Free Market Busts Taco Bell $1 Billion, But Times Wants More Bureaucrats

Photo of Mark Finkelstein.
  • Bookmark and Share

"The expanding outbreak of E. coli poisonings in New York, New Jersey and several other states underscores the need for more rigorous regulation of the whole supply chain for fresh produce . . . Surely it is time to give government regulators the power and resources they need to ensure the safety of fresh fruits and vegetables." - NY Times editorial, Sickened by Fresh Produce, 12/09/06

"[Taco Bell owner] Yum Brands is feeling the financial fallout on Wall Street, as two analysts downgraded its stock, citing the potential effects of customers' food safety concerns. Shares fell $1.36 to $59.72 on Friday. The stock has fallen 5.6% in the last three sessions." - Taco Bell feels fallout from E. coli outbreak, LA Times, 12/9/06

Two NYC streets, two reactions to the outbreak of E. coli sickenings among people who ate at Taco Bell.  On W. 43rd street, the Gray Lady of the New York Times looks at bad news as an excuse for government to expand its power.  A few miles downtown, Wall Street exacts its own revenge, busting down the stock of Taco Bell's owner, Yum Brands.

Society obviously has an interest in preventing outbreaks of food poisonings. So let's consider which solution, the big-government one proposed by the Times, or the free-market one imposed by Wall Street, is likely to be more effective.

Under the Times' plan, we' have more government regulators overseeing the fresh produce supply chain.  What happens to a bureaucrat who fails to detect a bad batch of lettuce?  Probably nothing amidst all the mutual finger-pointing. At worst maybe a small black mark on someone's record, perhaps followed by a union grievance proceeding to fight it.  And from perspective of producers or restaurant/supermarket chains? Some fines, that can always be appealed.  How much would the fines be?  Several thousand? $100,000? $1 million? $5 million?

In contrast, how has the free market punished Taco Bell and its corporate owner?  You'll note the LA Times story reports the stock has lost 5.6% of its market value in the last three sessions. I checked YUM's market cap.  It's currently $15.83 billion. That means before losing 5.6% it was $16.76 billion.  You might say the free market has imposed a "fine" of . . . $930 million - close to $1 billion.   It's also likely that from quality managers on up some YUM-Taco Bell people will wind up losing their jobs over this.

Some would point to the occurrence of the outbreak despite the predictable market reaction as proof that the free market doesn't work.  The fact is that no system is perfect. The question is, in the long run, what does a better job of focusing the mind of corporate executives - a few more government employees picking through the lettuce, or the prospect of a Wall Street execution in the morning?

Contact Mark at mark@gunhill.net

—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

How much would the fines b

How much would the fines be? Several thousand? $100,000? $1 million? $5 million?

Don't forget to add the multi-million dollar 'fines' that the lawyers will extract from various peoples and companies, irrespective of their involvement in this food fiasco. $5 million? Chickenfeed.

DSG

Well, Mark, the way NY is going, I'm waiting for ...

Well, Mark, the way NY is going, I'm waiting for the government to force hot dog stands to include a vegetable and a vitimin enriched relish spread, because we are too stupid to feed ourselves.

ACA

...

Acaiguana says:  "Ya can't win if ya don't play."

You can't spell "nannyst

You can't spell "nannystate" without the nanny. I have a message from the city of Buffalo to the city of New York. Don't even TRY to bring your transfat banning crap upstate. You can't mess with our chicken wings and expect to live to tell about it!!

"Today we did what we had to do. They counted on America to be passive. They counted wrong."    - Ronald Reagan

"The question is, in the

"The question is, in the long run, what does a better job of focusing the mind of corporate executives - a few more government employees picking through the lettuce, or the prospect of a Wall Street execution in the morning?" 

Not to mention the IMMEDIATE loss of cash-flow, both from the closings and from the slow re-building of customer trust AFTER they re-open the affected restaurants.

There MUST be adequate inspection for most RETAIL outlets. Other than the recent spinach problem, Taco Bell seems to have a corner on the "fast-food" tainted veggies scandals. Maybe THEY need to look at their OWN quality-control. Free market forces work, when vigorously applied. No more "big government" solutions, PLEASE!!! 

My prediction is: that Taco

My prediction is: that Taco Bell is large enough that an NYT-style "solution" not only wouldn't hurt them -- even when they deserve $930 million worth of pain, like this time -- it would likely subtly help big, established players like "Yum Brands," by making it harder for any future Dave Thomas types to start-up competing fast food places. My other prediction is: the NYT won't allow one of us on the free-market side to mention the $930 million "fine" or in any way rebut/debate their editorial's proclamation in favor of bigger government.
JMR

What, precisely, do they want the gov't to fix?

The call for gov't action is based on a firm foundation of ignorance.

Think we should test everything before it's eaten? E.coli tests are slow -- too slow to act on before the food is eaten. The first test takes days to detect a "presumptive positive." That's what we have with the onions now -- not conclusive. It'll take days longer to find out if it's a true positive or false positive. By then, the produce is no longer fresh and you wouldn't serve it anyway.

Prevent contamination at the source? Aside from the ludicrous notion that you could be on-site where each piece of produce or meat is grown in the U.S., and setting aside the stubborn problem that testing wouldn't be useful anyway, remember that a huge portion of our fresh food comes from outside of the U.S.

There's no one at Taco Bell who wants a customer to get sick from eating their food. But, people do sometimes get sick from food. It's not a new issue. Mom always told us to wash our vegetables. And grandma told her. Most food related illness comes from the home kitchen, not fast-food restaurants. Mostly likely, more people will choke to death on their food this year than die from corporatly distributed E.coli.

I've been eating food for a long time. Mostly I'm not sick.

I've been eating food for a long time.  Mostly I'm not sick.

Now, I've gotten sick from drinking food...

ACA

...

Acaiguana says:  "Ya can't win if ya don't play."

I am for a mixed position on

I am for a mixed position on this issue. I don't have a problem with lettting the free market punish Taco Bell but in addition to that I would like to kick some FDA employees out of their jobs and replace them with people who could do a better job at keeping our food supplies safe. A coworker told me the company that sold the contaminated food to Taco Bell is the same company that had the spinach E-Coli outbreak. I have not had time to verify this(At work atm). If this is the case perhaps its time for that company to have another anal probe of its food operations.  

Actually, the FDA is, IMH

Actually, the FDA is, IMHO, a joke. They are a beauracracy like every other alphabet agency and are a waste of money. They approve something (food or drug) and you find out when its too late that it is bad for you.......OOPS. They set up ridiculous guidelines to follow, that have no possible way of working, in the real world. The only reason they exist is to tell us What is good for us and what is not.......even though they have no clue themselves.

I am a chef and deal with fresh food daily, it is not rocket science........IF you treat EVERY food that comes into your restaurant as if it IS contaminated and wash/ treat it, it accordingly you will rarely have this type of problem. In the grand scheme of things there is always a possibility for this to happen regardless of what you may do to prevent it.............How many people have died as opposed to how many people haven't at Taco Bell over the years???? Its a terrible thing but it will always happen when yo are dealing with something that you are putting into your body.

