Org Mobile Site
Thread: Detroit
Could you please elaborate, Horetore?
Originally Posted by :
Leftist policies like...Henry Ford built Detroit.
Leftist policies like...Henry Ford built Detroit.
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
Could you please elaborate, Horetore?
Henry Ford's focus on always increasing employee wages is what the workers movement was about. Ford didn't believe in unions, but that's because he believed his style of industrialism would become dominant; and in Ford's companies, there really is no need for a union. However, since Ford was wrong about what other industrialists do, unions are(unfortunately) needed.Could you please elaborate, Horetore?
Also, I second what rory says. Unions in "socialist business-hate"-land means a three-party partnership between the state, the workers union and the employers union(yes, employers also need to unionize). All three parties share several interests, but if things doesn't resolve itself, then the state can cut through and force a binding agreement between the two.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Henry Ford's focus on always increasing employee wages is what the workers movement was about. Ford didn't believe in unions, but that's because he believed his style of industrialism would become dominant; and in Ford's companies, there really is no need for a union. However, since Ford was wrong about what other industrialists do, unions are(unfortunately) needed.
Also, I second what rory says. Unions in "socialist business-hate"-land means a three-party partnership between the state, the workers union and the employers union(yes, employers also need to unionize). All three parties share several interests, but if things doesn't resolve itself, then the state can cut through and force a binding agreement between the two.
Henry Ford is in many ways THE American capitalist! There is nothing leftist about him (the left looks to the government for help, remember?). It is not that the left believes people should be better off and the right wants them to rot. The difference is in how they think the betterment should occur. The leftists look to government, and conservatives look at social and economic opportunitty. Henry Ford's focus on always increasing employee wages is what the workers movement was about. Ford didn't believe in unions, but that's because he believed his style of industrialism would become dominant; and in Ford's companies, there really is no need for a union. However, since Ford was wrong about what other industrialists do, unions are(unfortunately) needed.
Also, I second what rory says. Unions in "socialist business-hate"-land means a three-party partnership between the state, the workers union and the employers union(yes, employers also need to unionize). All three parties share several interests, but if things doesn't resolve itself, then the state can cut through and force a binding agreement between the two.
Ford was the latter. I don't know how much you know about Fordism, but it is an economic and business model designed to increase a company's profits. It is not about charity. Like all aspects of the free market, the idea is to harness selfish motivation and use it to better yourself and everyone else at the same time. It is actually unions that ruined that business model and made it impossible. That is the reason it is not the dominant business model today. The unions almost ruined the Ford company (they were literally striking for 4 hour work weeks at one point). Other companies were able to overtake Ford, mostly because of unions.
Unions are a scurge. Sure, they have been needed sometimes, but in the modern world, they are mostly only an evil. Very few workers (such as linemen) still need unions to protect them. When a union is no longer needed, it should be immediately dismantled to stop it from enslaving and abusing the workers.
Originally Posted by Vuk:
There is nothing leftist about [Henry Ford]
History fail. Ford ran as a "Peace Candidate" in 1918, and was strongly in favor of the League of Nations. So clearly he was a peacenik and a one-world government Freemason.There is nothing leftist about [Henry Ford]
I don't think modern American right-wingers have any notion of how extreme they've become. Nixon passed Title 9 and founded the EPA, Reagan raised taxes and gave amnesty to millions of illegals, Teddy Rosevelt broke up corporations, etcetera. All of the heroes of the past would have be considered RINOs today. In fact, measured against President Obama's rather tepid response to the financial industry's riot of corruption, they would be considered socialists.
And don't get me started on Jesus of Nazareth, who gave out free healthcare and wouldn't shut the hell up about poor people. You would have hated him.
Originally Posted by Lemur:
History fail. Ford ran as a "Peace Candidate" in 1918, and was strongly in favor of the League of Nations. So clearly he was a peacenik and a one-world government Freemason
and a Nazi sympathizer.History fail. Ford ran as a "Peace Candidate" in 1918, and was strongly in favor of the League of Nations. So clearly he was a peacenik and a one-world government Freemason
Originally Posted by rvg:
and a Nazi sympathizer.
So he was a socialist then.and a Nazi sympathizer.
Originally Posted by Vladimir:
So he was a socialist then.
Ford wasn't on record advocating the private/public mix of Nazism, but boy did he hate them Jews.So he was a socialist then.
Originally Posted by Vuk:
Henry Ford is in many ways THE American capitalist! There is nothing leftist about him (the left looks to the government for help, remember?). It is not that the left believes people should be better off and the right wants them to rot. The difference is in how they think the betterment should occur. The leftists look to government, and conservatives look at social and economic opportunitty.
Ford was the latter. I don't know how much you know about Fordism, but it is an economic and business model designed to increase a company's profits. It is not about charity. Like all aspects of the free market, the idea is to harness selfish motivation and use it to better yourself and everyone else at the same time. It is actually unions that ruined that business model and made it impossible. That is the reason it is not the dominant business model today. The unions almost ruined the Ford company (they were literally striking for 4 hour work weeks at one point). Other companies were able to overtake Ford, mostly because of unions.
Unions are a scurge. Sure, they have been needed sometimes, but in the modern world, they are mostly only an evil. Very few workers (such as linemen) still need unions to protect them. When a union is no longer needed, it should be immediately dismantled to stop it from enslaving and abusing the workers.
Hmm, wikipedia says on Fordism that his idea (and his payment-policy) was mainly that he wanted his workers as consumers, i.e. he wanted them to have enough money to be able to afford his cars. Henry Ford is in many ways THE American capitalist! There is nothing leftist about him (the left looks to the government for help, remember?). It is not that the left believes people should be better off and the right wants them to rot. The difference is in how they think the betterment should occur. The leftists look to government, and conservatives look at social and economic opportunitty.
Ford was the latter. I don't know how much you know about Fordism, but it is an economic and business model designed to increase a company's profits. It is not about charity. Like all aspects of the free market, the idea is to harness selfish motivation and use it to better yourself and everyone else at the same time. It is actually unions that ruined that business model and made it impossible. That is the reason it is not the dominant business model today. The unions almost ruined the Ford company (they were literally striking for 4 hour work weeks at one point). Other companies were able to overtake Ford, mostly because of unions.
Unions are a scurge. Sure, they have been needed sometimes, but in the modern world, they are mostly only an evil. Very few workers (such as linemen) still need unions to protect them. When a union is no longer needed, it should be immediately dismantled to stop it from enslaving and abusing the workers.
Nothing wrong with that so far. But IMHO this works only as long as you´re focusing mainly on selling things in your own town. If your business grows to a point where you have to sell your goods in completely different regions or continents, the whole idea won´t work anymore.
Originally Posted by Haudegen:
Hmm, wikipedia says on Fordism that his idea (and his payment-policy) was mainly that he wanted his workers as consumers, i.e. he wanted them to have enough money to be able to afford his cars.
Nothing wrong with that so far. But IMHO this works only as long as you´re focusing mainly on selling things in your own town. If your business grows to a point where you have to sell your goods in completely different regions or continents, the whole idea won´t work anymore.
That and cars are a direct consumer item. Paying workers higher for the production of Steel and Oil wouldn't have benefitted Carnegie and Rockefeller in the same way as it did for Ford.Hmm, wikipedia says on Fordism that his idea (and his payment-policy) was mainly that he wanted his workers as consumers, i.e. he wanted them to have enough money to be able to afford his cars.
Nothing wrong with that so far. But IMHO this works only as long as you´re focusing mainly on selling things in your own town. If your business grows to a point where you have to sell your goods in completely different regions or continents, the whole idea won´t work anymore.
Originally Posted by Lemur:
History fail. Ford ran as a "Peace Candidate" in 1918, and was strongly in favor of the League of Nations. So clearly he was a peacenik and a one-world government Freemason.
I don't think modern American right-wingers have any notion of how extreme they've become. Nixon passed Title 9 and founded the EPA, Reagan raised taxes and gave amnesty to millions of illegals, Teddy Rosevelt broke up corporations, etcetera. All of the heroes of the past would have be considered RINOs today. In fact, measured against President Obama's rather tepid response to the financial industry's riot of corruption, they would be considered socialists.
And don't get me started on Jesus of Nazareth, who gave out free healthcare and wouldn't shut the hell up about poor people. You would have hated him.
I also have a feeling that Democrats of yesteryear would also be DINOs for not doing anything about the repression of LGBT people.History fail. Ford ran as a "Peace Candidate" in 1918, and was strongly in favor of the League of Nations. So clearly he was a peacenik and a one-world government Freemason.
I don't think modern American right-wingers have any notion of how extreme they've become. Nixon passed Title 9 and founded the EPA, Reagan raised taxes and gave amnesty to millions of illegals, Teddy Rosevelt broke up corporations, etcetera. All of the heroes of the past would have be considered RINOs today. In fact, measured against President Obama's rather tepid response to the financial industry's riot of corruption, they would be considered socialists.
And don't get me started on Jesus of Nazareth, who gave out free healthcare and wouldn't shut the hell up about poor people. You would have hated him.
You move the tax base and you neglect the city proper.
White flight is not about race. It's about the complete breakdown of community in Americas urban areas. Sure allot of the victims are black but that is just happenstance.
I can expand on this, but most of you are idiots
White flight is not about race. It's about the complete breakdown of community in Americas urban areas. Sure allot of the victims are black but that is just happenstance.
I can expand on this, but most of you are idiots
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
You move the tax base and you neglect the city proper.
White flight is not about race. It's about the complete breakdown of community in Americas urban areas. Sure allot of the victims are black but that is just happenstance.
I can expand on this, but most of you are idiots
Honest question, how was the breakdown of community not related to, or caused by, racial tensions?You move the tax base and you neglect the city proper.
White flight is not about race. It's about the complete breakdown of community in Americas urban areas. Sure allot of the victims are black but that is just happenstance.
I can expand on this, but most of you are idiots
Originally Posted by Vuk:
Henry Ford is in many ways THE American capitalist! There is nothing leftist about him (the left looks to the government for help, remember?). It is not that the left believes people should be better off and the right wants them to rot. The difference is in how they think the betterment should occur. The leftists look to government, and conservatives look at social and economic opportunitty.
Ford was the latter. I don't know how much you know about Fordism, but it is an economic and business model designed to increase a company's profits. It is not about charity. Like all aspects of the free market, the idea is to harness selfish motivation and use it to better yourself and everyone else at the same time. It is actually unions that ruined that business model and made it impossible. That is the reason it is not the dominant business model today. The unions almost ruined the Ford company (they were literally striking for 4 hour work weeks at one point). Other companies were able to overtake Ford, mostly because of unions.
Unions are a scurge. Sure, they have been needed sometimes, but in the modern world, they are mostly only an evil. Very few workers (such as linemen) still need unions to protect them. When a union is no longer needed, it should be immediately dismantled to stop it from enslaving and abusing the workers.
Political fail.Henry Ford is in many ways THE American capitalist! There is nothing leftist about him (the left looks to the government for help, remember?). It is not that the left believes people should be better off and the right wants them to rot. The difference is in how they think the betterment should occur. The leftists look to government, and conservatives look at social and economic opportunitty.
Ford was the latter. I don't know how much you know about Fordism, but it is an economic and business model designed to increase a company's profits. It is not about charity. Like all aspects of the free market, the idea is to harness selfish motivation and use it to better yourself and everyone else at the same time. It is actually unions that ruined that business model and made it impossible. That is the reason it is not the dominant business model today. The unions almost ruined the Ford company (they were literally striking for 4 hour work weeks at one point). Other companies were able to overtake Ford, mostly because of unions.
Unions are a scurge. Sure, they have been needed sometimes, but in the modern world, they are mostly only an evil. Very few workers (such as linemen) still need unions to protect them. When a union is no longer needed, it should be immediately dismantled to stop it from enslaving and abusing the workers.
"Leftism"(I'll assume you refer to social democracy) isn't about chqrity in any way, it's abiut maximizing profit for society. The difference between it and free market nonsense is that a social democrat believes that sustainable, long-term growth can only occur when all classes grow at about the same pace. Like how Henry Ford believed that he could only make money if he also made sure his workers made money. Which makes him a social democratic poster boy.
He shouldn't be used as a reference outside his role as an industrialist, however, seeing as he was a paranoid jew-hating scumbag...
And we'll all need unions, both employers and employees, as long as we negotiate our wages every year. Which means forever.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
And we'll all need unions, both employers and employees, as long as we negotiate our wages every year. Which means forever.
Unions have the same problem that guilds did centuries ago. They've become too big, too self-important, too focused on their expansion and collection of dues. Members are nothing more than meal tickets to them, and union bosses are no better than the corporate execs.And we'll all need unions, both employers and employees, as long as we negotiate our wages every year. Which means forever.
Ford had his good and bad side.
To say that he was "anti union" is a bit of an understatement. The dude had the largest civilian security force in the history of the USA up until he was surpassed by modern contractors like BH and KBR. Those "security personnel" travelled the land and broke the spirit and the bodies of people, their forces comprised of big, dumb goons like former athletes, soldiers and criminals/ex cons.
Old man Ford would not fire their ringleader, Harry Bennet, who stayed with the company until Old Ford stepped down after replacing Edsel after his death. At this point Old Ford was senile and wanted to make Bennett the new President in place of Edsel, and Old Ford took over as interim in the meantime. The company was doing so poorly under senile Ford(even as a war supplier, losing money hand over fist) there was talk of government takeover in the financial sector so as not to disrupt supply lines. The board fo directors and Edsels widow successfully pushed for Henry II, edsels son, to be put in as President once he returned from the fighting.
His first act as new president was to fire Bennett and most of his goons. Bennett, an ungrateful draft dodger whose biggest claim to fame was having big biceps and being a hard puncher, engaged in a smear campaign against a recently returned US Navy combat vet, accusing him of not having any real world experience and having never contributed to the company. He quickly faded into history, the murderous goon that he was.
I can only imagine what Ford would have become had Bennett taken over. Also of note, Bennett apparently caused Edsel a lot of headache, but his father would not let him fire Bennet, and upon Edsels death his widow claimed that it was the stress brought on by Bennett and his merciless goons that led to Edsels demise (he dies of cancer)
Thats your history lesson for today, kids
To say that he was "anti union" is a bit of an understatement. The dude had the largest civilian security force in the history of the USA up until he was surpassed by modern contractors like BH and KBR. Those "security personnel" travelled the land and broke the spirit and the bodies of people, their forces comprised of big, dumb goons like former athletes, soldiers and criminals/ex cons.
Old man Ford would not fire their ringleader, Harry Bennet, who stayed with the company until Old Ford stepped down after replacing Edsel after his death. At this point Old Ford was senile and wanted to make Bennett the new President in place of Edsel, and Old Ford took over as interim in the meantime. The company was doing so poorly under senile Ford(even as a war supplier, losing money hand over fist) there was talk of government takeover in the financial sector so as not to disrupt supply lines. The board fo directors and Edsels widow successfully pushed for Henry II, edsels son, to be put in as President once he returned from the fighting.
His first act as new president was to fire Bennett and most of his goons. Bennett, an ungrateful draft dodger whose biggest claim to fame was having big biceps and being a hard puncher, engaged in a smear campaign against a recently returned US Navy combat vet, accusing him of not having any real world experience and having never contributed to the company. He quickly faded into history, the murderous goon that he was.
I can only imagine what Ford would have become had Bennett taken over. Also of note, Bennett apparently caused Edsel a lot of headache, but his father would not let him fire Bennet, and upon Edsels death his widow claimed that it was the stress brought on by Bennett and his merciless goons that led to Edsels demise (he dies of cancer)
Thats your history lesson for today, kids
Originally Posted by rvg:
Unions have the same problem that guilds did centuries ago. They've become too big, too self-important, too focused on their expansion and collection of dues. Members are nothing more than meal tickets to them, and union bosses are no better than the corporate execs.
I have never been to the US, so I can't comment on the situation there, but that description of unions is about as far from the situation here as one can get.Unions have the same problem that guilds did centuries ago. They've become too big, too self-important, too focused on their expansion and collection of dues. Members are nothing more than meal tickets to them, and union bosses are no better than the corporate execs.
So, obviously, the solution to the union problems in the US is to become a social democracy and ditch the ideologically blinded libertardians.
Edit: also, one more comment on the right/left-divide... If the difference is that the left wants the state to fix it, and the right wants individuals to fix it, you have just claimed that communism is a right-wing ideology....
unfortunately rvg's statement is pretty much true here as well... at least with the bigger unions
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
I have never been to the US, so I can't comment on the situation there, but that description of unions is about as far from the situation here as one can get.
Must be nice. Aside from the "take everything you can get NOW" mentality, do a google of "mob ties to unions" for a laugh. The public image of unions in the US is low for a reason.I have never been to the US, so I can't comment on the situation there, but that description of unions is about as far from the situation here as one can get.
If we're going to invoke White Flight, can we also invoke the failure of majority black governance? Wherever it emerges, trouble ensues. Plenty of cities have lost major employers, and plenty have reemerged stronger than before. Very few have responded with violence, riots, and wanton acts of destruction aimed at themselves. These people have turned themselves into third world animals, and state control was long, long overdue.
It's the fault of the parents.
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
You blame their race? Maybe I should dig up a documentary on rural white Alabama or Georgia or Kentucky and you can eat your shoe.
Thanks for the documentary though. Its more on point than you are.
You blame their race? Maybe I should dig up a documentary on rural white Alabama or Georgia or Kentucky and you can eat your shoe.
Thanks for the documentary though. Its more on point than you are.
I am saying that the way African Americans govern themselves in the US - block voting, single party adherence, rampant corruption and mismanagement, poor leadership, lack of accountability, etc. - is just as much of a factor in Detroit's decline as White Flight and the fall of auto manufacturing. Detroit is a particularly stunning example, but metros with majority black populations and black leadership have been suffering for years. I'm sorry if that makes you uncomfortable.
And please find me a rural white community that had even a tenth of the resources available that Detroit has squandered over the years. The auto decline started in the 70's; it wasn't as if the current situation suddenly occurred. Literally billions upon billions of dollars have been dumped into Detroit at the state and federal level for reinvestment, all to disappear down the rabbit hole. Compare that to, say, Indianapolis, which took steps long ago to ween itself off of auto manufacturing, as any competent city administration would have.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO