Ram moving back across the border?

Although off topic to the original "move manufacturing back to the US", here are some links to the history of bankruptcy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_bankruptcy_law

https://www.thebalance.com/history-of-bankruptcy-in-the-united-states-316225

https://www.bankruptcydata.com/p/brief-history-of-bankruptcy

I feel that commitments should be repaid by the debtor so the creditor is not punished, but the above links show how bankruptcy has evolved in the world through out our history.

spud1957 wrote:
There have been more jobs lost in the auto industry to automation than moving plants outside the US. If the desire is to save American jobs, why don't I hear anyone beating on that drum.

Unless a robot goes out and robs someone at gunpoint, you won't.

The only drum that could be beat on is to re-train workers to build, program or service robots. Probably a higher tech skill than many factory workers possess, or want to learn.

fj12ryder wrote:
Sorry, but bankruptcy to me means you did something poorly and are facing the consequences. I don't like loopholes and bankruptcy in most cases is just that. It may be legal but that doesn't help the people who got shafted get what is legally coming to them.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on loopholes. :)

I hear you. BUT there are many reasons for bankruptcy. Over taxation, regulations, economy, customers that don't pay, suppliers who can't/deliver on time and yes poor management. I am all for living wages but I wonder how many jobs will be lost by those who can only work in fast food and other service jobs when wages go to $15.? Mc Donalds is installing kiosks in some place to allow customers to place order without workers. Punch button on what you order, zip credit card and turn around and pick up what you want.

I remember as a kid how there was a big sensation about food being placed in machines. One person could fill enough to service a hundred customers. Kind of like vending machines today. Didn't get very far but I see them returning.

fj12ryder wrote:
Sorry, but bankruptcy to me means you did something poorly and are facing the consequences. I don't like loopholes and bankruptcy in most cases is just that. It may be legal but that doesn't help the people who got shafted get what is legally coming to them.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on loopholes. :)

Well, I will say, I do agree with you on that point (in terms of shafting the folks who lose out on what they legally have coming to them). It chaps my butt as well to listen to commercials that tell people to call thus and such credit services because you have the RIGHT to not pay your full credit card bills. Or, the tax services that say 'call us, and we will settle your tax bill for pennies on the dollar'.

I don't pretend to understand all the bankruptcy laws, but I think there are different remedies based on the different bankruptcy chapters or whatever. I think in the case where businessmen (like Trump) own multiple businesses, they shield each business from the other, so the business either makes it or loses on it's own. I think that is smart business, although I do feel for the little guys who may not get what they are owed. It sucks, for sure, but the only way to make it suck less is change the **** laws.

Mike

Sorry, but bankruptcy to me means you did something poorly and are facing the consequences. I don't like loopholes and bankruptcy in most cases is just that. It may be legal but that doesn't help the people who got shafted get what is legally coming to them.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on loopholes. :)

NJRVer... Didn't realize you were in the know about this. Were you one of the workers 'shafted'? Im betting there's more to the story, as there usually is.

and fj12ryder, there is nothing wrong with taking full advantage of every legal avenue available to you. Just like taxes, until someone closes the legal loopholes, you can't whine and complain about someone taking full legal advantage of the rules and regulations.

And before anyone says Im a blind Trump loyalist, I voted for Ted Cruz in the primary. I voted for Trump in the General because he's the better of the two for this country right now. I have more confidence in him than I could ever have had in the alternative. We've dealt with that, and seen the result.

Mike

^^^^^^^^^Hey, any good businessman can have 6 bankruptcies in his past. :)

Walaby wrote:
If we take a step back and think about it, who would you want to take control and build the US industrial and business base back up? Someone who has built highly successful and profitable businesses or a political guy? The fact that Tillerson has a golden parachute, while I don't like the excess at the expense of the workers, that was a BUSINESSES decision on what THEY (Exxon) felt THEY needed to do for THEIR business.

I want the best minds in the business to fix our economy and bring jobs back to the US. You can't argue with the success that Trump has had, or those he's bringing on board. You may not LIKE it because Tillerson got a golden parachute of enormous proportions, but hey, if he's able to command that level of compensation, fine. I don't expect him to turn against business, but I expect him (and others) to improve the trade relationships such that these businesses thrive. I want every business in the US to make as much profit as legally possible. I want every CEO to be a greedy bastard and strive to improve his or her's company value and profit at every opportunity. That means growth, and that means more jobs for my fellow citizens.

In terms of Trumps son-in-law.. who cares. He can seek advice from anyone he wants. And I like the idea that he is bringing in people who have diametrically opposite points of view than his. It helps make sure he sees all sides and makes an informed decision.

Mike

Trump is not as successful as he would lead many to think. He is also not that great of a businessman, unless you consider how he shafts contractors to increase his own cut.
That D.C. hotel that just opened, electrical and plumbing contractors owed $5million and have to fight to try to get it. This is Trumps normal business model.
Not exactly the example I think this country should set for businesses.

tomman58 wrote:
How did a dodge truck turn into a political statement for Trump? judging what the news is saying today, he and his golden showers may be history soon. Treason is not what we need.

X2 lol

Walaby wrote:
If we take a step back and think about it, who would you want to take control and build the US industrial and business base back up? Someone who has built highly successful and profitable businesses or a political guy? The fact that Tillerson has a golden parachute, while I don't like the excess at the expense of the workers, that was a BUSINESSES decision on what THEY (Exxon) felt THEY needed to do for THEIR business.

I want the best minds in the business to fix our economy and bring jobs back to the US. You can't argue with the success that Trump has had, or those he's bringing on board. You may not LIKE it because Tillerson got a golden parachute of enormous proportions, but hey, if he's able to command that level of compensation, fine. I don't expect him to turn against business, but I expect him (and others) to improve the trade relationships such that these businesses thrive. I want every business in the US to make as much profit as legally possible. I want every CEO to be a greedy bastard and strive to improve his or her's company value and profit at every opportunity. That means growth, and that means more jobs for my fellow citizens.

In terms of Trumps son-in-law.. who cares. He can seek advice from anyone he wants. And I like the idea that he is bringing in people who have diametrically opposite points of view than his. It helps make sure he sees all sides and makes an informed decision.

Mike

No doubt about it, Trump is shaking the tree---hard. Tough choices, tough decisions lay ahead. I wish our country, and our new President (on January 20th), only the best.