Shell has a 5% Mastercard in its offerings. That's 5% not 5 cents per gallon. If a gallon is 2.50 then the rebate is 12.5 cents per gallon.
Shell also recently joined with Krogers food stores to offer the 10 cents off per gallon that comes with Kroger's loyalty purchases. At the Kroger's own fuel centers, the total of fuel discounts per month can give up $1.00 per gallon discount
You think we could give it a rest with this North American stuff huh :confuse: I mean, its a ridiculous argument for buying American, b/c its still made in North America. No one refers to themselves as a North American for God sake. Now we are going to deviate stuff based on what continent its made on? C-mon, it just sounds so ridiculous.
Canada and Mexico are just as foreign to us as Germany, Korea, China, Japan, etc. Just b/c we share a border with the former two doesn't mean they are not as foreign.
Shell has a 5% Mastercard in its offerings. That's 5% not 5 cents per gallon. If a gallon is 2.50 then the rebate is 12.5 cents per gallon.
Check out the Pentagon Federal Credit Union's Cashback Rewards Visa, which pays out a 5% rebate on all gas purchases, no matter what the brand. You also get back 2% on all grocery purchases & 1% on all other purchases.
There is no annual fee for this card.
For the month of August only, this card is paying a 3% rebate on all electronics & home improvement purchases.
Membership is open to any member of the Armed Forces - also civilian employees of certain Federal Government agencies. Everyone else can qualify by paying a one-time membership fee of $20 to the National Military Family Association. That's how my wife & I qualified for membership.
We pump all of our grocery & gas purchases through this card & have gotten back hundreds of dollars in just 2 years. I am not an employee of the PFCU - just a satisfied member.
Canada and Mexico are just as foreign to us as Germany, Korea, China, Japan, etc. Just b/c we share a border with the former two doesn't mean they are not as foreign.
That's exactly the point I was trying to make. Some here seem to think that a Canadian-built car is somehow less "foreign" than, say, a Korean-built car. For the life of me, I can't see why.
It's gotten so that people will buy a car made in Alabama but not Michigan.
But check the dictionary - "American people" may belong to any nation or ethnic group of the Americas and "Americans" can refer to a person of one of the nations of the Americas.
I think I've purchased Exxon gas maybe 5 times since the Valdez hit Bligh Reef. And yet my brother used to be a Tony the Tiger at Esso stations.
FWIW, the wife's RAV4 is up for replacement. I'm strongly considering a GMC Terrain or Chevy Equinox. Why? Well, the Toyota's quality is no better than the GM's; they are built here by an American company, and, with my GM card $$, they are a good deal. PS - Although a little smaller than the RAV on the inside, these two CUV's have much better content, interiors, and, IMO, style. Less gas, too.
Basically, the corporation's allegiance is to the shareholders. To heck with the workers.
Duh!! I know several people who own their own businesses. Most of them started in entry level positions in various trades. When they decided to create their own company, why did they do it? They did it to be their own boss and to make more money for themselves. They didn't do it to so they could hire employees. Hell, the complain about their employees more than anything.
Kind of like one of Sig Hansen's comments on the show Deadliest Catch. "If I could replace all of you @#$%^ with robots, I'd do it in a @#$%^& second".
Say your A/C just went out in your house and you call the local repair company to service your A/C. They give you a quote for $100 labor for one person or $150 labor for two people to come out(I'm assuming the second guy might do some work). Which would you choose?
I believe Equinox and it's fugly brother are built in Ontario Canada...
I agree with your comments at the end of your post though, the interior of the GM twins is a lot nicer and more substantial feeling than the RAV4 which is minimalist at best. Toyota got the engine, the tranny and especially the platform and suspension right but cheaped out on the overall execution...
As far as mileage, there are many, many people who aren't even coming close to the mileage the twins are rated at. Most likely due to the anemic 4-cylinder hauling around 4000 lbs of curb weight (3850 if you don't get the 4WD).
I drove a friend's '10 Equinox LT. Nice overall, but I wouldn't buy the 4cyl. I found it to be to buzzy for my tastes. With the A/C on at idle, it would vibrate the whole vehicle. Interior is a huge step of from older Chevy's. I'd give they Toyota the nod for powertrain refinement/performance, but I don't care for their styling inside and out. I think the Terrain is hideous looking.
That's fine, Danilo. You should buy what you want - what satisfies your needs.
You're the customer, so you come first.
My guess is that your preference for the GM trucks' interiors is what's really driving your purchasing decision - not the fact that GMC & Chevy are American brands. And that's the way it should be. Free markets work best when the players behave more or less rationally, & there's nothing rational about a pity purchase - buying something because you feel sorry for the people who make it. That would be silly & pathetic.
I take your points. The GM's are being assembled in Canada. My old Regals were built there, too. Zero defects with them, BTW. My wife's 4cyl AWD RAV4 is rated at 28mpg hwy; I routinely exceed 30mpg using a [very!] light foot. Overall fillup mpg is around 24mpg; less in winter or when the A/C is on. Brand new, the Toyota ran about 4 mpg less; it took about 15K miles to "break it in". I expect that I can get 30+ mpg with the GM twins; that engine is very efficient - lots of power for its size and good torque at usable rpms. I won't miss the Toyo's lack of a real tailgate, either.
Agreed about the front of the Terrain, anythngbutgm. The Equinox looks much better, from both ends. The Jimmy has more standard content, though, like climate control.
4cyl buzz; rough idle with the A/C on? That describes the RAV4 exactly! Very jiggly ride, too, although it corners very well. Great brakes, too. Cheeeeesy inside, though. We bought it because there were comparable NO US company alternatives at the time.
Basically, the corporation's allegiance is to the shareholders. To heck with the workers.
I remember, back when I used to work for Boeing, layoffs were always in the news. But every time there was a layoff, the stock price would go up! My co-workers and I used to joke that maybe we should hope we get the axe, so our 401k's go up in value!
Any company has to strike a balance, between pleasing the shareholders/owners/customers AND the workers. You can abuse the workers if there's an endless supply of labor waiting to fill the roles of anyone who gets pissed off and leaves, or gets laid off or fired. However, when worker morale goes down, overall quality/service/value/etc goes down. And that impacts the customers, shareholders, owners, etc.
In the end, both sides need each other. The workers need the bosses for a job, but the bosses need the workers for, well, work! Sure, there's a lot of dead weight out there that could be trimmed, but a valuable employee will always be, well, valuable!
I actually like the overall shape of the Terrain...everything EXCEPT for the front-end! If the grille and headlights weren't so tall and over-exaggerated, I think it would improve the looks tremendously. Otherwise, I think I prefer it to the Equinox or SRX because it's more squared off and rugged.
Truth be told, I don't think there are any cute-utes (if you can still call them that anymore, as none of them are really cute or petite these days) that I really like. I think the Ford Escape, which is probably the gran-daddy of the bunch, is decent looking.
The worst generally about them is that they aren't an American company but, of course, neither is BP. Do you prefer British weasels to Dutch ones?
Here's one thing that always struck me as odd...I had stock in both Toyota and Shell; both foreign companies. Whenever Toyota paid a dividend, I always had to pay a foreign tax on it, which offset the amount of US taxes I had to pay. But when Shell paid a dividend, I only had to pay US taxes on it. Now that I think about it, I owned a little bit of some Canadian company where I had to pay foreign taxes on dividends, too. So, I wonder why Shell got special treatment?
As for pricing, the two most convenient stations to me are a Shell and a Citgo (I think it's a Crown now...haven't been there in a few months). It was usually a crap shoot, as to which one was cheaper.
I know, but that was not my point. You are correct in your research about the term American
The point I was trying to make was that nobody refers to themselves as North American (based on the continent on which we live) but the pro American people use that argument that buying a Ford or GM product built and made in Mexico or Canada, is more American then buying say a BMW, Toyota, or Acura built with parts and assembled in the United States :sick:
Any company has to strike a balance, between pleasing the shareholders/owners/customers AND the workers. You can abuse the workers if there's an endless supply of labor waiting to fill the roles of anyone who gets pissed off and leaves, or gets laid off or fired. However, when worker morale goes down, overall quality/service/value/etc goes down. And that impacts the customers, shareholders, owners, etc.
Wal~Mart, for example. There's a (seemingly) endless supply of workers for Wal~Mart positions, but they piss-off their long term employees, mistreat new hires, and that's why Wal~Mart stores now look like third world bazaars and you can't find an associate to help you.
Probably because the IRS considered Shell to be a U.S. corporation & thus not subject to foreign dividend tax. For many years, Shell Oil in the U.S. had its own headquarters in Houston & was managed independently of Royal Dutch Shell, which owned most, but not all, of the shares in the U.S. operation.
Even today, the parent company leaves the U.S. operation more or less alone, even though Royal Dutch now owns all of the shares in Shell Oil.
I don't know how the IRS treats Shell Oil dividends today.
A well-run corporation will always put customers & owners ahead of employees. I wouldn't buy shares in a company that did it any other way.
The best run companies put employees first imo. Customers don't even know what they want or need most of the time. A good employee knows, and takes care of the customer. Smart owners give their employees every tool they need to take care of business. That philosophy directly benefits the bottom line.
The corporation that I'm most familiar with that uses this approach is First Horizon, from my time living in Memphis. And yes, I owned stock in the company at one time.
Of course a company exists for shareholders...but with the shortsighted near-term only focus of the defective and shoddy American corporate mindset, this won't produce anything close to progress. Some will claim, deceptively at best, that the masses benefit from these shares, but the masses hold the vast minority of these means. This is the socio-economic reality of a corporate controlled society...and if you think things suck now, wait another generation. There's no obligation to the average 401K holder, only an obligation to lobbyists and the top couple percent.
And the "USSR" red herring is kind of shallow coming from free trade supporters who profit from unjustifiable solid platinum public sector perks. Just as freedom isn't free, unmanaged and unregulated free trade isn't free.
Just as freedom isn't free, unmanaged and unregulated free trade isn't free.
But to whom are we supposed to entrust the management & regulation of trade - the same public sector incompetents whom you've skewered elsewhere because they haven't yet mastered the arcane skill of traffic light timing where you live?
Thanks, but I'll take my chances with free trade. I don't like the alternative.
The alternative is entrusting everything to a group of incestuous corporate cowards who have engineered virtually every ill in this society, and are sending us all to a grand race to the bottom, with no end in sight. Look at the socio-economic trends this ideal is creating, and think of the reality it is going to create. The camels back always breaks, eventually.
The corporate world, which has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt to be patently devoid of any ideal of accountability, logic, responsibility, ethics, and morals, should be allowed to have free and unlimited reign? Sorry, I can't buy it.
The alternative is entrusting everything to a group of incestuous corporate cowards who have engineered virtually every ill in this society, and are sending us all to a grand race to the bottom, with no end in sight.
And yet you've expressed admiration for Ron Paul, who's an ardent free trader & who would scrap or end U.S. participation in NAFTA & the WTO.
Can you describe your ideal regulatory regime? Would you limit regulation to environmental issues - tainted Chinese drywall, for example? If that's as far as you'd go, you could probably talk even me into going along with it. Or would you go further than that? If so, how much further?
You've made it clear that you don't like free trade but you haven't fleshed out your vision of "fair" trade. Until you do, I can't tell if I'm for it or against it.
"Thanks, but I'll take my chances with free trade."
I tend to agree provided its free trade on an essentially equal two way street basis. Too often we seem to get the short end of the stick in these deals. I also think there may be a few critical interest areas where we may not want total free trade like some military and other national interest segments. The US should never get itself into a corner on a critical national need, but seems to be doing this in areas like some computer and electronics. One area you failed to address is tariffs where special interests and politicians are screwing us over such as sugar imports. Tariffs are a back handed, cowardly measure to circumvent trade and free markets. Its true in both some import and export areas. We also need to keep in mind that truly big multinational corporations really have no loyalty or self interest in any specific nation. They are driven by profits and corporate executive greed and money.
And yet you won't dispute any opinions I have posted. Are you happy with the thought of this brave new world? What about the majority who aren't "shareholders" or who won't be sponging off undeserved and unjustifiable public sector perks?
I'd go along with regulating trade with any social and environmental criminal such as China. Until a partner can be held to the same levels of accountability, they should not be given a level playing field.
The pursuit of cheap labor at all costs is a suicidal prophecy.
In the end, it matters nothing whether or not you or I are for or against anything. This is not some kind of republic or democracy, it is a masked corporate oligarchy controlled lock, stock, and barrel by lobbyists and political action committees. From foreign relations to war to trade, it is all controlled. This is a corporatist state. And look at the world it is making, If these socio-economic trends continue, what will be seen in 50 years?
This isn't "free trade", it is robber baron style windfalls for the few.
4cyl buzz; rough idle with the A/C on? That describes the RAV4 exactly! "
Our 09 Rav4 with the 2.5L (4 cylinder) engine is every bit as smooth as my 09 Ridgeline V6. And smoother than the Escape V6 that was also under consideration. It is more than enough engine for merging into fast moving traffic. Just about perfect for the weight of the car. Tranny shifts smoothly and quickly both up and down. Corners and stops well. Drove several makes before purchase, and the only other one that went to the wire for consideration was the Escape with the V6. GM didn't have anything close for the money, fuel economy, and performance. The 4 cylinder D3 stuff we test drove was seriously buzzy and lacking in power.
One area you failed to address is tariffs where special interests and politicians are screwing us over such as sugar imports. Tariffs are a back handed, cowardly measure to circumvent trade and free markets.
I've made it clear in other posts & in other forums that I have no use for tariffs. The 1930 Smoot-Hawley Act, which sharply raised tariffs across the board & led to retaliation by other industrialized countries, undoubtedly lengthened & deepened the Great Depression. Tariffs almost always do more harm than good.
And yet you won't dispute any opinions I have posted.
I can't agree or disagree with you because you really haven't done much more than vent. You're good at communicating your anger, but I'm still waiting for you to show us how we'll get from here to there - and what "there" will look like.
Would you please explain in greater detail how you would go about promoting "fair" trade? Who knows? I might agree with you. But I won't know until I understand what you're talking about.
So I guess that your romance with Ron Paul is over. Yes?
"They did it to be their own boss and to make more money for themselves. They didn't do it to so they could hire employees. Hell, the complain about their employees more than anything."
No business was ever started by one person, male or female, for the purpose of CREATING jobs, except for the one for the owner...employees are the consequence of the company being profitable, and the work load more than the one owner can handle...when profit disappears, so do the need for employees, and most employees are not smart enough to understand that...they just believe that the employer is always filthy rich and that they should be kept on the job simply because they have a job...the knowledge that most employees have about how a business works is so minimal its disgusting, like talking to a 4 year old...which is why they thought they deserve the Jobs Bank and could not understand why it was a stupid thing to do...sadly, management in the Big 3 didn't know any more about business than the ignorant UAW...
Sure, I vent anger, but I also issue observations on the current state of affairs and what this might bring for the future. A lot of people like to ignore this regressive path.
There simply involves not allowing a level playing field to exist with criminals such as China, and no federal support or toleration of the en masse exporting of jobs.
What do you see for the future?
I'll support Ron Paul just because at least at one time he didn't bend over for the parasites at AIPAC like virtually every other candidate who the few allow to become viable. I am sure he does not embrace result of the shockingly poorly planned offshoring of the American industrial base or the monster we've created in China, either.
Looks like a post I made last night got deleted. I guess I couldn't hotlink to the site, so instead I'll just talk about it. Moderators: if there are rules about what I can link to, where would they be?
A Live Ford Rouge Plant video podcast was put up a few days ago where the host got to tour the F150 Rouge plant in Dearborn, MI. It's a 45 min video, but really interesting as you get a pretty good look at how the trucks undergo final assembly.
The one thing that surprised me was that the UAW assembly workers are wearing casual street clothes, including t-shirts, shorts (one with holes in them), and jeans. I would have expected that they would be wearing some sort of uniforms. I wonder if there's a union rule for that?
Never forget...they are loyal to the union, not their company...they could care less about the product, IMO, and are still wondering where the Jobs Bank donuts are...
I don't know. My crystal ball is cracked. Still, I'll make one prediction, which is worth exactly what I'm charging for it.
I look for an extended & widespread period of civil unrest in China at some time during the next 10 to 20 years. The CCP cannot indefinitely claim a monopoly on political power in a country that moves further from Communism with each passing day. The situation is inherently unstable. Eventually, the large & growing middle class will demand the attributes of a civil society: independent judiciary, a reasonably accountable & corruption-free civil service, a free press &, in time, a multi-party political system. If the CCP can't yield gracefully, & I don't think that it will, then there will be bloodshed.
The good news is that some jobs will return to the U.S. The bad news, at least for some, is that this will set the stage for the next phase of the Industrial Revolution: cutting edge, job-shredding automation, the likes of which we haven't yet seen.
I'm old enough to remember that back in the 60s, labor worried about automation more than anything else. One of the bitterest strikes of the early 60s was a printers' union strike that shut down every newspaper in NYC - & there were 8 or 10 dailies back then - because the papers wanted to replace the old-fashioned labor intensive offset presses with computerized presses. An editor sitting at a computer terminal in the newsroom could lay out the paper & prep the presses for the next run. The union saw immediately that the new presses would require only a fraction of the current workforce & called a strike. Eventually, the papers agreed to a no-layoff clause in the contract in return for a free hand in automating.
Back then, almost everyone, labor & management alike, believed that by the end of the century, automation would drastically reduce the factory workforce. Magazines carried articles about what factories would look like in 1985, when 50 workers & computerized robots would do the work of 2,000 workers. By 1995, 40 of those 50 workers would be gone.
What would we do with all of those redundant workers? You could train a few of them to service the robots & program the computers, but what would become of the rest? Economists & sociologists agonized over this.
I'm convinced that offshoring/outsourcing only postponed this vision - that this is the logical next step of the industrial revolution. The drive to reduce costs is baked into the DNA of every well-run company. No one should be surprised. The industrial revolution has been disruptive from the beginning.
Well, kipk, that just shows that the slightly larger '09 [mine's an '07] 4cyl, with a revised intake system, has solved the smoothness problem. Glad to hear it. I totally agree that the 4cyl has all the power needed on or off the highway. But the RAV is still more foreign to me than the GM's or the Escape, and while the swinging back door with the outside spare leaves more room inside, the more useful tailgate is still missing. Not to mention that crummy interior; Toyota penny-pinching at its worst.
Nope, nothing in the logs. And you would have gotten an email. Maybe you hit Preview instead of Post, or maybe the server hiccuped just at the wrong time.
Was there a section in the video on this quintessential American car company about the steel mill on the factory grounds - the mill that just happens to be run by the Russian steel company Severstal?
For China...I will have to see it to believe it. Judging from history, the corrupt and cowardly government there has had no problems slaughtering the citizenry in the past, and they will again if need be. I also have to wonder about the impact of the middle class in a society taught to defer and conform. And even if they yell...they may be large in number, but in percentage compared to the overall population maybe not so much. Either way, China is going to determine a lot for everyone...and that is not a positive ideal.
What do we do with all the workers, indeed. And now with the western world embracing the dangerous ideal of mass immigration...yeah, it's going to be fun. Offshoring millions of jobs should certainly help things.
Regarding this modern day industrial revolution...it could become its own undoing. As well, these days the often thoughtless reduction in costs seems to exist to pad undeserved exec compensation more than anything else.
Comments
Shell also recently joined with Krogers food stores to offer the 10 cents off per gallon that comes with Kroger's loyalty purchases. At the Kroger's own fuel centers, the total of fuel discounts per month can give up $1.00 per gallon discount
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Canada and Mexico are just as foreign to us as Germany, Korea, China, Japan, etc. Just b/c we share a border with the former two doesn't mean they are not as foreign.
Check out the Pentagon Federal Credit Union's Cashback Rewards Visa, which pays out a 5% rebate on all gas purchases, no matter what the brand. You also get back 2% on all grocery purchases & 1% on all other purchases.
There is no annual fee for this card.
For the month of August only, this card is paying a 3% rebate on all electronics & home improvement purchases.
Membership is open to any member of the Armed Forces - also civilian employees of certain Federal Government agencies. Everyone else can qualify by paying a one-time membership fee of $20 to the National Military Family Association. That's how my wife & I qualified for membership.
We pump all of our grocery & gas purchases through this card & have gotten back hundreds of dollars in just 2 years. I am not an employee of the PFCU - just a satisfied member.
That's exactly the point I was trying to make. Some here seem to think that a Canadian-built car is somehow less "foreign" than, say, a Korean-built car. For the life of me, I can't see why.
Your fellow North American
But check the dictionary - "American people" may belong to any nation or ethnic group of the Americas and "Americans" can refer to a person of one of the nations of the Americas.
I think I've purchased Exxon gas maybe 5 times since the Valdez hit Bligh Reef. And yet my brother used to be a Tony the Tiger at Esso stations.
Profits Up Jobs Down
Basically, the corporation's allegiance is to the shareholders. To heck with the workers.
Well, yes. The shareholders are, after all, the corporation's owners.
A well-run corporation will always put customers & owners ahead of employees. I wouldn't buy shares in a company that did it any other way.
FYI: they tried it your way. The Soviet Union was the result.
Duh!! I know several people who own their own businesses. Most of them started in entry level positions in various trades. When they decided to create their own company, why did they do it? They did it to be their own boss and to make more money for themselves. They didn't do it to so they could hire employees. Hell, the complain about their employees more than anything.
Kind of like one of Sig Hansen's comments on the show Deadliest Catch. "If I could replace all of you @#$%^ with robots, I'd do it in a @#$%^& second".
Say your A/C just went out in your house and you call the local repair company to service your A/C. They give you a quote for $100 labor for one person or $150 labor for two people to come out(I'm assuming the second guy might do some work). Which would you choose?
I agree with your comments at the end of your post though, the interior of the GM twins is a lot nicer and more substantial feeling than the RAV4 which is minimalist at best. Toyota got the engine, the tranny and especially the platform and suspension right but cheaped out on the overall execution...
As far as mileage, there are many, many people who aren't even coming close to the mileage the twins are rated at. Most likely due to the anemic 4-cylinder hauling around 4000 lbs of curb weight (3850 if you don't get the 4WD).
Terrain Curb weight
Comparitively, the RAV4 4wd weights in at a only 3500 lbs or 3300 lbs if you forego the AWD...
RAV4 Curb weight
You're the customer, so you come first.
My guess is that your preference for the GM trucks' interiors is what's really driving your purchasing decision - not the fact that GMC & Chevy are American brands. And that's the way it should be. Free markets work best when the players behave more or less rationally, & there's nothing rational about a pity purchase - buying something because you feel sorry for the people who make it. That would be silly & pathetic.
Free minds, free markets.
A pig with a face only a mother could love... Blech.
I remember, back when I used to work for Boeing, layoffs were always in the news. But every time there was a layoff, the stock price would go up! My co-workers and I used to joke that maybe we should hope we get the axe, so our 401k's go up in value!
Any company has to strike a balance, between pleasing the shareholders/owners/customers AND the workers. You can abuse the workers if there's an endless supply of labor waiting to fill the roles of anyone who gets pissed off and leaves, or gets laid off or fired. However, when worker morale goes down, overall quality/service/value/etc goes down. And that impacts the customers, shareholders, owners, etc.
In the end, both sides need each other. The workers need the bosses for a job, but the bosses need the workers for, well, work! Sure, there's a lot of dead weight out there that could be trimmed, but a valuable employee will always be, well, valuable!
Truth be told, I don't think there are any cute-utes (if you can still call them that anymore, as none of them are really cute or petite these days) that I really like. I think the Ford Escape, which is probably the gran-daddy of the bunch, is decent looking.
Aside from the steering wheel which is tacky this is a good execution over the old cheapuinox/Pontiac Torrent chintzyness...
Definitely nicer than this:
Here's one thing that always struck me as odd...I had stock in both Toyota and Shell; both foreign companies. Whenever Toyota paid a dividend, I always had to pay a foreign tax on it, which offset the amount of US taxes I had to pay. But when Shell paid a dividend, I only had to pay US taxes on it. Now that I think about it, I owned a little bit of some Canadian company where I had to pay foreign taxes on dividends, too. So, I wonder why Shell got special treatment?
As for pricing, the two most convenient stations to me are a Shell and a Citgo (I think it's a Crown now...haven't been there in a few months). It was usually a crap shoot, as to which one was cheaper.
The point I was trying to make was that nobody refers to themselves as North American (based on the continent on which we live) but the pro American people use that argument that buying a Ford or GM product built and made in Mexico or Canada, is more American then buying say a BMW, Toyota, or Acura built with parts and assembled in the United States :sick:
Wal~Mart, for example. There's a (seemingly) endless supply of workers for Wal~Mart positions, but they piss-off their long term employees, mistreat new hires, and that's why Wal~Mart stores now look like third world bazaars and you can't find an associate to help you.
Probably because the IRS considered Shell to be a U.S. corporation & thus not subject to foreign dividend tax. For many years, Shell Oil in the U.S. had its own headquarters in Houston & was managed independently of Royal Dutch Shell, which owned most, but not all, of the shares in the U.S. operation.
Even today, the parent company leaves the U.S. operation more or less alone, even though Royal Dutch now owns all of the shares in Shell Oil.
I don't know how the IRS treats Shell Oil dividends today.
The best run companies put employees first imo. Customers don't even know what they want or need most of the time. A good employee knows, and takes care of the customer. Smart owners give their employees every tool they need to take care of business. That philosophy directly benefits the bottom line.
The corporation that I'm most familiar with that uses this approach is First Horizon, from my time living in Memphis. And yes, I owned stock in the company at one time.
True, but they don't hire anymore than they need either.
Of course a company exists for shareholders...but with the shortsighted near-term only focus of the defective and shoddy American corporate mindset, this won't produce anything close to progress. Some will claim, deceptively at best, that the masses benefit from these shares, but the masses hold the vast minority of these means. This is the socio-economic reality of a corporate controlled society...and if you think things suck now, wait another generation. There's no obligation to the average 401K holder, only an obligation to lobbyists and the top couple percent.
And the "USSR" red herring is kind of shallow coming from free trade supporters who profit from unjustifiable solid platinum public sector perks. Just as freedom isn't free, unmanaged and unregulated free trade isn't free.
True, Costco management has taken heat from analysts and shareholders alike for being to generous to employees. They should be applauded.
But to whom are we supposed to entrust the management & regulation of trade - the same public sector incompetents whom you've skewered elsewhere because they haven't yet mastered the arcane skill of traffic light timing where you live?
Thanks, but I'll take my chances with free trade. I don't like the alternative.
The corporate world, which has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt to be patently devoid of any ideal of accountability, logic, responsibility, ethics, and morals, should be allowed to have free and unlimited reign? Sorry, I can't buy it.
Is there really any winner?
And yet you've expressed admiration for Ron Paul, who's an ardent free trader & who would scrap or end U.S. participation in NAFTA & the WTO.
Ron Paul on Free Trade and Protectionism
Can you describe your ideal regulatory regime? Would you limit regulation to environmental issues - tainted Chinese drywall, for example? If that's as far as you'd go, you could probably talk even me into going along with it. Or would you go further than that? If so, how much further?
You've made it clear that you don't like free trade but you haven't fleshed out your vision of "fair" trade. Until you do, I can't tell if I'm for it or against it.
I tend to agree provided its free trade on an essentially equal two way street basis. Too often we seem to get the short end of the stick in these deals. I also think there may be a few critical interest areas where we may not want total free trade like some military and other national interest segments. The US should never get itself into a corner on a critical national need, but seems to be doing this in areas like some computer and electronics. One area you failed to address is tariffs where special interests and politicians are screwing us over such as sugar imports. Tariffs are a back handed, cowardly measure to circumvent trade and free markets. Its true in both some import and export areas. We also need to keep in mind that truly big multinational corporations really have no loyalty or self interest in any specific nation. They are driven by profits and corporate executive greed and money.
I'd go along with regulating trade with any social and environmental criminal such as China. Until a partner can be held to the same levels of accountability, they should not be given a level playing field.
The pursuit of cheap labor at all costs is a suicidal prophecy.
In the end, it matters nothing whether or not you or I are for or against anything. This is not some kind of republic or democracy, it is a masked corporate oligarchy controlled lock, stock, and barrel by lobbyists and political action committees. From foreign relations to war to trade, it is all controlled. This is a corporatist state. And look at the world it is making, If these socio-economic trends continue, what will be seen in 50 years?
This isn't "free trade", it is robber baron style windfalls for the few.
4cyl buzz; rough idle with the A/C on? That describes the RAV4 exactly! "
Our 09 Rav4 with the 2.5L (4 cylinder) engine is every bit as smooth as my 09 Ridgeline V6. And smoother than the Escape V6 that was also under consideration.
It is more than enough engine for merging into fast moving traffic. Just about perfect for the weight of the car.
Tranny shifts smoothly and quickly both up and down. Corners and stops well.
Drove several makes before purchase, and the only other one that went to the wire for consideration was the Escape with the V6. GM didn't have anything close for the money, fuel economy, and performance. The 4 cylinder D3 stuff we test drove was seriously buzzy and lacking in power.
Kip.
I've made it clear in other posts & in other forums that I have no use for tariffs. The 1930 Smoot-Hawley Act, which sharply raised tariffs across the board & led to retaliation by other industrialized countries, undoubtedly lengthened & deepened the Great Depression. Tariffs almost always do more harm than good.
I can't agree or disagree with you because you really haven't done much more than vent. You're good at communicating your anger, but I'm still waiting for you to show us how we'll get from here to there - and what "there" will look like.
