Hi Bob,

I realize you wished to stop our debate, but I did have to comment on some things below...
>Hi Jim,
>
>>The corporate world, of which "the media" is a part, have done a great job over the last decades to make unions look like greedy job-stealing pigs.
>>Just keep in mind that EVERY union contract required 2 sides to sign the agreement.
>
>Well lets look where the unions are strong,
>Auto (Ford/GM/Chrysler) - Working for them??
>Airline (Pilots, stewards, baggage handlers) - Working for them??
>Government (Teachers, Legislsators, etc) - well kinda working for them, at the taxpayers expense of course.
>
>Two sides, pay us what we demand or we shut you down, equally productive attitude.

I think that's an over-simplification and a result of the barrage of anti-union propaganda by business and the media over many years (says the guy who has never belonged to a union in his life).
Why are Ford's and GM's problems the unions' fault... because that's what the media says! I mentioned before that the CEOs who signed the contracts basically ignored those parts of their contracts that are now costing way too much because it wasn't going to be THEIR (own) problem, but rather some successor's problem. Why is it that the unions get the blame for this. It was incompetence or malfeasance by the signing CEOs. They had a "fudiciary responsibility" to say "NO".

>
>>I heard a former AMC (Nash, Rambler, etc) CEO say that when it came to items like pensioner's medicare and such they never worried about it because that would be a factor only long after they were no longer the CEO!!!
>>
>
>I agree that pensions and other defined benefit plans should not be allowed to be cut, these were paid for by the employees and are contractural obligations.
>
>>
>>Well WalMart has actually benefitted so far, and will continue to do so for a short while yet in terms of growing its customer base (count) BY HAVING JOBS SHIPPED TO CHINA. This left poorer people here who were more or less forced to get what they needed at WalMart because that's all they could now afford!!!
>>
>We live in a global community, that's life.
>Many things ARE more cost efficient to have done overseas. So what, there are still many things the US is better at doing. The US had many competitive advantages in the last century, we were stupid enough to squander many of those.

But, you see, it was ALWAYS more "cost efficient" to have things made in third-world countries. But there were other pressures - mainly the USSR and its brand of Commmunism - that kept corporations here fro doing so to any large extent. Had they done so then the USSR would have been able to point directly to EXPLOITATION, winning popularity in those countries and eroding capitalism's popularity here.
China, especially since the demise of the USSR, developed a way to make the Party members rich while at the same time keeping tightest possible controls on the rst of the populace. It's a "global community" alright. One where every person is falling in living standard to the lowest level. Great for profits. Bad for people. Even the Chinese factory workers, with their 18 hour days 6-7 days a week have a serious problem in this regard. But control keeps the problems hidden.

>
>>
>>Yes, corporations have got themselves set up exactly the way they want themselves to be... enshrined in law.
>>But that doesn't mean the law(s) regarding this are good. Most laws dealing with financial matters (as opposed to criminal matters) are designed ASSUMING MORALS/MORALITY of those to whom the laws apply. Yet the practitioners use the very same law to "justify" immoral and socially harmful activity!!!
>
>Are you suggesting that the Walmart board ignore the law to push their personal agenda? (Enron, Tyco, WorldCom). The law may need to be changed, and that is doable with public support and activism, but while its the law, it should be followed.

All laws should be followed at all times. Period. And yes, the laws that let the WalMarts of the world operate as they do have got to be changed.
Here are 2 simple examples of misapplication of current law:
1) Here (Ontario) the Teacher's Pension objected to the pension's management manking a huge investment in a media company that railed against teachers for years. Their answer... 'We are operating within the law and will keep our investment exactly as it is". Period.
2) A manufacturer is constantly pressured by WalMart to lower costs. So the company starts by extending work hours without additional pay. Then they cut benefits as WM demands more. Then they go to local and state governments to get tax concessions to KEEP THE COMPANY IN TOWN. They continue to reap these concessions as they plan and execute the closing of the factory and moving of the equipment to China.
Both sound legitimate, but both are morally reprehensible. And laws should NOT support reprehensible activities and I'm sure they were not designed to do so.

Protectionism is not the answer. But morals and honesty and concern for society are. But the laws exempt, by implication, corporations from such mundane considerations.


>
>>
>>cheers (yea, right)
>>
>
>Also keep in mind that is is China's buying of our bonds that is keeping our economy afloat and we are paying them in a devaluating currency. Protecionism is not the answer.
>
>Best wishes to you Jim, Although I don't always agree with your point of view, You always have well thought out opinions which I can respect.
>
>Bob