'You lose the debate when you let someone distract you from the original idea of the debate.'

David's exactly-right. And

David's exactly-right. And the reason the FDA will always be a joke (have I mentioned that I think they should be 100%-defunded lately?) is: they don't have any competition, so there's no incentive for FDA bureaucrats to do anything besides keep their jobs. This is the kind of job the NYT loves as much as people like me hate it, because it's a pro-big-government constituency almost by definition so of course they'd naturally want more-bureaucrats just as much as I want 100%-defunding. Any good chef is, like David, deathly-afraid of contaminated food anyway, and he protects his customers because he knows he's out of business if they don't return for any reason. It's likely if the FDA disappeared tomorrow, David's habits would not change substantially, if at all, but I can't speak for him, obviously...
JMR

underscores the need for more

underscores the need for more rigorous regulation of the whole supply chain for fresh produce . . . Surely it is time to give government regulators the power and resources they need to ensure the safety of fresh fruits and vegetables." - NY Times editorial

Let's put this into perspective with the Alan Colmes story posted above...let's change it to: "Border patrol agents" the power and resources.......what? we can't do that? How about photo ids to vote to "ensure the accuracy of votes" what? we can't do that either? but a head of lettuce needs to be looked over? God help us from a carrot, but let's let any illegal alien roam our streets freely.

I heard that more Americans have been murdered by illegal aliens here in America in one year than our soldiers dying in the entire Iraq war!

CitA....that last paragraph s

CitA....that last paragraph should be breaking news for about say a month at least...they flash breaking news on all the channels constantly even though most of the time it is silly or non-important...your facts in you last paragraph are  IMPORTANT!

"Once the coffers of the federal government are opened to the public, there will be no shutting them again." - Grover Cleveland

Seriously, bigtimer,Publicizi

Seriously, bigtimer,

Publicizing that just does not fit in with the MsM's agenda (nor Tumbly's, either)....

I thought you knew that illegal immigrants were all hard working, law abiding (yeah, right, they're here illegally, but they abide by the law....NOT), non-threatening peaceniks.

I hope President Bush pardons those two border patrol officers.  (1) They should never have been prosecuted for doing their jobs; (2) since the PC police apparently got away with the prosecution anyway...they deserve a pardon; and (3) it might give the leftist media a collective stroke.

Hoping, anyway.

B....Shhhh! I do not feel lik

B....Shhhh! I do not feel like dealin' with the 'tumbster' today!

(There have been a couple of other posts I have made today that involved illegal aliens ect...and I was hoping he wasn't around....lol!

"Once the coffers of the federal government are opened to the public, there will be no shutting them again." - Grover Cleveland

The FDA got it's biggest boos

The FDA got it's biggest boost in power in the early 1900's to combat the filth of the meat packing industry. Up to that time the 'free market' did an extremely poor job of ensuring that consumers got quality food.

That's not to say that the FDA, and other governmental agencies, have gotten bogged down in their own massiveness. However, seeing what corporations have done throughout history to ensure and increase profits, I'd rather have the government exercise some oversight.

Well, of course you would, cr

Well, of course you would, crshedd.

Since you're so in love with the government, why do you suppose the FDA inspectors missed the e-coli at the source?

Evidently, the 'Free Market'

Evidently, the 'Free Market' missed it also. So, let's disband the FDA, let these things happen and worry about stock prices later.

I suppose everyone here would rather let corporations put out anything they want with no government oversight.

Maybe the government would have caught the contamination if they had food inspectors at every packing plant everywhere. I do not think that is feasible or cost effective. I'm just saying that I would rather have SOME oversight than to trust corporations to do what WE think is right, not what they think is profitable.

crshedd,Please enlighten me a

crshedd,

Please enlighten me as to how this debacle is "profitable" for Taco Bell?

Loss of market share?  Loss of stock value?  PR value?

Do you seriously think it is not in a corporation's best interest to serve their consumers in the best manner possible?  Do you believe Taco Bell bought inferior product to save a dime?  Or is it just possible, in your liberal world....that STUFF happens?

Furthermore, please explain how government oversight would have prevented e-coli at Taco Bell....or in the spinach food scare of several months ago?

You libs all think big government is the be all and end all.  A panacea for all that ails us.  So you're not "saying" total government control....just SOME oversight.

Care to try to deconflict these opinions of yours?

Losing money is profitable

Losing money is profitable (see Air America!)? (Seriously, I suspect you've activated 'the cloak' -- enjoy the silence!)
JMR

Oh, sarc,Laughing!!!!  Serio

Oh, sarc,

Laughing!!!!  Seriously, laughing really, really hard.

I get to wear the cloak.....thanks.

Sheeeeesh Blonde, don't ya kn

Sheeeeesh Blonde, don't ya know it's really all W's fault!

Can't believe crashed forgot to insert that! He/she is slippin' up!

"Once the coffers of the federal government are opened to the public, there will be no shutting them again." - Grover Cleveland

I think there are many instan

I think there are many instances (think Enron) where corporations are willing to risk exposure for the almighty buck. Liberals don't think 'stuff' happens, conservatives do. Liberals think corporations are much more concerned about the 'bottom line' than they are about laws and regulations. How many Pintos had to blow up before Ford did anything? In 2000, Kraft Foods recalled taco shells that contained StarLink, a type of genetically modified corn that was approved for animal consumption but specifically disapproved for humans.

Conservatives have jumped on this issue because it gives them a chance to slam government. Look at the original question posed earlier, would you rather have government doing oversight on corporations or would you rather wait for 'stuff' to happen and then gleefully report a drop in stock prices?

You ask how government would have prevented two e-coli outbreaks. My thought is there would have been tens, maybe hundreds, more outbreaks if there was NO government oversight. Liberals want government oversight, fools think that corporations will ONLY do the right thing OR that government can catch EVERY incident. But, it is better to catch 90 percent than none at all.

crshedd,Oversight?Most corpor

crshedd,

Oversight?

Most corporations in the U.S. have to hire a legion of lawyers and accountants just to comply with governmental regulations.....which are laid down before they can even open their doors to conduct business on a daily basis.

Damn straight conservatives will jump on this issue to prove a point....where exactly in the Constitution does the federal government have the right to regulate free enterprise to its death?

Why don't you look up the "free market" in Sweden?  How many new corporations have been formed in the last fifty years that lead their economy?  Or perhaps you'd care to make the case for more government regulation a la the EU?  The Euros have overregulated their corporations to the point of extinction.

Oh, and as to government perfection in regulation...can you say Savings & Loan? 

Have I ever said or implied '

Have I ever said or implied 'government perfection in regulation...'?

The Euros may have overregulated their corporations, but the US Dollar keeps sliding against the Euro. That means they have a better economy than ours.

