote Sad that companies trying to do an "Enron" now have to deal with more stringent accounting procedures, how can those CEOs get rich enough any more. No, but it is sad that the cost of complying with the regulations has reduced the number of IPOs, moved them to foreign stock exchanges, and has made things like mergers and selling the company more attractive to small public companies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #91 December 23, 2008 QuoteQuote Sad that companies trying to do an "Enron" now have to deal with more stringent accounting procedures, how can those CEOs get rich enough any more. No, but it is sad that the cost of complying with the regulations has reduced the number of IPOs, moved them to foreign stock exchanges, and has made things like mergers and selling the company more attractive to small public companies. Our pollution regulations have resulted in much of our manufacturing moving to China, but I'm not going to argue in favor of allowing unlimited air and water pollution in the USA again.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #92 December 23, 2008 Yes sir, I understand what you are saying and agree with you. We need world trade and all but, my big complaint is the lack of 'quality' of the products we get from China. It's absolute crap! They are trying to build a 'super highway' from the West Coast of Mexico through West Texas to connect with the Interstate Hwy. system so more trucks can bring more Chinese crap to giant warehouses to supply Wally-World, the various Dollar Stores and other distributors. The downside of all this is, we'll have to put-up with thousands of trucks rolling through a rather pristine part of West Texas. I can recall a time when, you could buy items from various parts of the world as well as the good ol' U.S. of A. Now, it's all Chinese made. I think, it's good to buy 'quality' U.S. made or 'foreign' made goods but, being inundated with cheap crap, chaps my butt. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,118 #93 December 23, 2008 >I'm guessing by "it" you're referring to government regulation, not Sarbanes-Oxley. Yes, I completely misread that! My bad, and I agree that Sarbanes-Oxley kills a whole lot of trees (the "paperless office" notwithstanding) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites