Foxconn Tells Wisconsin It Never Promised To Build an LCD Factory (theverge.com) 179
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: In October, Wisconsin denied Foxconn subsidies because it had failed to build the LCD factory specified in its contract with the state. As The Verge reported, it had created a building one-twentieth the size of the promised factory, taken out a permit to use it for storage, and failed to employ anywhere near the number of employees the contract called for. Nevertheless, Foxconn publicly objected "on numerous grounds" to Wisconsin's denial of subsidies. Documents obtained through a records request show Foxconn's rationale: it doesn't think it was specifically promising to build an LCD factory at all. According to a November 23rd letter to the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation (WEDC), Foxconn does not think the factory specified in the contract, an enormous Generation 10.5 LCD fabrication facility, was actually a "material" part of the contract. ("Material" is a legal term that means relevant or significant.)
"As you confirmed on November 10, 2020, the only reason the WEDC made the determination that the Recipients are ineligible for tax credits is because the WEDC believes the Recipients have failed to carry out the 'Project,'" Foxconn wrote. "Thus, WEDC's determination of ineligibility is based off its belief that the Generation 10.5 TFT-LCD Fabrication Facility is a material term of the Agreement." Rather, Foxconn claimed it and WEDC had a "mutual understanding" that it would build something more vaguely defined, "a transformational and sustainable high-tech manufacturing and technology ecosystem in Wisconsin that brings long-term investment and jobs." However, Foxconn did express openness to amending its contract to allow for more flexibility in what it was building in exchange for lower subsidies. [...] WEDC ended the letter by reiterating it was open to amending the contract to reflect Foxconn's current plans. [...] But such an amendment hinges, as always, on Foxconn telling Wisconsin what it is actually building.
"As you confirmed on November 10, 2020, the only reason the WEDC made the determination that the Recipients are ineligible for tax credits is because the WEDC believes the Recipients have failed to carry out the 'Project,'" Foxconn wrote. "Thus, WEDC's determination of ineligibility is based off its belief that the Generation 10.5 TFT-LCD Fabrication Facility is a material term of the Agreement." Rather, Foxconn claimed it and WEDC had a "mutual understanding" that it would build something more vaguely defined, "a transformational and sustainable high-tech manufacturing and technology ecosystem in Wisconsin that brings long-term investment and jobs." However, Foxconn did express openness to amending its contract to allow for more flexibility in what it was building in exchange for lower subsidies. [...] WEDC ended the letter by reiterating it was open to amending the contract to reflect Foxconn's current plans. [...] But such an amendment hinges, as always, on Foxconn telling Wisconsin what it is actually building.
I'm sure from a legal standpoint they're correct (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I'm sure from a legal standpoint they're correc (Score:5, Insightful)
the entire deal was set up by a corrupt Republican governor and legislature. It would have been full of get out of jail free cards and slush. It would be nice if the voters would learn this time, but I suspect they'll be building a Simpson's style escalator to nowhere in 20 years while some other politician lines their pockets. People never learn.
Yep. Socialism for the rich - capitalism for the rest of us.
They can get free sports stadiums, off the hook for taxes and their promises NEVER come true. A billionaire baseball team owner cried poverty and got my county to pay for his stadium. Well, the economic benefits promised never happened, the county has a budget shortfall because of it, and guess what? We poor slobs are gonna have services cut because of welfare for billionaires. I have to dodge potholes to and from work because there is no money for repairs.
Our system is rigged but yet people keep voting for the same assholes.
I like the Stadiums (Score:5, Insightful)
As a nerd I'm so tired of subsidizing sports. Especially when so many of those people cheering are anti-science.
Re:I like the Stadiums (Score:5, Interesting)
I think that the public should get an ownership stake if it's going to invest in a team.
I can imagine a future in which a city's team is entirely owned by a regional public commission elected by the taxpayers. It's not so far-fetched if you take the argument that sports teams are an important public service seriously. Any of those sports nuts who call into sports radio to rant could run for commissioner. And there'd be no danger of someone buying your franchise and moving it to a different city after you'd pumped hundreds of millions of dollars.