Too many conservatives see things as black or white thus the government is evil, business is good. The market can correct abuses. The government can correct abuses (actually I hope they prevent abuses). There is a role for both yet conservatives don't see that.

If government isn't doing what you think it should do, quit electing and/or re-electing the same old crowd. Elect people who believe the following:

'We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.'

The Constitution does not give corporation any power in this country. The power is given to the people who loan it to the government NOT loan it to corporations.

In this thread, we are looking at the phrase '...promote the general Welfare...' NOT gee, what will this do to the bottom line. It is government's responsibilty, not the corporations.

You need to re-evaluate your

You need to re-evaluate your looking at the Euro.  They do not have a better economy than ours, unless you think that having 9+% unemployment is a better economy.

The high Euro is also hurting economies in Europe.  The Italians in particular are positively screaming over this, because in the old days, they could devalue the lira if times got tough to make their goods cheaper.  Now they no longer have that option and they are increasingly getting priced out of the labor market, meaning more unemployment, meaning a worse economy.

Also, you need to go over the Growth and Stability Pact that regulates the euro.  It limits member nations to budget deficits that are less that 3% of the nation's GDP.  France and Germany routinely break this tenet because to reign in their debt, they need to reign in their Nanny States, and they don't want to do that, because their people are all spoiled, because they thingk government is there to coddle them and babysit them. 

The reason for the dollar's slide is because of continuing trade deficits, the refusal of Americans to save their money (if everyone saved 20% of their paychecks over the next twenty years, the dollar would be so strong it would truly be scary) and the softening of the housing market which has done so much to power the economy these past years.

Conservatives DO in fact see a role for both government and corporations; they just don't agree that government is THE ANSWER as you seem to.  I actually think that corporations can do many, many things better than government.  They can't do it all, but the list of things that government can and should do, by comparison, is very, veyr short.

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy."  -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)

Yeah, he's right, Enron was

Yeah, he's right, Enron was just unbridled free-market capitalism all the way...
JMR

Read it again

You need to read it again, crshedd.  You have such a passionate hatred and fear of corporations but yet such a blind faith in government (and its bureaucracies and politicians who, while they don't chase profit, they DO chase power).  You have yet to figure out that all you need to do, if you hate a particular corporate entity, or don't trust it, that ALL you need to do is to NOT BUY FROM THEM.  And there goes their profits...

Why do you have this fear of corporate entities that are extremely democratic and as fragile as mayflies, but are oh so willing to turn over everything and anything to the State?

It's really quite simple.  Corporations exist because people WANT to buy the products they produce.  If there was no market for them, they would quite quickly go away.  So people vote on them daily by purchasing the products they make.  Additionally, ANYONE can own shares in a corporation, thus owning a part of them, and thus having a say in how they are run. 

If you hate a corporation so damn much, why not stop buying from them?  Why not buy influence in them - you can by purchasing shares in one, and it is quite legal - and change them from within?  (Yes, maybe not one man alone can do this, but you can band together with others to do this, correct?)  Or, why not set up your very own corporation that does things the way you would like to see them get done?

Here you are screaming about how corporations are the ultimate arbiters of evil, yet corporations have a extraordinarily long way to go to match the death toll at the hands of the other entity you blindly trust and want to turn over all of your economic freedom to - government.  The benevolent tyrannies of Europe have so successfully stifled incentive and capitalism in general that those countries are rotting before our eyes.  The more malevolent ones spill much blood in order to accomplish their twisted ends, and for your pleas they could care less.  Whereas corporations merely take money to make go away, governments take another much more precious currency - blood.  And in too many cases in history, they require lots and lots of blood to be removed from the earth.

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy."  -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)

Why do conservatives think go

Why do you have such blind faith in business and a passionate hatred of government?

Why do conservatives think government is so evil? Especially in the United States where you can vote (a real vote, not a monetary one). I don't even come close to the idea that government is the answer to everything. But, what I notice at this site, as well as other conservative sites, is that business is seen as the savior of us all. Sorry, but that is not true. Government is as good as the people who participate in it, as employees and as voters. If government is evil, it is the fault of the voters. If government is too invasive, it is the fault of the voter. If government is not doing it's job, it is the fault of the voter.

Conservatives are more concerned on the 'bottom line' of a corporation than they are about how that bottom line was achieved. This issue is a good example. Don't correct what failure occured that caused this e-coli outbreak, the market will take care of it. Well, it may be that a few people may die, but the market is good.

And, how does one fight the corporation? Taco Bell didn't grow and package the onions (if that is what caused it). So, do you punish Taco Bell or the grower? Who else does the grower supply? Your grocery store? My son's school cafeteria? I don't know and I don't want to wait for my son to get sick so the corporation will correct it's ways AFTER it takes a hit on Wall Street.

Government isn't good or evil. It is what WE make of it.

So tell me crshedd,How do you

So tell me crshedd,

How do you fire a corrupt or incompetent government employee?

What, you say?  They're all members of the union and CANT BE FIRED.

Takes an act of God, or the Governor, to can them.

Hmmmm....why do you think there's distrust of the government? 

I was a high school principal

I was a high school principal for 15 years. I get real sick of people saying you cannot fire a bad teacher. You can. You must document the problem, attempt to correct the problem and if it cannot be corrected, you can fire the employee.

It isn't so much the incompetent employee. It is the rules and regualtions passed by Congress. It is the APPOINTED heads of these departments that sign off on rules and regulations. If the rules and regs are wrong, change them. If the employee is not following the rules and regs, fire them. If the firing is righteous, it will stand.
And if the APPOINTED head of the department isn't doing his/her job, find one who will.

Did you read the link I poste

Did you read the link I posted?

Didn't think so.

It took an act of the Governor (Bush, FYI) to get rid of this incompetent government employee (Supervisor of Elections) who made Broward County, Florida a national laughingstock.

Try again, crshedd.  You're drowning here.

I read your link. It is tota

I read your link. It is totally irrelevent. The link (on wikipedia, I always get slammed for using this) referred to an ELECTED official, not an 'employee'. That is why it took an act of the Govenor (duh) to get rid of her.

Although we like to say that the President is our employee, removing an ELECTED official is so much different from firing an employee who went thru the applicatin process, interview and was hired.

Want me to throw you a life-line?

Did the President go through

Did the President go through an application process, a formal interview, and a hiring? 

Even you have to have the intellectual capacity to see how a political campaign/office MIGHT be different...

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy."  -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)

No, he did not. That is why I

No, he did not. That is why I said removing an ELECTED official is NOT the same as removing a typical employee.

And I do see how a political campaign/office is different. That is why I said your post about removing an ELECTED official was IRRELEVENT to the argument.

Maybe you have the intellectual capacity to follow what you post.?

Wow, maybe I could have used

Wow, maybe I could have used your clearly superior intellectual capacity to help me fire a very unelected and very incompetent government employee some years ago...(eventually even the union decided that fighting for that individual was just damaging to their credibility, and THAT was a decision that had me believing in divine intervention)

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy."  -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)

A HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPAL!!! 

A HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPAL!!!  Boy, do I have special contempt for publicly funded educators...

No wonder your understanding of the private sector and economics is so poor!  You have been cut off from it for too long!

The fact of the matter is that bad teachers cannot be fired easily.  They should be as accountable as people are in the private sector (if I wasn't productive enough in the warehouse I worked at?  Bye-bye, no questions asked) but yet they are not.  I have run into plenty of them as a customer and it is quite sad when there were occasions where I could out-spell English teachers as a student. 

I have got plenty to say about the school system but would it ever crash the server. 

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy."  -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)

They should be as accountable

They should be as accountable as people are in the private sector

yeh, too bad they dont have faux news to lie for them...they might keep their job for 8 years! How do we make bush accountable??

"No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we all are accomplices."

E. Murrow

Yawn.  Another intellectuall

Yawn.  Another intellectually vapid post.  Can you tell me what happens on 20 January 2009?

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy."  -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)

I'm glad you were self taught

I'm glad you were self taught since kindergarten. You are so amazing.
I don't have any figures, but I would guess AT LEAST 80 percent of Americans were educated in pulic schools. That must make EVERY graduate a mistake. One reason I left education was I was tired of parents who were willing to spend $30,000 a year for a prisoner but bitched about spending $8,000 a year to educate their child.

You are right, there are bad teachers. There are bad principals. There are bad people in every profession. Want better teachers? Pay them better. Simple. That is the reason Congress gets paid $165,000 a year. Congress said if they wanted to attract better candidates away from private enterprise, we had to pay them more.

I didn't say bad teachers could be fired easily. I said it takes time, it takes great effort on the part of the principal. That is because of the laws, rules and regulations. But, it can be done. I've done it. I have not renewed contracts of probationary teachers, and I've fired tenured teachers.

I have owned my own business, a very, very small retail store, for over 10 years now. I understand.

And if a business terminates for no reason whatsoever, wrongful termination can be charged. But, you are right. It is so much easier to terminate in the private sector.

In my experience people bitch

In my experience people bitch about both.  And just like a typical educator (or a former one anyway), you think that only teachers can teach students.  No teacher taught me how to read and write.  The schools failed me; I had teachers more wrapped around the axle about how I held a pencil rather than how well I could add and subtract.  That's just one example.  Shall I go on? 

I had a handful of awesome teachers, plenty of bad ones, and the majority were mediocre ones who, like you, demanded to be treated like multi-millionaires because they were THE ONLY ONES who could teach.  Oh, how did humanity ever get by without public schooling?

And keep demonstrating your horrific understanding of economics.  My god, why is it that it is ONLY in the education industry where if things suck, you pay them more and they get magically better?  No, what you do is pay teacher WH HAVE EARNED THE PRIVILEGE more money.  Why should another dime of mine go to a failure?  (Oh, I forgot, socialists love to subsidize and coddle failure.  And you ARE a socialist, make no mistake.  Only socialists would get as wrapped around what people make as you do.  Congressional pay doesn't anger you so much as the disturbing fact that there ARE people who make more than you for any reason.  That fact positively enrages you and you look at government as a way to "get even". )

If just pouring more money in the schools solves everything, then why aren't the DC schools cranking out Shakespeares, Mozarts, Barnaards and Bethes every single spring?  I say we do the opposite: remove some (not all) money from the schools and tell them to make do with what they got, until they earn more money.  You know, like the rest of us in the Real World. 

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy."  -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)

Don't try to simplify the edu

Don't try to simplify the education budget to just pouring more money into it. I never said to throw money at education. I said teacher pay sucks. Higher pay will draw better applicants.

If a first year teacher were to make more than $25,735 (national average http://www.nsea.org/...) we would probably attract better people. The national average for all teachers (first year to 25 years experience) is $41,575, same site referal.

If America undervalues the job, we will never get quality educators. We spend over $30,000 a year to send someone to prison, but make teachers buy their own classroom supplies. A press operator can make $49k per year (national average http://swz.salary.co...) And he doesn't have to buy his own press!!!!!!!

Did you notice the Congress extended the teacher deduction for teachers who have to buy classroom supplies just the other day? They make crap for a salary and they have to buy their own supplies. More money? No, I'm sure everyone has to buy their own supplies to do their job.

Congress makes more than I do? I don't think so.

We spend over $30,000 a ye

We spend over $30,000 a year to send someone to prison,

Then why not spend $8000 a year instead?

Proud member of the all-powerful and vast
militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex

Courts and prisons

Jack - We both know.  The f#!*&?g court system!!!

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy."  -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)

unsane -- it's just this l

unsane -- it's just this line off specious reasoning that...

"well we only pay this person $X amount, but spend $Y amount on keeping someone in jail...."

It's a such a bogus argument.

There's no correlation between the two. So you might as well say, then not why spend less on sending someone to prison. Makes as much sense.

Proud member of the all-powerful and vast
militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex

So, jumping in here, good to see an educator at NB.

So, jumping in here, good to see an educator at NB.

What I am getting from your posts is that you think the Public School system is broken.  And teachers should be paid more.

But, I think your comparing teachers salaries to what it costs to incarcerate a prisoner (I dunno which state you mean, but it sounds like California) is pretty much a Dead on Arrival Issue.  I can't see the point.  I mean you are comparing the cost per student put out with the cost per prisoner.  Two different worlds and two different thingies.  (Sorry, I've got a Public Education).

Now, if you were to say for example, gee, why don't we issue a voucher to each student for the $8,000 (I think you mentioned $8K but if I'm wrong adjust in your mind) each that you assert the State is spending.  Let's see...

25 students in each classroom (I'm goofing off here) times $8K is $200K per classroom.  If a teacher has an average of 25 students in their class and we pay them more than $26K (rounded) that leaves...

um...

hummmm...

$175K left over.

Gee.

OK, so let's pay them $35K?  Would you like that?

Now, we've lost $10K of the $175K so we're left with $165K.

If we have 1,000 students in the school, that would be, ...um...

Thinking here...

um...

$8 million per school.

I'm letting students get $8K a year here.

Lets see...

40 teachers.  $1.4 Million in salaries.  That leaves...

$6.6 million lying around in a closet somewhere.

How much more money did you want?

Any clue would help this poorly educated idiot along here.

Thanks in advance.

ACA

...

Acaiguana says:  "Ya can't win if ya don't play."

More on teachers

Oh, indeed, I shall oversimplify the education budget even further.  It's dumping money into a black hole, if you ask me.  The schools can be so much better but teachers are 100% unwilling to put in the needed effort, and blame everyone else for their failings.  (I have an entire page of that whining in my high school yearbook, of all places, where the teachers whine and whine about how lazy students are and how bad parents are, while they never once consider their shortcomings; like studying for 30+ credit hours on how to teach a kid instead of WHAT to teach.)

