In other words you don't have any statement of principle from a
non-Christian religion that is as clear and unambiguous as Pope Paul
VI's "We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption
of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct
abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded
as lawful means of regulating the number of children. "
(a) That is not an official statement by any recognized spokesman for
(b) the whole point of the document you linked is that abortion is
_acceptable_ under Buddhism under some circumstances.
Regardless, it's an opinion by someone whose relationship to Buddhism
is not at all clear.
Never said that. If you take the time to read what I wrote and try to
comprehend it, you will see that the government nor the church matters to me
in this case. You will also note that I did not say which side I'm on. None
of your business, none of the government's business, nor is it the business
of any religion.
I picked up an elective (Sociology) for, what I thought, an easy
I found it incredibly fascinating, but didn't make a career out of it
I did latch on to a lot of really cool information which came out of
In Papua New Guinea, they found several tribes (this would have been
in the 1950's) who had had zero exposure to western ideas, had no
exposure to Islam or any religion.
They did understand the concept of lying, stealing, murder all that
'wrong' stuff. The fact that they did it anyway had nothing to do with
the discovery. They knew it was wrong. They also knew to help somebody
So this whole 'murder-in-the-womb' concept would have even been wrong
to those in the jungle.
We KNOW what's right and wrong.
Different religions have merely capitalised on the fear aspect of
'wrong'...that somehow you can 'pay off' your sins, bribe your gods.
Fear moulding the masses....now where have I seen THAT demonstrated
oops...jumps off soap-box (made in ROC)
I object strongly to the use of force in this regard. What could be
more anti-choice than forcing a woman to have an abortion? For some
reason you keyed in on the word abortion in my post and missed the far
more important word FORCED.
I don't buy the simple minded cultural relativism arguments at all.
Some things are simply wrong. Infant sacrifice to appease the gods, for
example. I could care less if a given culture has practiced it for
thousands of years and if the practice is codified in law. It is still
wrong. Ditto for slavery.
As far as China goes, the fact that something is lawful or unlawful
doesn't have much moral standing at all. China has never had a
democratic government and it's laws are enacted and enforced by a
government which at it's root is a military dictatorship. Thus any
argument for something being ok in the context of China because of
China's laws of the moment has no principled foundation. You don't even
know that a given law expresses the majority view of the "culture"
because said law is enacted without any hint of even the consent of the
I couldn't agree more. Where and who did the Chinese copy to produce
cheap shit on a unlevel playing field! And we are allowing American
business to sell our future down the drain for profits! How will our
kids feel when the only jobs available here are at third world wages.
American ingenuity created most of the products available and then
were copied in "sweat shops" around the world. The Chinese have been
buying American debt for years and as soon as we can't buy their
products any longer they can trash the dollar and we will be in an
endless economic tailspin that will make mexico look like the golden
Keep on with that "couldn't care less" and drive more nails in the
inevitable coffin. I would hate to admit I was that ill informed!!
I am retired earlier than I had wanted to be partly as a result of
woodworking machinery moving to china.
About 350 very good, experienced, productive friends and collegues are
similarly positioned or are working below their skill level as a
result of moving product to China. These "greedy, slothful"
individuals were making a pure killing at an average of $13.50 an hour
with an average experience level of 25 years.
While working the transition of the product to china, I got to see
first hand the differences in the component quality. I got to see
cast iron that ranged from 145 to 225 brinnell hardness replace iron
that ranged from 195 to 205. I got to see pilot lot after pilot lot
that never was machined to statistical capability, and final the
powers that be turn their heads and use it anyway. I got see
literally every batch of finished product from China reworked before
it could be distributed. I got to experience missed deliveries,
emergency air freight shipments, orders constantly on quality hold,
and these things added to the shipment costs, warranty costs that
tripled, and the overhead required to" manage" chinese purchasing, I
got to see that those anticipated "savings" never really materialized.
Maybe some day.
Yesterday, I installed a kitchen sink and after spending the time to
install the brand new strainer basket (from China) I got to take it
back out because the threads were bad and would not hold the tailpiece
nut. In my life seems like this is at least a weekly occurance on
some defective chinese component. I'm slowly learning to test every
brand new chinese component before I use it to save time. Now many
times I buy it, open it in the store, test it and only leave the store
with it if it is good. Saves the trip back.
You can probably guess where I stand on the matter. If I have a
choice of a product that is made in the U.S. or any other country of
origin that has proven quality, I'll buy it. Many times there is no
I never had a problem with the Japanese grabbing market share in the
automobile business. They did it the right way, that is they made a
higher quality product and sold it at a fair price which resulted in
value. That's not the case on most things from china.
I understand where you are coming from. The one sentence that really stick
out is: "I got to see pilot lot after pilot lot that never was machined to
statistical capability, and final the powers that be turn their heads and
use it anyway." I have a problem with a company doing that.
I'd realy like to know the answers to so many questions when companies
decide to go overseas. Profit, of course, is a big motivator, but there are
many "what ifs".
The US built tools have to compete with other major brands, such as Jet and
Grizzly. In the end, what is the real cost difference when you back out the
emergency air shipments and re-work? What happens to the company reputation
when quality drops? What happens if the US manufacturing is kept in place,
but at a reduced capacity because some sales are lost to the cheaper
competition? How many people are willing to spend $xxx more for brand D
knowing they have superior quality of a machine built by experienced
and that's where you are wrong. My business was growing at a
reasonable rate each year. The operation was extraordinarily
profitable from a return on sales and return on invested capital
basis. The decision was made purely to try to squeeze out a little
I'm not going to quote direct figures but the volume of business is
signifcantly off as a result of the strategy.
I think we may have discussed this before. Did the market demand the
switch or did the corporate hacks just listen to their consultants and
believe their BS about "conversion costs" etc? It was the latter not
the former in my case. The customers for my product left *after* the
move, not before.
There will always be a segment of the market that wants high quality
and is willing to pay a reasonable amount more for that quality. If
they can find it.
Your comment was "not nearly enough". The customer base for the
product was steadily growing and the operation was quite profitable,
more so than the other segment in the company that had always depended
on imports and big box positioning. Under what criteria do you assign
a "not nearly enough" definition to the size of that select customer
If you are right, with the strategy of consolidation and globalization
now firmly in place, it should be growing even faster and even more
profitable. Not so. Try shrinking and losing.
Well, not having full access to the books nor having a seat on the board
of directors, it's not quite possible to fully answer in detail for your
specific former employer. The remark was, however, made as an overall
generalization, not a specific case study.
There was also one very important additional word in the comment you
have chosen to not quote and that was "apparently" which was simply a
reflection of the reality of what was chosen to be done. If they were
satisfied w/ the growth and size of the market one would presume the
decision would have gone another direction.
I understand your position and sympathize but facts is facts on both
sides of the equation. You see one set; it's pretty clear management
saw another based on their actions.
So what part of my post do you disbelieve and need additional proof?
I'm constrained from being able to offer it, just curious as to why
you would question my credibility.
I see, however, you commented in a portion of the thread that was
talking about woodworking machinery.
I have no idea what you just said.
Corporate leaders, who have not really done much but have fast tracked
to the top, rarely have the insight to leave well enough alone when
they have the "golden goose" They often want to kill it to get the
There are no facts on the Corporate hack side of the equation, only
speculation. Sustained profitability and growth over a long period of
time is a fact. A strategy of greed is not based on any fact
whatsoever, just a gleem in ones eye. "if we can squeeze a little
more out of this thing, our bonuses will be much larger". I'm sorry
you can find sympathy in that attitude, it is one of the reasons they
get away with it.
I wasn't in the boardroom, were you? I understand you were on the
factory floor and have a viewpoint of what you saw from there. I can't
say I'm pleased w/ the decision either, simply that I have too little
actual factual information to judge other than from the decision made
apparently the markets and profitability weren't to the level desired so
a decision was made to change.
Whether it will turn out to have the desired overall end effect isn't
yet known for longterm even though certainly it isn't clear it has had
the desired effect for the type of folks who tend to congregate here.
What it will do for their overall market share, etc., is still to be
No, I was a vice president, a company officer fully exposed to all
financial data specific to the company in all segments. The group and
corporate financial information was available to anyone who asked for
an annual report. There is nothing "secret" that happened in the
boardroom that would negate the actual financial results of the
specific company or my operation. It is as I described and I'm
constrained by confidentiality agreements that outlive my employment
from going into any more detail than that although they don't mean
much at this point.
I understand you were on the
The operation met and far exceeded all the financial targets for
growth, return on invested capital, cash flow, and return on sales
when many operations in the corporation were not meeting them. See
again the statement about unmitigated greed (and stupidity should be
added). If that is not enough "factual" information, so be it.
You don't know about the concept of present value do you. At this
point in history, the chances of it turning out with the desired
overall end effect financially are zero. The group was sold at a deep
discount (about $500 million) to sales volume after a number of break
even years followed the disastrous strategy. So those corporate
officers can *never* recoup what they have lost for the stockholders
of the corporation. It's lost for good.
even though certainly it isn't clear it has had
What do you mean by that? The desired effect of the corporate hacks
who initiated the strategy was to ruin the reputation of the brand and
lose significant market share? That has already happened. And
believe me when you have market share, it is a lot easier to keep it
than it is to get it back. My career was devoted to keeping and
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.