At the very least a team should not be movable until it has generated the revenue promised to the region in the team's economic projections.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that the public should get an ownership stake if it's going to invest in a team.
I can imagine a future in which a city's team is entirely owned by a regional public commission elected by the taxpayers. It's not so far-fetched if you take the argument that sports teams are an important public service seriously. Any of those sports nuts who call into sports radio to rant could run for commissioner. And there'd be no danger of someone buying your franchise and moving it to a different city after you'd pumped hundreds of millions of dollars.
At the very least a team should not be movable until it has generated the revenue promised to the region in the team's economic projections.
Thank you - great to see a potential model for subsizing sports that tries to level the playing field. If taxpayers have to assume part, most, or all of the risk, they should have ownership that reflects the value of their collective investment.
One potential alternative scenario: turn subsidies into guaranteed (with voting shares in the parent company) low (or even no interest) loans. The standard share dividends to still apply, so taxpayers would also see some tangible return on investment.
Re: I like the Stadiums (Score:4, Insightful)
A stadium? Forget it. Build a hospital that creates good-paying high-quality jobs, not part-time seasonal jobs selling hotdogs in a stadium.
Not sure about Canada (Score:3)
It's also sometimes done with somebody in a safe district and/or with a lot of political capital. In politics they're called "tanks". Thin
Re: (Score:3)
because every single in has been a huge money sink that cost taxpayers a fortune. Hundreds and hundreds of them and we still pretend that it's for "economic benefits" instead of "corruption and oh yeah people like sports".
As a nerd I'm so tired of subsidizing sports. Especially when so many of those people cheering are anti-science.
Every study" proving the "benefits" of subsidizing the building of any professional sports facility (or event) was paid for, directly or indirectly, by the sport. Independant studies after the fact continue to prove public subsidization seldom produces any of the economic benefits touted. Where benefits are found, they usually prove to be 1/10, or less, of those forecasted.
Giving tax generated funds to large corporations is seldom a winning proposition for the taxpayers, or the local government. It's diff
Re:I'm sure from a legal standpoint they're correc (Score:5, Interesting)
the entire deal was set up by a corrupt Republican governor and legislature. It would have been full of get out of jail free cards and slush. It would be nice if the voters would learn this time, but I suspect they'll be building a Simpson's style escalator to nowhere in 20 years while some other politician lines their pockets. People never learn.
I don't know that it's correct even from a legal standpoint.
They say they were to build a "transformational and sustainable high-tech manufacturing and technology ecosystem in Wisconsin that brings long-term investment and jobs".
Their warehouse is not:
Transformational
Sustainable
High-tech
Manufacturing
A technology ecosystem
Bringing long-term investment
Bringing jobs
At least it's in Wisconsin, I guess.
Re: I'm sure from a legal standpoint they're corre (Score:2)
You can't build (Score:2)
Re:You can't build (Score:5, Insightful)
these types of factories and projects in the US anymore. There's just too much politics and special interests pulling in every direction that make an enterprise like this functionally impossible.
This is not different from any country and it is not different from USA of old.
What is different in USA in the last few years is that it is now an U(sa)kraine - change of the guard every 4 years or less and the new lot coming with Fire and Brimstone to burn anything and everything set up by the predecessor. Even an occasional Maidan here and there. Lovely Eastern European picture.
You do not do long term investment in such climate. So no surprise in what Foxconn did.
There are pockets of stability like f.e. California remains resolutely greenie even when run by Judgement Day Governators and Texas which is always a bit to the right of Atilla the Hun. They are also big enough to compensate and oppose any change of the guard orders coming from Wash DC. The rest of USA however... Forget it. There will be no long term investment anywhere for the foreseeable future. Nobody invests in a country where there was a Maidan in the last few years. It has to become properly politically stable when long term projects transcend administrations and are not ripped out every 4 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Ripped out? We can't even get to the stage of building shit first. There's nothing to rip out but their bank accounts and tax subsidies.