And again your argument is "teachers need more money just for showing up!" No, teachers need more pay if they (gasp!) deserve it.  Most teachers today do  not.  They instead blame everyone around them for their problems, and the instant they come in for criticism of their own, they start to positively SCREAM about how indispensable they are, how they aren't loved/paid/respected enough, etc.  I'll run these ideas by you:

1) We pay more to teachers who earn their privilege like the rest of us in the Real World and also throw in incentives for teachers in subject areas with chronic shortages.

2) Open the classroom to part-timers.  Why not have an engineer, a chemist, an accountant, or people from other professions pick up some extra cash, all the while teaching a class or two of students about their subject, infusing the students for the enthusiasm for their subject and inculcating them with real-world experiences? 

I can go on all day on education.  I'll have to save that for a forum post one day, if NB would be willing to oblige.

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy."  -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)

On bureaucracy

I have direct experience with that.  Corporations can fire the incompetent quite easily, for the most part.  I had no such luck when dealing with incompetent government employees.  Though crshedd is generally right when saying government isn't good or bad, it's what we make it, he clearly hasn't looked too hard at the bureaucracy lately.  Also, notice he continues to blindly say that corporations are evil for looking at the bottom line.  Well, I constantly am watching my bottom line, as I am the president, CEO, COO, treasurer, and sole employee of Unsane Inc.  Does THAT make me evil?

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy."  -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)

Evil, Unsane.  Why don't you

Evil, Unsane.  Why don't you have a nanny watching out for your bottom line?  A big governmental boondoggle bureacracy watching out for your interests?  Oh, yeah, right....that self reliance thingy you always have going on.

I'm done w/this troll.

Realism

Actually, crshedd, you would be wrong about me.  I am a realist.  Do you know what that entails?  That I accept that both government and corporations are flawed - because both are (gasp!) creatures of humanity.

That being said, countries where the government runs as much as possible don't seem to be doing too well.  Even in representative democracies such as ours, bureaucracies form that are after the growing and perpetuation of power - something that does not seem to bother you all that much.  What can possibly be wrong with government doing as little as possible (roads, mail, a pathway to getting educated [though the private sector does this equally as well, if not better], national defense, and law enforcement, just to name a few)? 

It is sad to see you interpret what I said as bling faith in corporations.  If you notice, I included remedies to what corporations can do.  It amazes me how many people bitch and moan endlessly about how evil corporations are, yet cannot figure out that if you want them gone, all you need to do is to not go there and be their customer.  No one put a gun at my head (as you and other anti-corporation types seem to believe) and sent me to MickeyDs, Starbucks, Wal-Mart and other corporations.  If I seriously hate ExxonMobil, I can always plunk down a few grand on a well-built bicycle and use that for my transportation needs so that they can make a smaller profit.  In fact, when gas prices got too high for my taste in some places I have lived, I decided to augment my travel with a bicycle.  The corporation that made the bicycle got the profit; I cut off the oil corporations a little bit more by massively stretching my tank of gas.  I would wager that the action I took there is infinitely more than the people who just want to sit around and bitch about it (or worse, demand the government commit robbery to "get even"). 

Indeed, corporations can be every bit as corrupt, but just as you have a ballot at the polls for government, you have votes in your pocket called money.  It is too bad you don't see that.  Perhaps you WANT to feel powerless and helpless?

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy."  -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)

I too have voted with my wall

I too have voted with my wallet. I was, and still am, really pissed at the $400 million retirement package ExxonMobil gave it's CEO. I was a Mobil card holder since 1974. I cut up my card and mailed it back to them. I have not even purchased a candy bar at their convience stores since.

Yet, I do not think that government is going to solve all the problems. But, there are things that government should do. The problem isn't that they do them, the problem is they don't do it well. Why? Well, look who makes the laws. Look who keeps re-electing those idiots who make the laws. Instead of dissing government, I argue that we need a new, yet old, type of politician, a citizen representative. Vote for people who will look at the role of each division of government and make it work.

And I applaud that you reacte

And I applaud that you reacted that way; it was the proper response.  Although I personally think that Mr. Raymond was in fact worth $400 million, for the simple reason that someone, or a group of shareholders, believed he was in fact worth that much and paid him accordingly.  Nor is it my business, or yours, or anyone elses, to determine how valuable someone is or how much they are worth. 

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy."  -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)

I would argue it is everyone'

I would argue it is everyone's business. They didn't take that $400 million out of their own pockets. Consumers are paying for it. They did not dip into their profits to pay for it.

Besides, the average American will make about $1.5 million dollars in their LIFETIME. The average male survives 12 years after retirement. So, Raymond got 300+ lifetimes worth of incom to spend in 12 years.

crshedd: government-led theft is a GREAT thing!!!

Wrong, socialist!!!  IT IS NOT YOUR BUSINESS OR MINE. 

Or do you believe that the government is there to steal from people you do not like? 

Perhaps instead of plotting how to steal from Mr. Raymond, or working to get the government to do what you are too cowardly to do to Mr. Raymond at gunpoint, perhaps you ought to put your energies to trying to better yourself and your situation. 

And do try to further educate yourself in economics.  Where do those profits come from?  The consumer.  If you don't want to contribute to Mr. Raymond's retirement package, simply stay away from ExxonMobil products. 

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy."  -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)

It is my business. If they wa

It is my business. If they want me to pay for that retirement package, it is my business. They want me to pay, I don't want to, so I don't.

And as far as my bettering myself and my situation, I am quite comfortable. I own my own business. I have 4 college degrees (2 advanced degrees). I have a father who made a bundle. I have a wife with 5 college degrees (3 advanced) and now working on a 6th. I have a son who is a corporate attorney and another son who is starting his first advanced degree (master's of business administration).

I live in a small town in the North East. I have been elected to the Citzen's Advisory Board and also the town's Budget Committee.

Thank you for asking.
PS-I have been a registered Republican since 1980.

Well, keep doing what you are

Well, keep doing what you are doing and be happy!  As for me, it isn't my business, just as it isn't my business what you make. 

I used to have the same argument with people angry at Alex Rodriguez getting $252 million over ten years to hit a ball out of a park.  They looked at me with overwhelming anger when I looked at them with a straight face and said that it wasn't my business, and that he was in fact worth that much.  Then typically they would explode with rage, saying that "no one is worth that much, blah blah blah".  To which I said..."he has to be worth that much.  Someone is writing his check and thought he was worth that much".

The same at ExxonMobil.  If they think he is worth that much, I have no room to argue.  If I am insensed as you are, I guess I could stop buying from them.  But since I have determined it really is none of my business, I'll keep buying from them.  I think I'll buy from them to fill up my truck tonight, in fact.  They think he's worth that much, they pay him that much...I have no moral authority to whine or complain about it, since it isn't my money, so I won't. 

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy."  -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)

But, it IS your money. They d

But, it IS your money. They didn't pay for his retirement package with profits. They passed that cost on to you. Therefore, you are paying for it weather you like it or not. You do have moral authority to complain about it. I chose not to buy from them because it is my money and I don't think anyone is worth that much--even if the stockholders think he is, doesn't mean they are right.

Now, if they think that he is worth that much they should take it from the billions in profit that they make. I would be less angry (some of those billions was out of my pocket) but at least they would be putting their 'hard earned' money into it.

They passed that cost on to

They passed that cost on to you.

You mean, like they do with taxes?

And if you don't own Exxon stock, or buy Exxon products, why exactly do you have ANY "moral" authority to compain about what Exxon pays anyone?

What does it have to do with you, as you have nothing to do with Exxon.

Proud member of the all-powerful and vast
militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex

They passed that cost on to

They passed that cost on to you.

You mean, like they do with taxes?

Yeah, but the new Congress and House will fix all that by charging a windfall profits tax to those dirty capitalist pigs at Exxon-Mobil. That will really save us.

Not.

DSG

Oooooo. "Profits.&quot

Oooooo. "Profits."

The dirty word to socialistards everywhere.

Profits which go to stockholders as dividends. I wonder who these mysterious "stockholders" are?

Maybe they're "unions" who've invested their funds for their members. Or mutual funds, 401ks, pension schemes. Or just l'il old you and me.

Proud member of the all-powerful and vast
militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex

The oil companies are making

The oil companies are making record profits-billions not millions. And the old Congress gives them billions in tax breaks. I'm not a big fan of welfare, but we shouldn't give corporations welfare when they are already making billions in profits. Not sound fiscal policy.

Macroeconomics 2301

crshedd - It stopped being my money once I swiped my card and the reader on the pump showed me how much I paid for the product I dispensed into my vehicle.  I paid them for their product and it then became theirs to do what they want with it.  If it means paying a CEO $400 million, I have no room to complain about it, nor will I, unless I am an irate ExxonMobil shareholder.  And there didn't seem to be too many of them.  And there shouldn't have been; Mr. Raymond took a moribund corporation and made them extremely profitable; and radically increased the value of the stock over a decade. 

Again, if I really didn't like what they did with my money, I won't f&#!ing go buy gasoline or anything else from ExxonMobil.  The end. 

And again, for all of that education you have, your understanding of economics is abysmal.  Their profits come from US, the consumer.  You cannot divorce the two as you so badly want to do.  Therefore, Mr. Raymond was paid for out of the profits of the corporation, which comes from us, the consumer.  It really can't be all that hard to grasp...

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy."  -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)

He's one of those "hat

He's one of those "hate capitalism" Republicans.

Funny, I only ever meet those posting on conservative blogs.

Proud member of the all-powerful and vast
militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex

Funny how crshedd wrote that

Funny how crshedd wrote that to burnish his credentials.  We don't register for parties here in TX.  Nor would I if the option were made available.  I will stick to my political principles instead, and that includes strict economic/fiscal conservatism.

Time to watch the Shuttle...will it launch?

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy."  -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)

Principles never let you do

Principles never let you down. Unlike politicians.

Safe flight Space Shuttle, But please, let's stop orbiting and restart exploring.

Proud member of the all-powerful and vast
militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex

On the shuttle

Indeed.  As I am very fond of saying: "Great.  I know jello can do weird things in zero-g.  Let's go to Mars!"

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy."  -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)

Let's go to Mars!"Well

Let's go to Mars!"

Well yes. You can be sure that China is planning to go. Using technology acquired by foul means or fair from the US and Japan and Europe.

Proud member of the all-powerful and vast
militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex

That's great that Texas has o

That's great that Texas has open primaries, not all states do. And most of them you can still register as a specific party and change on primary day.

I wrote that, not to burnish my credentials, but to reply to another post. Amazing how when someone disagrees with conservatives on this site, you accuse him of lying. Your political beliefs seem to be that you either agree with me or you are a moron. There are other views in all political discussion. You will find I will agree sometimes, disagree sometimes, play devil's advocate sometimes. I will never be in lockstep with anyone. I am well educated and have learned to think for myself.
The biggest thing I have found is that when I disagree with this site, I get called names, a liar, and all sorts of mean nasty things. I seldom get rational argument backed with facts. Most of your arguments have been rational tonite, unsane, and I thank you for those.

Well, my apologies then.  It

Well, my apologies then.  It seemed to me that you were.  But my point remains on parties: I won't register for one even if the offer was made, though I have voted in Republican primaries in the past (according to TX law I will be a Republican until 31 December for having voted in this year's primary; one I had to take part in to back Gov. Perry). 

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy."  -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)

Who said Exxon paid this guy

Who said Exxon paid this guy money that didn't come from profits? Why would a company pay $400 million that they don't have, just so they can turn around and raise prices on their customers. If Joe Schmoe gas station down the street has cheaper prices than Exxon stations, than you better believe I'm going down the street to save a few bucks, and I wouldn't be alone. Why would Exxon shoot themselves in the foot like that? Your arguement doesn't make sense.

"Today we did what we had to do. They counted on America to be passive. They counted wrong."    - Ronald Reagan

What about the $400 million

What about the $400 million + Steven Spielberg made from E.T. alone. Does that piss you off.

How about the $1 billion Barbra Streisand has made. Does that piss you off?

How about the couple of billion Paul McCartney's made. Does that piss you off.

Proud member of the all-powerful and vast
militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex

I know you will spin this.

I know you will spin this.

Those examples don't piss me off as much because I made a choice to give Spielberg money. I never gave Streisand money. I chose to give McCartney money. I didn't choose to give extra money to Raymond. I chose to buy his product and he was well compensated for that. He made over $350 million in his 17 years with Mobil. But the $400 million retirement package is too much. That's more than the earned in 17 years! I did not choose to give him that, somebody decided for me. Therefore, I do not spend money for that product anymore.

You always had a choice of ga

You always had a choice of gas stations and petroleum products for YEARS.  And you still do. 

And once again, as you do not own any part of ExxonMobil, you have no right to say anything about any compensation packages, or anything that happens in the corporation.  If you want that power I suggest you buy stock in the corporation and thus get voting rights in running the corporation by way of owning a portion of it. 

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy."  -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)

Had it, sold it. Made money b

Had it, sold it. Made money but lost the vote.

I know you will spin this.N

I know you will spin this.

Not at all. To be honest I find your whole line of reasoning to be bit tedious and sophomoric.

Do I feel a tinge of jealously to hear of some bozo who earns $400 million. Absolutely.

Would I like to earn even 10% of that. Absolutely.

Do I begrudge him. Not at all.

It's not a zero sum game in that the more he earns the less I (or anyone else) earns.

In fact, the government takes/makes more from every gallon of gas than do the oil companies. And the US taxes are a fraction the European countries.

Proud member of the all-powerful and vast
militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex

crshedd,You are just thrashin

crshedd,

You are just thrashing around here.

The euro economy is better than ours?   Prove it.  Why don't you start with unemployment?  You must actually believe the MsM to even try to get away with a statement that stupid.

I never said I hated government.  But I believe that government has hugely overstepped its functions.....particularly when the liberal nanny staters have anything to do with it.  Why don't you go buy a copy of Milton & Rose Friedman's book, Free to Choose....then get back to me with the "proper" function of government.

Your statement "It is what WE make of it" is what is so disturbing....you want to make it the Nanny State.  I want the government to do ONLY those things which private citizens and enterprises cannot do for themselves...along the lines of provide for the national defense, homeland security, national infrastructure, etc.

Try again, crshedd...to deconflict those emotional reasons for big government.  If you can.

I'll start with the value of

I'll start with the value of the Euro v the Dollar.
http://www.economist...
'The dollar has lost a total of 35% against the euro since early 2002...'. The value of a nations currency is a better comparison of an economy than unemployment. Sorry, it just is.

I want the government to do ONLY those things which... also. Yet, I don't trust corporations to police themselves. Someone said something the other day that is very appropriate...'it would be like asking an arsonist to help put out the fire'.

I love The Economist but am r

I love The Economist but am routinely stunned that they cannot see the straitjacket the Euro is to economic growth, and the fact is that demographic decline and continued unemployment that creates a new class of people for governments to coddle and babysit (and thus adding new clients to their Nanny State).  Italy is getting a nasty surprise because the Euro is pricing their labor and goods out of the world market; it is hurting Airbus, among others, and creating other peculiar problems.  Sorry, it just is. 

The dollar's slide is simple to put an end to:

1) pay down the national debt, even a little (But you want an American Nanny State.  Fat chance of that, huh?)

2) Diversification of energy sources.  If we could tap into out oil shale, coal sources (to be processed into liquid fuel), and rely increasingly on nuclear energy (whoops!  You don't like that, either, never mind that the technology is getting safer all the time and France gets 75% of their juice from nukes!), we could be essentially be self-sufficient in energy.  That will mean less dollar outflows to other economies.

3) Increase the savings rate.  If the American consumer decided to save 20% of their paychecks on a consistent basis, that might make people more self-reliant, and a little better off.  And again, it would cut down on dollar outflows to other economies...

4) American business, if they wish to sell domestically made goods, should perhaps make their products COMPETITIVE and or high quality for less cost.  Toyota is clearly making a better car and Americans are voting with their wallets. 

Again, corporations, being creatures of humanity, are imperfect, but we ALL have oversight over them.   Unless they are monopolies, people can merely stop shopping and buying from them.  Government, whether you want to admit it or not, have bureaucracies whose only interest is in perpetuating and adding to their power.  Even representatives are loath to do anything to them because of the SCREAMING and crying that the bureaucrats and people like you (and people ill-informed by a biased media, as in the Social Security fight) participate in to force the Reps to cave, even if the reforms are needed and absolutely necessary.

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy."  -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)

1) We WERE paying down the Na

1) We WERE paying down the National Debt prior to GW Bush.
2) Diversification of energy sources would be good. But, we should look at DIFFERENT sources, not different locations.
3) Increase the savings rate. Good idea. Let me put money into a savings account that pays less than 3% and then pay 25% of it in taxes.
4) American corporations should make BETTER products and quit having the government protect them. It would cost jobs in the short run but will make for a stronger America in the long run. I would go further and say if an American corporation makes products overseas, it is no longer an American corporation and should be liable to the same fees and restrictions we apply to any other overseas corporation.

We can't really stop buying from a corporation. Can you name ALL the companies that Yum owns? About all the other corporations? As I stated, I quit Mobil, but I'm sure I buy from some other ExxonMobil entity dba some other name. If we quit buying from a corporation we don't like, eventually we won't buy from any. For example, the grower that MAY have sold Taco Bell bad onions. Do we know if they are owned by a bigger company? Could that company also own something like Toys R Us? We would be spending all our time researching ownership instead of this delightful exercise of disagreement.

1) Have I ever defended the f

1) Have I ever defended the fiscal policies of the Republicans and this administration?  Although I WILL say this: at least he knows what the Laffer Curve is.  Revenues did increase, but no one did a damn thing to decrease spending.  I hang that on BOTH parties.  And depending on who you talk to, we weren't actually paying down the debt.  (And if Mr. Greatthings had his way in 1994, the debt would be trillions more than it is now.  The 1994 election put an end to that bit of silliness...for awhile, anyways).

2) Yes, and that is why I noted nuclear energy.  Wind doesn't convince me of anything; my visit to the Kamoa Wind Farm taught me a lot.  Also, turning coal into a liquid fuel is a diversified source, as is using clean buring natural gas which we have in abundance at Prudhoe Bay (currently only the method of transport is being debated). 

3) Well, that is why I voted for Steve Forbes in 1996.  He wanted to completely eliminate capital gains taxes that punish you and me for making money off of interest and mutual funds.  Because, contrary to popular opinion, a lot more people pay capital gains than you think: if it is not a wage, salary or tip, it is a capital gain.  (But I thought that socialists like you actually LIKED punishing people for trying to get ahead.  A contradiction, perhaps?)  Nonetheless, if the economists are to be believed, if Americans increase their savings rate, the dollar will be stronger (the reason why the Yen has gone from something like 250 yen per dollar in 1980 to around 105-110 when I was in Japan over the summer). 

4) So apparently you like protectionism too?  Well, I would too, but I'm sure the Japanese government would enact policies that shut down their car factories here in the United States.  The EU would likewise enact such punitive measures that would throw people in South Carolina out of work since BMWs are made there, and would sink the economy of Mobile, AL since Airbuses will be built there (I hope, they are in a world of hurt right now).  Oh, and I also suppose you LIKE paying $130 for a pair of Dockers made by U.S. union labor instead of $30 for the same pair made soemwhere else? 

Yum, last I checked, owns Pizza Hut, and KFC, and Taco Bell...firms I have not patronized in over a year and a half.  And indeed, if you don't like corporations that you buy from...you can START one of your own and have it follow the principles you set forward.  From what I have seen of Starbucks, many Leftists should LOVE that corporation on the basis of its corporate principles, but nonetheless, it is a big fat target for Leftists everywhere. 

Yes, indeed, you CAN research who owns what.  If my 2007 almanac were closer, I could name off other brands and corporations that won them.  You have a bit more power over them than you realize.  And then there is the Internet...why not start...a CORPORATION...that has all of this research done for the discriminating shopper so that they can make better informed decisions?  :-)

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy."  -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)

Google Yum and go to google f

Google Yum and go to google financial. Then start going to related companies. Best I can tell Buca, Inc is owned somewhere by Yum or another related entity. Buca has 68 restraunts in 25 states. You get the idea. Corporate ownership is so hidden and hard to find that you will still be contributing to the parent company without knowing it.

