Re: OT More change

On 09/18/10 4:19 PM, nothermark wrote:
On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 14:29:20 -0400, "Carl A. "<chainfl@xxxxxxxxx>

On 09/12/10 1:56 PM, nothermark wrote:
On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 10:46:22 -0400, "Carl A. "<chainfl@xxxxxxxxx>

On 09/12/10 10:23 AM, nothermark wrote:
On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 18:52:10 -0700, "Bruce S"<bruce.snell@xxxxxxxxx>

nothermark wrote:
On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 17:26:55 -0700, "Bruce S"<bruce.snell@xxxxxxxxx>

cj wrote:
Bruce S wrote:
cj wrote:
nothermark wrote:
too bad the new bulb's aren't being made here...must be bad for
business "we've been sold out. First sold out by the government.
Then sold out by GE. "
profit, not people...thats the ticket!!


Did you expect them to continue to make bulbs they aren't able to
sell because the government outlawed them?


has leaded gas being outlawed a good thing or not. the issue here is
corporate greed.phasing out incandescent bulbs is the right thing to
do. it's my understanding that the new bulbs are way more efficient
than the old. case closed.


Well, since you support the government interfering in business, what
would you suggest that GE do, since they can't make incandescent
bulbs, and it would take a whole new factory to build CF bulbs that
would be too expensive to sell. Is your plan that GE simply keep
printing paychecks just to avoid firing people - even though they
are not producing any products at all?


Make them here and put "Proudly made in the USA" on the front in big
letters. You would be surprised haow many they would sell at $0.50
more per bulb.

And with the expense of a new factory, the expense of union labor, and the
high corporate taxes, along with the expense of government regulations
involved in making "hazardous materials" (if they could even get a permit to
make such materials), what makes you think it would only cost 50 cents more?


I see you read the article. End of page 3, start of page 4. GE
already has a plant and probably can get permits in order to keep the
jobs. They won't even try. Yes, they would have to rework the
existing location but that is also jobs. the real issue is that
American companies won't try so they are buying off shore. Foreign
companies are building and runnig plants of all kinds in the US and
making profits. It gets one wondering why.

Why should they try to expand their US operations??? Think of the cost
of complying with idiotic regulations, dealing with unions, paying
exorbitant state, local, and federal taxes, cost of healthcare mandates,
cost of cost of cost of...

No CEO worth his/her salt would invest a nickel in the US because of
"patriotism." Unless it makes economic sense, don't do it.

As long as 0bama and his fellow travelers run Washington, no CEO in
his/her right mind should commit to investing here.

Thank you for making the case against supporting large multinational

If you can construe my comments to be a convincing case for not buying
from the most efficient producer, then your logic leaves me stumped.

It depends where the efficiency is. I also understand that spending
money that keeps my neighbor employed is better than keeping somebody
in China or India employed then paying taxes to keep my neighbor on
the dole.

Whose money? Why don't you use your money to provide employment for him? I'd rather buy from the most efficient producer and help fund a program to make your neighbor an efficient producer of something.

Carl Ahlemeyer