Would you please explain in greater detail how you would go about promoting "fair" trade? Who knows? I might agree with you. But I won't know until I understand what you're talking about.
So I guess that your romance with Ron Paul is over. Yes?
No business was ever started by one person, male or female, for the purpose of CREATING jobs, except for the one for the owner...employees are the consequence of the company being profitable, and the work load more than the one owner can handle...when profit disappears, so do the need for employees, and most employees are not smart enough to understand that...they just believe that the employer is always filthy rich and that they should be kept on the job simply because they have a job...the knowledge that most employees have about how a business works is so minimal its disgusting, like talking to a 4 year old...which is why they thought they deserve the Jobs Bank and could not understand why it was a stupid thing to do...sadly, management in the Big 3 didn't know any more about business than the ignorant UAW...
There simply involves not allowing a level playing field to exist with criminals such as China, and no federal support or toleration of the en masse exporting of jobs.
What do you see for the future?
I'll support Ron Paul just because at least at one time he didn't bend over for the parasites at AIPAC like virtually every other candidate who the few allow to become viable. I am sure he does not embrace result of the shockingly poorly planned offshoring of the American industrial base or the monster we've created in China, either.
A Live Ford Rouge Plant video podcast was put up a few days ago where the host got to tour the F150 Rouge plant in Dearborn, MI. It's a 45 min video, but really interesting as you get a pretty good look at how the trucks undergo final assembly.
The one thing that surprised me was that the UAW assembly workers are wearing casual street clothes, including t-shirts, shorts (one with holes in them), and jeans. I would have expected that they would be wearing some sort of uniforms. I wonder if there's a union rule for that?
I don't know. My crystal ball is cracked. Still, I'll make one prediction, which is worth exactly what I'm charging for it.
I look for an extended & widespread period of civil unrest in China at some time during the next 10 to 20 years. The CCP cannot indefinitely claim a monopoly on political power in a country that moves further from Communism with each passing day. The situation is inherently unstable. Eventually, the large & growing middle class will demand the attributes of a civil society: independent judiciary, a reasonably accountable & corruption-free civil service, a free press &, in time, a multi-party political system. If the CCP can't yield gracefully, & I don't think that it will, then there will be bloodshed.
The good news is that some jobs will return to the U.S. The bad news, at least for some, is that this will set the stage for the next phase of the Industrial Revolution: cutting edge, job-shredding automation, the likes of which we haven't yet seen.
I'm old enough to remember that back in the 60s, labor worried about automation more than anything else. One of the bitterest strikes of the early 60s was a printers' union strike that shut down every newspaper in NYC - & there were 8 or 10 dailies back then - because the papers wanted to replace the old-fashioned labor intensive offset presses with computerized presses. An editor sitting at a computer terminal in the newsroom could lay out the paper & prep the presses for the next run. The union saw immediately that the new presses would require only a fraction of the current workforce & called a strike. Eventually, the papers agreed to a no-layoff clause in the contract in return for a free hand in automating.
Back then, almost everyone, labor & management alike, believed that by the end of the century, automation would drastically reduce the factory workforce. Magazines carried articles about what factories would look like in 1985, when 50 workers & computerized robots would do the work of 2,000 workers. By 1995, 40 of those 50 workers would be gone.
What would we do with all of those redundant workers? You could train a few of them to service the robots & program the computers, but what would become of the rest? Economists & sociologists agonized over this.
I'm convinced that offshoring/outsourcing only postponed this vision - that this is the logical next step of the industrial revolution. The drive to reduce costs is baked into the DNA of every well-run company. No one should be surprised. The industrial revolution has been disruptive from the beginning.
Nope, nothing in the logs. And you would have gotten an email. Maybe you hit Preview instead of Post, or maybe the server hiccuped just at the wrong time.
Was there a section in the video on this quintessential American car company about the steel mill on the factory grounds - the mill that just happens to be run by the Russian steel company Severstal?
It would be a fun tour.
What do we do with all the workers, indeed. And now with the western world embracing the dangerous ideal of mass immigration...yeah, it's going to be fun. Offshoring millions of jobs should certainly help things.
Regarding this modern day industrial revolution...it could become its own undoing. As well, these days the often thoughtless reduction in costs seems to exist to pad undeserved exec compensation more than anything else.