Does anybody else find it disturbing....

[JEC]

Originally posted by epeemike81
so, because the US is paying to invade iraq, we should get to reap the rewards??? ah, imperialism at its best. So much for "helping the iraqi people".

Mike,
My taxes and yours are going to pay for the "RECONSTRUCTION" of Iraq. At the very least, I expect that companies from the countries who had the guts to carry the cost of the war are going to have a better chance of getting those contracts.

and, please enlight me with the facts about the UN budget ... how is appropriate share being calculated? by the numbers of votes in the security council? number of countries? or perhaps, GDP? How much of that cost the US has paid over the past 50 years? [Conflict of Interest disclosure: My brother works at an agency of the UN in Geneva]

I will not reply for 10 days. Have to keep the tourist industry alive! (Hawaii!!!)

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by JEC
Mike,
My taxes and yours are going to pay for the "RECONSTRUCTION" of Iraq. At the very least, I expect that companies from the countries who had the guts to carry the cost of the war are going to have a better chance of getting those contracts.

why should ANYBODY get those contracts??? if this oil is the "future of iraq", and we want to secure that future for the iraqi people, shouldn't THEY be the ones with the right to exploit it? there is already infrastructure set up in Iraq. all that is required is mgmt. to give the mgmt opportunity (and thus the profits) to an American company runs COMPLETELY contrary to the idea that the oil belongs to the iraqi people. Also, last time I checked, Bush's request for discretionary funding had little to no money earmarked for rebuilding.

As for the UN, it doesn't matter how much we are SUPPOSED to pay, when we don't pay it.

-m

[darius]

You say that this oil belongs to the Iraqi people. This is a falsehood -- after all, how else am I supposed to fill up my SUV, which is a God-given American right which the Founding Fathers died for!!

But seriously, to believe that the infrastructure we have captured in Operation Iraqi Liberation are the property of the Iraqi people, you have to respect this outmoded concept: that sovereign nations have the right of self-determination.

Clearly, we do not. And since the Iraqis can't be trusted with self-determination, they definitely cannot be trusted with their country's natural resources. Thus, we will take careful stewardship of those resources until such time that the pupp...er...constitutional government that the United St...er...Iraqi people installs can award those contracts properly.

darius

[edew]

There, you seem to be able to speak those words properly. In a few years, you can say them without stuttering, just like Ari Fleischer.

Of course America is an oligarchy. Just look at the laws written to help out the big companies and keep the smaller upcoming companies in check. Just look at how the big companies can do whatever they want and not get called.

And how did the big companies become big, when they once were small? Aside from a very few companies, the bulk of the big companies did it by paying off government officials and through lobbying. WorldCom didn't get to be that big without lobbying. Enron didn't get to be that big without lobbying. Nor CSX, the company that John Snow used to run (now US treasurer). If that's not oligarchy, perhaps one might want to use another term.

[darius]

That's a sore point with me, as somebody who helped to create an upstart tech-driven telecomm company, only to get sued into oblivion.

Turns out that all those deregulation acts you hear about are merely a PR act, and if you even get lip-service, you're lucky.

Of course, the Ameritechs of the world can get a preliminary injunction to stop your profit stream (makes life hard for mom-n-pop), and then keep the lawyers filing for delays until you can't afford to keep the lights on.

My fiscal values swing conservative, but something smells rotten in Washington. (...at least the Democrats tax before they spend.)

darius

[135711]

All of the mild-sized companies were bought out by big corporations, they became huge gigantic monarchies in of themselves, all it took was one big push and the little companies fell like dominoes.

[civiltech]

wow..all that and your still the richest country in the world by far, and have one of the highest standards of living.


Sounds horrible

[darius]

I'm not crying over *my* lifestyle -- I can afford to fill up my car (and could, even if gas were $3/gallon), pay for my fencing stuff, and live in a cute little apartment.

But there are Americans who are starving and dying in the streets while we build multi-million dollar missiles, which are then used to kill non-American civilians, while a few people profit almost directly from those deaths.

Even though I may benefit in the end -- not living near any big terrorist targets (they did close the Kodak tower on 9-11, in case Osama wanted to come after the infidel western film manufacturers!) and reaping the benefits of Iraqi oil sold cheaply to rebuild that country, does that rub you as a particularly fair way of doing business?

As somebody who pays taxes, I'd rather see the money I put into the system go towards correcting conditions of poverty and making sure everybody has equal footing than make donations to a warmongering government.

darius

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally posted by JEC
Mike,
My taxes and yours are going to pay for the "RECONSTRUCTION" of Iraq. At the very least, I expect that companies from the countries who had the guts to carry the cost of the war are going to have a better chance of getting those contracts.

and, please enlight me with the facts about the UN budget ... how is appropriate share being calculated? by the numbers of votes in the security council? number of countries? or perhaps, GDP? How much of that cost the US has paid over the past 50 years? [Conflict of Interest disclosure: My brother works at an agency of the UN in Geneva]

I will not reply for 10 days. Have to keep the tourist industry alive! (Hawaii!!!)

So... why are companies from the other countries in the "Coalition of the willing" kept out of the bidding process? Any reason that you can figure out, and be upfront about?

I was taught about the topic of UN budget in 7th grade, so it is lots of years ago and info can be outdated, misremembered or incomplete, but here goes:

The budget share was decided through a discussion when the UN was formed, USA getting a share of 25%. USA is the only (AFAIK) country that does not pay its share, apart from a few dirt-poor 3rd world countries. Check with your brother if I am correct.

IIRC, there are international treaties covering the subject of ownership - and broader economic issues - of assets within conquered nations.

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Event Horizon]

I say, open up the bidding to one and all. Nothing wrong with some good compettion. Civiltech, I think the non-US countries want to bid on these contracts for the same reason US companies bid on contracts overseas: there's money to be made in that (particular) country. Many of these multi-national corp. wouldn't be big as they are without their overseas contracts.

As for whomever is in control of the Iraqi oil probably won't make a difference to us (general population). The price of a barrel of oil has gone down significantly already, yet gas prices remain constant. What's up with that? These companies will use any excuse to gouge us consumers as long as they can.

[135711]

eveyone on the board seems very knowledgeable, they have facts and so forth to back up their positions, but, what does it really do? when we take a look at things, will having more information really help matters? What is it that people are trying to resolve? Are they aiming for world peace? If not, what is the basic goal? If the goal is world peace, then how can it be accomplished? The basic issues seem to be:

1. corporate America
2. wealth vs poor
3. where is the middle - class [how to define?]
4. culture clash vs culture mesh [ how to achieve?]


Also I feel that many people feel 'just plain bad' because we voted for President Bush and almost immediately were set up for a war. It was like, he took oath of office, sat in the chair, did a few things, and wham! world trade center.

[edew]

I don't think Bush can (or should) be blamed for the WTC. But his handling of the situation after it is certainly disputable.

I personally think that too many people (citizens of this country) give him too much slack after the WTC and he is doing whatever agenda his neo-con advisors want him to do.

[civiltech]

Originally posted by Event Horizon
I say, open up the bidding to one and all. Nothing wrong with some good compettion. Civiltech, I think the non-US countries want to bid on these contracts for the same reason US companies bid on contracts overseas: there's money to be made in that (particular) country. Many of these multi-national corp. wouldn't be big as they are without their overseas contracts.

As for whomever is in control of the Iraqi oil probably won't make a difference to us (general population). The price of a barrel of oil has gone down significantly already, yet gas prices remain constant. What's up with that? These companies will use any excuse to gouge us consumers as long as they can.

If it's Canadian Tax dollars, I want it kept with Canadian Contractors. I would assume as a tax payer in the US, and a contract issued by the US gov't you would feel the same. Our governments seems to think that way. Most countries allow for outside contracting if there own country may not have the expertise to bid/build it.

I agree most of these multi-national countries wouldn't be as big without international work. However, a lot of these little countries do not have multi-billion dolloar builders/Architects/consultants just laying around. You have to go international. A lot of bigger outfits though, you will find open up an office in god know's where. You would ask "whats the point of that." Well, some places stipulate you must be established, and have an office there to do work. Hence, open up an office in U.A.E., do a couple of billion, and pack up if the work slows down.

I hear countries like U.A.E., and Saudi Arabia are paying big bucks for hardware/millwork installers/etc. Good tradesmen. Why? There's noone there, and there's a definite need becuase of there wealth. A carpenter can contract himself over there from Canada at $100.00 and up/hour in US funds...tax free. Is that nuts or what?

As for Iraq. There is no doubt the American's will skim off the top. The spoils of war. There is no shame in it. However, you have to admit. Most countries who invade another will take what it can from that countries resources. At least the American's are willing to put into the country, and try and streamline there gov't, and infrastructure, that they can eventually support themselves, with a democratic government. Let's face it, Iraw has the second largest oil reserves (mapped) in the world. In a couple of years, there government will have something to sustain their country. Beats being another lap dog to the US, waiting for the next round of US aid.

[edew]

Why would I want my (US) tax dollars to feed the bleepin' fat cats who don't do nothing to help the local economy, don't pay their fair share of their taxes, lie on the financial reports, screw their workers by reneging on their pensions, steal all the money by using the company as a private bank, and generally act like macho 4$$holes?

I don't want to see a dime go to Halliburton no matter how qualified they are.

[135711]

That means that Corporate America needs to be more accountable to their employees. One thing I learned from the Dept of Labor, when speaking with literally hundreds of people who were terminated from jobs either before or after 911, was this: the laws concerning workers and their employees are all in favor of the employer. One set of laws, that has always rubbed me the wrong way is the "at will" law. It's associated with the "freedom of association" set of laws. They are supposedly the end product of laws that came about at the end of the civil war. How in tarnation they ever twisted things to mean that a person could be canned for "no cause" is beyond me. People were terminated left and right from large corporations and big business, "at will" with "no cause". Then out of that came a whole new type of law practice, which is the "labor law attorney", then we get into Unions, and they're another ball of "wax".

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Originally posted by edew
Why would I want my (US) tax dollars to feed the bleepin' fat cats who don't do nothing to help the local economy, don't pay their fair share of their taxes, lie on the financial reports, screw their workers by reneging on their pensions, steal all the money by using the company as a private bank, and generally act like macho 4$$holes?

I don't want to see a dime go to Halliburton no matter how qualified they are.

I sense some deep resentment towrds corporate America.

But fine the "fat cats" get money. But think about it, to me it seems like the $ shoudl go to the workers(correct me if I am wring). Well eventually taht money will get down to AMeircan workers. Maybe not as much if teh"fat cats" delt it down properly, but still, just the same, the workers at Halliburton will benefit. Whether it be better workign conditions, increased health care, or maybe (haha) raises for all.

And I would also like to say, I am pretty sure there are "fat cats" in all countries, and all bussinesses. Why not make them American cats?

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by KShan5[PrFC]
I sense some deep resentment towrds corporate America.

But fine the "fat cats" get money. But think about it, to me it seems like the $ shoudl go to the workers(correct me if I am wring). Well eventually taht money will get down to AMeircan workers. Maybe not as much if teh"fat cats" delt it down properly, but still, just the same, the workers at Halliburton will benefit. Whether it be better workign conditions, increased health care, or maybe (haha) raises for all.

And I would also like to say, I am pretty sure there are "fat cats" in all countries, and all bussinesses. Why not make them American cats?

But you are missing the point! regardless of whether the money goes to American fat cats or American workers, you are getting that money from the "future of iraq". you are taking resources and profits out of Iraq. the only thing which gives us the ability to do that is this war. if you support this, at least RECOGNIZE that its imperialistic!

-m

[civiltech]

Originally posted by 135711
That means that Corporate America needs to be more accountable to their employees. One thing I learned from the Dept of Labor, when speaking with literally hundreds of people who were terminated from jobs either before or after 911, was this: the laws concerning workers and their employees are all in favor of the employer. One set of laws, that has always rubbed me the wrong way is the "at will" law. It's associated with the "freedom of association" set of laws. They are supposedly the end product of laws that came about at the end of the civil war. How in tarnation they ever twisted things to mean that a person could be canned for "no cause" is beyond me. People were terminated left and right from large corporations and big business, "at will" with "no cause". Then out of that came a whole new type of law practice, which is the "labor law attorney", then we get into Unions, and they're another ball of "wax".

Don't forget....If I own a company, and put my blood sweat, and tears into it. Why should someone I hire for my company suddenly have a say, and rights in how I run my company. If you want rights without responsibility, join a union.

[135711]

if i own a company....blood sweat and tears.....etc.

well, that's all well and good, but when your looking at 500 people in a auditorium and you're explaining to them that they just lost there jobs, you might feel differently. I don't think anyone feels resentment, we just understand what has happened, but have no real power to affect change.

the other part besides the horrible feeling thing,is that basically what happens is that the "owner" sells the company over during a hositle takeover, which is why having your company sell shares is dangerous, [estee lauder does not sell shares], hostile takeover will mean that the owner dissapears, a new CEO steps in, fires all upper management, hires cronies, puts in a new office, and the company builds up, until someone else steps in, from ranks of "Middle Management" [remember middle management? it dissapeared! why? because Upper Management didn't want to have to hang onto their desks while Middle Management Jockyed all day long for their job, so....Middle Management is out! out! out! out!.....with middle management out, then you have line staff; the line staff are secretaries - now called administrative assistants, and so forth, they finally realized the lost a big chuck of labor when they cut out nearly all middle management, and put robots to work, answering telephones, and routing calls, the former work of a good secretary. BTW: i was a union member for several years, they take more money from your paycheck and dissapear for lunch, if the unions were really effective, none of those people would be fired, many of them were union members, they would have gotten out there and yelled foul, striked, marched, and do what unions usually do, send out the bloodhounds. But in fact, nothing was done to protect those jobs, they let them go, with 'retirement packages'. It went on and on all through the 1980's and 1990's and here it's 2003, and they do basically the same. No one has learned one thing.

[pkt]

135711,

What you are objecting to tis the lack of noblesse oblige in the majority of the business community.

If you think that is bad, here in British Columbia, the provincial government - a most pro-business government - has, since taking power torn up contracts, down-sized gpvernemtn depts, sold off gove't assets - those that are not 'core business' - redefined the social contract and just yesterday got a rebuke from the UN's International Labour Organisation (ILO) saying the tearing-up of labour contracts are a 'no, no'. Do the provincial government care?
Their answer thus far? 'F--- you.'

That's the attitude of thankfully a minority of businesses. Some companies do buy into the "human resource" is a company's biggest assets concept.

PK