Re: (Score:3)
What is different in USA in the last few years is that it is now an U(sa)kraine - change of the guard every 4 years or less and the new lot coming with Fire and Brimstone to burn anything and everything set up by the predecessor. Even an occasional Maidan here and there. Lovely Eastern European picture.
Posting this for those who are as confused at the term 'Maidan' [britannica.com] as I was.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, California is sending people to turn the state blue.
Texas used to be a purple state.
Re: You can't build (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
So you don't think being a high wage country has *anything* to do with the fact that the US is unattractive for a high volume, low skill assembly operation?
Here's a fun fact -- on a dollar basis, US manufacturing has actually *grown* in the past 30 years. It's just that it's no longer a source of high paid, low skill jobs.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe because the dollar is worth less than 30 years ago?
Re: (Score:2)
That's true of most currencies; central banks usually manage currencies so there is slight inflation. It's true that the dollar is weaker against the yuan than it was 30 years ago, but that shouldn't surprise anyone. China is still a lower wage country than the US; the median Chinese salary is about 1/4 the US median salary.
Re: (Score:2)
But you can still make a nice profit pretending to do such a project!
Re: (Score:2)
That falls a bit flat given the way Wisconsin bent over backwards and grabbed it's ankles to make it possible.
Re:You can't build (Score:5, Informative)
... at least in states run by Democrats.
I just had to reply to tell the AC that using a Repuclican planned and executed failure touted by Trump himself as the 8th wonder of the world https://www.npr.org/2020/10/14... [npr.org]
Truly inspiring
https://www.nbcnews.com/video/trump-touts-job-creation-at-foxconn-groundbreaking-in-wisconsin-1266276931894?v=raila
Only in the rapidly dissolving Trump's America can some kook use a Republican led and bragged about failure as an example of Democrats running things.
Re:You can't build (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:You can't build (Score:5, Interesting)
Wait until the adrenaline injections they've been giving the economy wear off. Extended unemployment benefits and the eviction moratorium end on December 31st, just before the transfer of power. They rushed to get these benefits locked in for the year way back in March, but in all the intervening months, they haven't been able to work out any extension. (Or really any other plan, period.) If Trump can't put his name on the stimulus checks, I guess they're not worth issuing. Although I suppose it could be worse, they could have tried administering the economy a bleach injection.
Stay positive. Don't think about how good things "could" be, be grateful for what you have. That's what they tell me. Then they ask for a tithe, gas some protesters, and hold a Bible out at arm's length like they've never touched one before.
Re: (Score:2)
If Trump can't put his name on the stimulus checks
Oh god I almost forgot about that embarrassing display. Do you remember back in the day when that was a concern? God I miss the days where the POTUS just acted like a vain shit of a child rather than trying to actively subvert democracy. Those were good times.
reading comprehension (Score:2)
>was actually a "material" part of the contract. ("Material" is a legal term that means relevant or significant.)
Are Verge readers idiots or did the submitter include this bit of "help"? My question is material to understanding where the superiority complex comes from.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not a lawyer and don't work with contracts so while I'm familiar with "material" in that context, I didn't know the specific legal definition. But I guess not everyone is as smart as the great "awwshit"
Re: (Score:2)
>while I'm familiar with "material" in that context
Right, exactly, and that is enough to understand what is happening in the story. No 'as smart as the great "awwshit"' required, whatever that means.
Orange Clown Droppings (Score:5, Insightful)
Foxconn is apparently correctly named.
They conned Wisconsin.
They conned the governor.
They conned the orange clown.
I'm sorry for the taxpayers of Wisconsin who now will foot the bill. ...just as I'm sorry for the rest of us footing the bill for the orange clown's con.
E
GOOD and this is why: (Score:2, Insightful)
People who trust big business are their own best punishment. People who trust their elected leadership are their own best punishment. They DESERVE to be hurt, badly, for being so cretinous, gullible and craven.
Many techies knew this was a scam but who listens to us?
Remember Foxconn then contemplate why the US wastes billions defending our Taiwanese parasite for zero benefit to the American people.
oh please... (Score:2)
what a crock.
I don't know about Chinese contract law (Score:2)
Re:Foxconn decided business in china was easier. (Score:5, Insightful)
Or Foxconn could just be using the Chinese negotiation playbook:
[...]
6. Remember, negotiations are never over. You may fly your president across the ocean, sign the deal, shake hands, and think it is all done, only to find out the next day they no longer agree to some aspect of the deal. Issues can arise and renegotiations can and often do take place at any given point in the process.
7. Take all promises made during negotiations with a grain of salt. Don’t factor them into the negotiation process. The people you’re talking to may say they have government, sales, or supplier connections when in fact they don’t. Such exaggerations are part of doing business in China. Unless they are followed by concrete demonstration, those who take them seriously do so at their own peril.
source [allbusiness.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't Foxconn a Taiwanese company? The business culture is very different there. Bad faith negotiating tactics aren't the norm.
Re: Foxconn decided business in china was easier. (Score:2)
Let them renegotiate the deal once, you don't have to pray they won't renegotiate the deal again - it's inevitable.
Re: (Score:2)
People who think this sounds sort of reasonable, should read the original article in Verge. It's a fine piece of investigative journalism.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Haha, what you meant to say was, "Donald fucked over Wisconsin and the GOP and I'm sad because Orange Man lost!"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you even know the Gov of Wisconsin name without google. There is more than national poltics and this is certainly a fucking grand example. Amazon and Foxcomm signed up with reasonable government and expected to deliver by Socialist's Trolls.
Do you even know what Socialism is without google? People on the right wing sling that word around a lot. Considering the wild abandon with which you people use the word as some kind of instant debate wining pejorative one would think you could reel off the definition without googling.
Fuck off hair sniffer fans that deal was done in by the voters of Wisconson two + years ago.
I know you Americans are practically incapable of forming a sentence that does not include the word 'fuck', but expletives don't strengthen the argument you are trying to make, they just make you look pathetic.
Re: (Score:2)
"I know you Americans are practically incapable of forming a sentence that does not include the word 'fuck', but expletives don't strengthen the argument you are trying to make, they just make you look pathetic."
Damned shame you're unaware of fucking studies which show that those of us whom are foul-mouthed are actually more intelligent and fluent than your average moron.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/... [sciencedirect.com] - here's one for ya.
The fact you let a word bother you shows your own lacking mental fortitude.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you even know what Socialism is without google?
Everyone has a different definition. If someone uses the word "socialism" without clarifying what they mean, then they probably don't mean anything. Similar situation when someone uses the word "fascism." Just roll your eyes.
Re: (Score:2)
Ha, it's worse. There was a high ranking Republican official who said the Democrats are literally the Communist Party. For a party that is highly opposed to recreational drugs, they certainly seem to be sniffing a lot of glue.
Re:Foxconn decided business in china was easier. (Score:5, Insightful)
I consider myself a pretty liberal American, but when I think of Socialism, I don't think of Finland or Bernie Sanders, I think of missile parades in Red Square and Khrushchev banging his shoe on the table at the UN.
Meaning that you have chosen to associate socialism with one of its most extreme and violent manifestations. One could similarly equate capitalism with S-American natives being shot by CIA trained death squads because they demanded a pay raise from, or protested against their land being stolen by, some American corporation. Does that put into perspective how dumb that point of view is?
Re:Foxconn decided business in china was easier. (Score:4, Informative)
By American standards, Finland is socialist.
Re:Foxconn decided business in china was easier. (Score:5, Insightful)
By American standards, Finland is socialist.
By American standard anything to the left of Fox News is socialist.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know. Did you see how they turned on Trump after he dared to lose the election? I wouldn't be surprised if people now consider Fox News socialist too.
Re: (Score:2)
By Trump's standards, Fox is now socialist.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know. Did you see how they turned on Trump after he dared to lose the election? I wouldn't be surprised if people now consider Fox News socialist too.
That's just normal and expected behaviour in a pack of Hyaenas.
Re: (Score:2)
They did not turn on Trump. They instead reported the news. They may have a conservative bias but that does not mean they must lie in order to do that.
What part of a belief in small government, fiscal responsibility, and family values requires lying?
Re: (Score:2)
The part where you ram your "family values" down my throat and tell me I have to put up with it in order to get economic conserrvatism in the bargain.
Then there's the part where I don't even get that. [marketwatch.com]
Re: (Score:2)
They went to the Supreme Court to argue that they have a right to lie and force their employees to lie. While they do have that right, it does not mean it is moral for a supposed news organization to have a policy of lying.
And a government just big enough to repress people but not help people seems to be what the small government people want, along with the right to kill off their parents in the name of family values while racking up the biggest deficits in history.
Re: Foxconn decided business in china was easier. (Score:2)
It's easy to see that this is true. Just look at how people who achieve some measure of success in America immediately look for ways to emigrate to Finland.
Re: Foxconn decided business in china was easier. (Score:2)
Finland is a wonderful place to work and live. The problem is, as with many places, that its successful industry is allowed to be wiped out by the dominant and aggressive US industry.
Perhaps it's not socialist enough, though, yeah, that's probably the wrong word... It should be more like China and aggressively protect its domestic companies.
Re:Foxconn decided business in china was easier. (Score:5, Insightful)
I consider myself a pretty liberal American, but when I think of Socialism, I don't think of Finland or Bernie Sanders, I think of missile parades in Red Square and Khrushchev banging his shoe on the table at the UN.
The Soviet Union was never truly socialist, it was just a totalitarian regime that used some of the language to justify its existence. Plenty of regimes have called themselves nice sounding things but still been the same old some subset of elites hold all the power/money. Cf. that North Korea's official name is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
The actual definition of socialism is "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole"
So any system in which the entire community (i.e., nation) doesn't have meaningful input is fake socialism.
And in spite of what the establishment in the USA would like people to believe (and the establishment includes republicans and democrats), socialism is not antithetical to market practices and even individual people becoming rich. In fact arguably, the USA is already and always has been socialist in that there has always been some level of regulation of commerce by the government which is the representative of the community/People. In fact one of the powers that the Constitution most explicitly grants Congress is the ability to regulate commerce.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Foxconn decided business in china was easier. (Score:4, Insightful)
Using the USSR as proof socialism is bad is the same as using North Korea as proof that democracy is bad.
Re: Foxconn decided business in china was easier. (Score:2)
Or using America to prove that capitalism is bad.
Re: (Score:3)
That's the thing, isn't it.
Ideologies like Socialism and Communism are the perfect poster boy for the True Scotsman fallacy. There's always a defender standing by ready to explain why the topic of discussion isn't "genuine" Socialism.
I appreciate your point, but in this case there is no doubt that a system where power is almost exclusively in the hands of a small group of elites cannot be called actually socialist just as it is obviously true that North Korea isn't remotely a democratic republic.
Re: (Score:3)
Ideologies like Socialism and Communism are the perfect poster boy for the True Scotsman fallacy.
That poor "True Scotsman" is rather over-worked these days, especially with regard to socialist ideas. The UK has had Labour governments from time to time, who put forward socialist policies such as nationalized industries and free health care. There was a notable lack of death camps and other features of Soviet Russia under any Labour government.
I have put forward what I term liberal ideas on these pages, and was called a "Marxist apologist" for my troubles. When I pointed out that I abhorred the totalitar
Re: (Score:2)
This particular topic isn't even remotely close to looking like socialism. The definition has never been "anything Trump disagrees with" because socialism was invented before Trump was born.
Re: (Score:2)
The actual definition of socialism is "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole"
That....literally matches the Soviet Union.
Re: (Score:2)
People who are saying "Socialism is bad" are saying public education and free emergency-care are bad, but they're not demanding all those children be sent to coal mines, like the "good old days". What they mean is 'welfare is bad' but they're not refusing a pension when they're old or when they're sick and lose their job. What they want, is unemployed people being punished for demanding things like a minimum wage, which is enshrined by law, so everyone is responsible. This is class warfare, secretly clai
Re: Foxconn decided business in china was easier. (Score:2)
Pah. It's just a word. Every system of governance is different. I'm not sure there's much value in pigeonholing them.
Re: (Score:2)
>The actual definition of socialism is "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole"
This definition is nonsensical, as socialism is a form of state policy that mandates state ownership of all means of production.
>The Soviet Union was never truly socialist, it was just a totalitarian regime that used some of the language to justify its existence.
Socialism definitionally must be totalitarian, because it must enforce surrender of private property to the state regardless of the will of the people. This definitionally requires totalitarian state.
Overall, this seems to be the standard left wing Holocaust denial. "(National) Socialism is that utopia I have in my head. Therefore we couldn't have killed millions to get to it, as that is horrible, and beautiful dream in my head is the opposite of horrible".
What you're saying is completely incorrect. You've drunk the kool-aid of the establishment because this is exactly what they want you to believe so that you keep spinning on that treadmill. Socialism as a general idea has never ever included the notion that there is no such thing as private property.
Re: (Score:3)
Look up Libertarian Socialism. While there are branches of Socialism that involve the government, there are also branches that reject the government being involved.
Here, a quick quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't the rejection of government, it's just the power and authority being devolved to local government.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't the rejection of government, it's just the power and authority being devolved to local government.
Socialism can also include worker co-ops, without any government involvement.
The problem with worker co-ops is that they have no convenient excuse for failure. They are legal and can co-exist with capitalism. Yet they tend to do poorly. They fail to thrive, fail to grow, fail to attract workers.
I lived in a city with a grocery store run as a co-op. It was losing money. The workers voted on a motion to take a pay cut. The motion failed so the store closed.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps rejection of big permanent government would be a better description. Thing is that a dozen people deciding that so and so has the best organizational skills works a lot better then a 100 million people voting for a leader based on his media skills or someone just being the most ruthless and taking charge.
Re: (Score:2)
I lived in a city with a grocery store run as a co-op. It was losing money. The workers voted on a motion to take a pay cut. The motion failed so the store closed.
There is a grocery co-op in our community as well, it's been running successfully for over 30 years and recently expanded to a new larger facility.
Re: (Score:2)
Grocery stores tend to be one of the most popular co-op businesses.
They have a flat skill hierarchy. There are no rockstar cashiers. So there are no big pay differentials that cause resentment.
Productivity is relatively easy to measure.
They can have slightly higher prices than their competitors because many of their customers are committed to supporting them for ideological and political reasons. They do better in lefty college towns.
Yet, even in the grocery business, co-ops are rare.
Re: Foxconn decided business in china was easier. (Score:5, Insightful)
Dunning-Lriger strikes again. You can't tell the difference between socialism, communism, oligarchy, and kleptocracy.
The USSR was not socialist. It was an oligarchy hiding behind the label of communism.
Socialism can work well with democracy. Look at Canada - a social democracy, universal health care, capitalism, elections where we know the winner the next morning and they take over immediately .
No lame ducks allowed, no electoral college bs, etc.
There's also Germany, France, etc.
No wonder Trump found it so easy to manipulate the US population, when you don't know squat and are proud of you ignorance as a form of patriotism. Same as not wearing masks, election a QAnon freak, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Social Democracy is only vaguely related to socialism. Kinda included under the same broad philosophical umbrella, but equating the two is worse than equating a free-market economy, and the regulatory captured oligopoly that dominates the US economy since they're both capitalism.
As generally used anywhere in the world with a political Left (on a spectrum spanning the full possible range from true communism on the far left, to absolute monarchy on the far right), and grossly oversimplified since I'm no expe
Re: (Score:2)
In junior high school we were required to have a class on the constitution, and we could not graduate without passing the constitution test. But today, apparently you can be president without having ever read the constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have any examples of real examples of Communism with over about a 100 people? Just because some authoritarian fuckwit claims to be working towards Communism does not make them Communist. Communism just sounds good to the poor when there is a revolution.
The problem with Communism is the same with any Libertarian ideology, there's always ruthless assholes wanting power and taking it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think Communism, like Anarchism *can* work, in small intentional communities where the founders all agree in principle on their founding doctrines --
There are many examples of intentional communities [ic.org]. Some work better than others.
As a trend, the more "socialist" they are, the more poorly they work. Sharing workshops and childcare works okay. Distributed ownership of land and housing, much less so.
The distribution of income is also divisive. The productive tend to resent the lazy.
What happens, though, two, three or more generations down the line ...
Even the second generation (children of the founders) often has no interest in the ideals. The most productive and aspirational of them are the first to leave.
Some of these
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, The Village.
Re: (Score:2)
In a small group, shunning or exile are the choices. This breaks down in a larger group where everyone does not know everyone else. Most of these ism's just do not scale up or work in the modern era. Even the democracy experiments seem to be failing. Wish there was an answer.
Re: (Score:3)
And that's a relic of the US leading the charge on the containment of Communism. But Socialism as a general set of economic and political ideologies predates Communism, and despite both Marx and his heirs' attempts to co-opt the term, and conservatism gleeful to help make Marx's point, the two have become equivalent in many people's eyes.
Re: (Score:2)
I consider myself a pretty liberal American, but when I think of Socialism, ... I think of missile parades in Red Square and Khrushchev banging his shoe on the table at the UN.
That sounds like a "you" problem, stemming from your lack of understanding of what the words actually mean. The right has successfully programmed you into a knee-jerk response when you hear the word "socialism".
For example, Khrushchev was the first secretary of the Communist Party during the Cold War. Notice how I didn't write the "Socialist Party"? There's a reason for that.
Learning the difference between "socialism" and "communism" would be a good place for you to start.
Re: (Score:3)
Dude, the USSR called themselves the communist party because they were trying to achieve communism. They were fully aware that they hadn't achieved it yet. Sounds like you need to learn history.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're afraid of socialism, then you should probably stop using all the social programs that you (probably) make at least some use of:
A standing army, the FDA, the EPA, clean, drinkable water coming from every faucet, 24-hour emergency rooms, fully-staffed hospitals waiting to give you life-saving care, fire departments, child-abuse investigators, controls on what toxic chemicals can be poured into your drinking water, a national highway system, social services, drug treatment centers, Medicaid and Medic
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not afraid of socialism. I'm communist.
Re: (Score:2)
I consider myself a pretty liberal American, but when I think of Socialism, I don't think of Finland or Bernie Sanders, I think of missile parades in Red Square and Khrushchev banging his shoe on the table at the UN.
This just underscores why it's stupid for guys like Bernie Sanders to use the word "socialism" to advance their causes. It's rhetorically ineffective because it's such a loaded word and means different things to different people.
Personally, I think if a person's political beliefs can be explained using a single word, they do not engage in the sort of nuance necessary to govern effectively.
Re: (Score:2)
This just underscores why it's stupid for guys like Bernie Sanders to use the word "socialism"
Bernie really is a socialist. He toned down his ideology when he was running for president, and ran as a vanilla progressive. But in the past, he has advocated government ownership of the "commanding heights" of the economy.
So steel mills, car factories, and coal mines would be run by the government. But small businesses like bakeries, restaurants, and shoe repair shops would still be privately owned.
This is similar to the Lemon Socialism [wikipedia.org] in some European countries, which they have mostly abandoned.
Re: (Score:3)
This is similar to the Lemon Socialism [wikipedia.org] in some European countries, which they have mostly abandoned.
Quote of first sentence of the Wikipedia article:
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that, according to my definition of socialism and most people who understand it primarily as an economic theory, Bernie Sanders is a socialist. But he also believes in democracy and many people think socialism = totalitarianism. So if he wants to convince people to support his political theory, using the word "socialist" is just a nonstarter.
Bernie is an odd one who probably can't really escape the term considering his fawning over the USSR in the 70s and 80s, but younger politicians who run on the
Re: (Score:2)
In our country, the terms "you " is very very discriminatory. It is particularly discriminatory when you say "you people" against a group of minority.
Because "you people" have generally became a huge bunch of special snowflakes being offended by everything.
And the rest of the world happily followed.
Re: Foxconn decided business in china was easier. (Score:2)
I'm not sure about "happily". Most, probably, noticed how some of those who disagreed were losing their jobs or at least we're subjected to a barrage of insults, and decided to just keep quiet....especially those who are not so good at arguing and thinking on their feet. Best to leave such intercourse to the likes of JP who can argue the pants of superman and has the qualifications and experience to back it up.
Re: (Score:2)
In our country, the terms "you " is very very discriminatory.
How is it discriminatory being the subject of a sentence? I mean we could say al'y'all instead but that would come across mockingly.
When you're done looking up the word socialism as the GP suggested maybe look up discrimination next because I don't think you understand what that word means.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you stood somewhere in a public space in the US shouting 'FUCK' at the top of your voice people would apparently not pay you much mind judging by how accepted seasoning your speech with the word 'FUCK' seems to be in the US. The exception would appear to be if you chose some place in the Bible belt where people are still offended by that word. Do the same in the middle of, say, the Alexanderplatz in Berlin,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the Fuckparade [wikipedia.org] been in Berlin for the last 23 years?
Re: (Score:2)
If you stood somewhere in a public space in the US shouting 'FUCK' at the top of your voice people would apparently not pay you much mind judging by how accepted seasoning your speech with the word 'FUCK' seems to be in the US.
No, don't be a Dunce. It is because we value Freedom of Speech, but they're not actually saying anything. So who cares? Why would you pay it any mind?
If they want anybody to pay attention, they at least need to figure out what they're trying to fuck.
Re: Foxconn decided business in china was easier. (Score:2)
Holy fuck, that was a lot of words. :-P
Re: (Score:2)
Look at our current president who is one of the loudest and inconsiderate people on the face of the Earth as an example.
He stands out compared to the average American politician, but compared in general to random people in random places he's pretty average. That's how low-brow most humans really are. Even among world leaders; he stands out as an asshole only among close US allies. Compared to world leaders more generally, he's rather typical.
Re:Foxconn decided business in china was easier. (Score:5, Informative)
The current governor is Tony Evers. The one who was when the handout to Foxconn happened, was Scott Walker. I didn't use google.
I just did the thing you're praying that people won't: I read the article.
First paragraph for preview:
No manner of friendly regulatory environment could make Foxconn go good on their promises, because it was already so friendly it didn't give a damn about those promises.
Re: (Score:2)
I think its ok for Wisconsin to expect Foxconn to deliver what they promised, no matter the party affiliation of the current government of the state.
Re: (Score:2)
You sound like one of those guys that's been telling me to "Get over it!" for the last 4 years.
So....get over it.
Re: (Score:3)
Except in this case, state and local governments in Wisconsin actually *spent* hundreds o fmillions of dollars of money extracted from taxpayers to buy land and build infrastructure to cater to this nothing burger.
It was a direct subsidy, at least for the well-connected contractors who executed this useless make-work project.
Re: (Score:2)
In actuality it was an attempt to bolster the reelection of Republican incumbent Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, and president Trump. Both reelections failed, of course. Though this project likely wasn't the reason for either of these politicians failing to win re-election, it sure didn't help. And the taxpayers of Wisconsin, along with residents of SE Wisconsin, are worse off for this.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, refusing to tax someone, i.e. kick them in the balls, as incentive to increase operations, is not a subsidy. A subsidy is when you take someone else's money and give it to a third party.
Oh, so "let someone else pay for the things that you use" is not a subsidy, then. Got it.
Re: (Score:3)