1) Nope. I was just pointing out that paying down the debt, whoever did it, was happening until GW.
2)I was very impressed with the wind farm in Mojave, Ca. But, the sheer size is probably not something we can rely heavily on. Liquified coal is good, but limited. Same with Natural Gas. Gets us away from oil, but is not sustainable. Nuclear is getting safer, but I still don't want to live downwind from one yet.
3) We agree here. I too voted for Forbes. Like the idea of a flat tax. But, I'd like to see NO deductions. A major minority on that one.
4) Can't see Japan closing American factories. They provide jobs in local economies. I would restrict Japanese imports, but not Japanese cars built domestically. That would most likely encourage more companies to build factories in the US.
I don't like paying the $40-50 I spend on Docker's that I do now. But, American workers need to learn that getting a job in a factory doesn't mean you should make $25-40 dollars an hour for meanial work. American's need to become realistic about income. I don't think we should pay anyone in this country say $10 a day, but $25 an hour to install a windshield is a bit high.

So, yes, I am into some protectionism. I would go further and pull almost ALL troops from ALL countries. Then I would sit down with each country (after they see what we do for their economy) and re-negotiate our needs and see if their needs match ours. Maybe we would see a different attitude toward us. It wouldn't be any worse than it is now.

Most on this site think I'm a liberal. I'm not. I just have different priorities. I think the Constitution was written to protect the individual, not the majority or corporations. We give billions in tax breaks to oil and they make billions in profits each quarter year. I would give billions in breaks to the poor and middle class. They would spend that money on products and services, not stocks. I may benefit from high stock prices when I retire, but if my customers had an extra $200 per month I would make a killing. I would buy more product which would mean more jobs and higher profits. I would open another store which means more jobs, more money spent on the local economy, which would lead to more money spent in my store and to my distributors. Gush up, not trickle down.

Simplistic, yes. Workable, yes. Likely, no. This kind of thinking means that Raymond would have to get $200 million in retirement and the Raymonds of the US would never stand for it.

I don't particularly think you are a Liberal.

I don't particularly think you are a Liberal.

I just wish you'd read an economics text someday.

Also, you make assertions that have no basis in fact.  For example, we were paying down the debt before Bush.  This is a canard.  You need to look up the figures on the national debt.  Or if you get bored looking at rows of numbers you could read an article that discusses these realities without political malace attached.

Your idea that the extra $200 in you customer's pockets should come from price controls (which a 'windfall tax really is) and from the corporate profit margin doesn't say much for your understanding of our government's ability to suck up every free slack penny left lying about.

If you don't think this is true, explain why the Democrat Party wants to put Walmart on the Union Dole and cause a raise in prices charged to those very people you wish had an extra $200 a month.

GWB gave people cash when he took office and he reduced taxes appropriately for the cost of education to parents, effectively putting about $200 a month in every parent's pocket.  Of course, the Democrats want to 'repeal the tax cuts' for the rich.  I assume this was one of those tax breaks they will repeal.

The role of a corporation isn't very glamorous.  Corporations are cold pieces of paper in reality.  Their actual function is to spread the ownership of their assets among people when they are Publicly held.  They also sorta kinda have to meet some consumer demand out there.

If the cost of complying with mounds of government regulation were done away with (perish the thought) then we'd see a reduction in prices again.  But since most of the paperwork required by the government is never even seen by a bureaucrat, unless they want to harass the corporation industry to death, most of it is useless feel good exercise of government power.

The United States has cleaned up tremendously its waste management, its safety and its health environs for workers, and its financial transparency for corporations.  No other country really has our track record.

Of course it probably will never be enough for some and too much for others, but I'd stand on the record as saying we have a pretty good work environment for most people.

Why don't you try to learn something about economics before you discuss the Euro and international finance and the national debt and tax policy and well...

just stuff.

ACA

...

Acaiguana says:  "Ya can't win if ya don't play."

Your views on protectionism,

Your views on protectionism, with my being an economical/fiscal conservative, is downright frightening.  I like paying next to nothing for basics such as food and clothing (relative to other countries).  What Americans need to do is to figure out not how Japan has some sort of evil, conniving advantage, but why people in this country and elsewhere don't want American manufactured vehicles anymore.  People around the world still want our airplanes, ask Boeing about that.  They are doing something right to remain the dominant force in aerospace around the world.  Why can't other industries take the same attitude?

Unions do nothing more than price the American worker out of the labor market and thus lead to the downfall of U.S. industry.  The experiences I have had with unions, just by witnessing assorted events here in town, do not endear them to me by a long shot.

I would never dream of pulling troops from all countries, but that is because I like the idea of a United States military projecting our power around the world and defending our allies.  Did you know for instance that Japan picks up the tab for all of the base infrastructure for our facilities there?  Paying for our forces in South Korea is a small investment that we may unfortunately need someday, knowing how the government in North Korea is.  If we pull our troops from anyplace, I say continental Europe: if they want to be the whining ingrates towards us that they are about OUR doing the heavy lifting, they can do it on their own.  Poland and Romania will wlecome us with open arms; they already have to some extent. 

Power projection and the concept of peace through strength are ideas I appreciate.  But then, once I was an AF officer and may enter the Reserves quite soon.

I have a better tax solution for you.  It seems that to you, taxation is not a way to raise money for government: it is a way to punish those you hate for the sole offense of being more profitable and successful than you.  Give more money to the poor and middle class?  And you wonder why I call you a socialist.  As a reader of The Economist, you should know that the top 40% of income-earners pay 99.94% of ALL taxes the federal government collects.  So your solution?  Soak them more and subsidize people who didn't earn it EVEN MORE?  Steal even more from the successful?  Gee, crshedd, why not exterminate every American who dares to make more than per capita income and evenly redistribute their money among the masses?  Does that idea appeal to you?

As for your continuing to rant against oil companies, it seems you have a real problem with them.  Would it make you feel better if we simply nationalized them and proceeded to liquidate the shareholders and their property? 

ACA makes a great point.  All corporations are there to do is to allow people to pool their resources and apply the principle of "economies of scale".  ExxonMobil can afford to do some things more cheaply due to its size.  Publically held corporations can do some things that a hundred different "mom and pop" shops cannot do, due to size, purchasing power, and other factors.  The Constitution may not protect corporations: but who do you think controls them?  Why, PEOPLE, who are protected by the Constitution. 

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy."  -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)

On currency markets

Upon further review, I must take you to task on your currency claim as an indicator as to the health of a nations economy.

In reality, they behave more like stocks than anything else.  There is a point where the currency's worth is determined by the value of the economy, beyond which it is all speculation, emotion, and a bit of gambling.  This is much the way stocks operate.  Would you have told me that in 1999 the dot-coms were much healthier companies than their brick-and-mortar counterparts?  I'm sure you would have, even though at that time I thought investing in companies that only showed potential, not profit, was folly. 

The currency markets work the same way.  I am still not sold on the Euro just on the basis of the fundamentals.  It is only a matter of time until those chickens come home to roost, and when they do, you'll be better off in the dollar, or even an Asian currency.

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy."  -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)