Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ormet Warns Of Possible 400 Layoffs
The Intelligencer / Wheeling News-Register ^ | Monday, August 04, 2003

Posted on 08/04/2003 10:05:24 AM PDT by Willie Green

For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.

As many as 400 workers at the Ormet Corp.'s Reduction Plant in Hannibal could be laid off within 60 days, according to company officials.

Ormet Primary Aluminum Corp. today announced that market conditions through the remainder of the year will determine whether it will be forced to curtail up to three of the six potlines at its Hannibal Reduction Plant. The curtailments may be necessary due to prolonged weak metal prices, volatility of alumina and energy prices, as well as other rising costs.

As a result and as required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, Ormet sent notices to employees Friday advising them that curtailment of up to three potlines is possible after 60 days. The WARN notice gives the company the flexibility to curtail three potlines, if necessary.

However, company officials cautioned that changing market conditions could force Ormet to curtail up to two potlines before the 60-day notification period is over as such a move would note require the notification process of the WARN Act.

Ormet officials today said the number of workers to be laid off will depend upon the number, if any, of potlines that may be curtailed. The maximum number of layoffs for a three potline curtailment would be 400 employees, both hourly and salaried.

Ormet Chairman and CEO R. Emmett Boyle said the layoffs are the result of prolonged depressed metal prices, an anemic economy, rising health care costs, and the volatility of alumina and energy prices. Alumina is refined from bauxite and is necessary to make aluminum. In the past two year, alumina prices have more than doubled on the spot market. Ormet will be subject to inflated alumina costs beginning in January when its contractual agreement with a third-party provider ends.

  "The U.S. aluminum industry has been in a serious economic downturn for approximately three years," Boyle said. "The hurdles facing Ormet's reduction plant are many and great, and they are the same hurdles facing all U.S. primary aluminum facilities.

"In 1978, there were 34 aluminum reduction plants operating in the United States. Today, there are just 13, including the Ormet Hannibal Reduction Plant, and these are all not operating at full capacity." Boyle said.

Last week, Alcoa, the world's largest aluminum producer, issued WARN notices to temporarily curtail all production at its Intalco reduction plant in Ferndale, Wash.

When that plant is curtailed, the number of operating reduction plants in the U.S. will fall to 12.

  Boyle said Ormet officials are hoping market conditions improve and the company will not be forced to curtail any potlines.

"We sincerely hope that recent increases in metal prices continue and then hold at reasonable levels. Ormet will continue to evaluate our plans and make appropriate decisions given all the changing variables," he said.

  Boyle assured that the curtailment would not cause disruptions for Ormet customers. He said Ormet operations will continue to provide the majority of metal necessary to support the company's downstream operations, however, the company will supplement primary metal requirements with outside purchases as necessary. "We currently plan to continue operating billet and flat rolled product facilities at their current levels," he said.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; US: West Virginia
KEYWORDS: aluminum; axisofeeyore; globalism; thebusheconomy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-62 next last

1 posted on 08/04/2003 10:05:25 AM PDT by Willie Green
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: mountaineer
ping
2 posted on 08/04/2003 10:06:04 AM PDT by Willie Green (Go Pat Go!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
Hey, dijya hear? I'm anti-global-economy these days. Of course, you're not talking to me, so you don't get to say attaboy. Which means I get to have a one-sided discussion with you. Ha!
3 posted on 08/04/2003 10:07:13 AM PDT by Lazamataz (PROUDLY POSTING WITHOUT READING THE ARTICLE SINCE 1999!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
"The U.S. aluminum industry has been in a serious economic downturn for approximately three years," Boyle said.

Ain't we all.

4 posted on 08/04/2003 10:08:45 AM PDT by Lazamataz (PROUDLY POSTING WITHOUT READING THE ARTICLE SINCE 1999!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
Before you go to sleep at night Willie G., do you pray that there will be a big layoff somewhere, so you can post your negative feelings here? When the economy rebounds, and the unemployment rate is very low again; what are you going to post about????
5 posted on 08/04/2003 10:27:03 AM PDT by andrew1957
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
To bad your conversion happened after the anti globalization riots in Seattle. You could have linked up with the leftists there and helped trash Starbucks. See ya at the baricades. I'll be on the opposite side.

Say hi to Pat and Lenora when you meet up with them.
6 posted on 08/04/2003 10:36:21 AM PDT by KDD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
US Factory Orders Higher Than Expected (The Bush Recovery)
7 posted on 08/04/2003 10:39:57 AM PDT by KDD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: KDD
Yeah, that's because it's fair to compete against slave labor in China and people in India who live in mud daub houses in fields of pig s**t and who live on 2 pringys a year.

No, no, really, it makes a lot of sense. Beside, George Washington and Alexander Hamilton and Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt were just a bunch of dottering old Pat Buchanan wannabees. They probably hated America and wanted to see it fail.

8 posted on 08/04/2003 10:42:30 AM PDT by Lazamataz (PROUDLY POSTING WITHOUT READING THE ARTICLE SINCE 1999!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Does Trading With Poor Countries Hurt the U.S.?
http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a392eb6bf2a18.htm

In a word...NO!

9 posted on 08/04/2003 10:45:14 AM PDT by KDD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: arete; Willie Green
To bad your conversion happened after the anti globalization riots in Seattle. You could have linked up with the leftists there and helped trash Starbucks. See ya at the baricades. I'll be on the opposite side. Say hi to Pat and Lenora when you meet up with them.

Say, you know something else? When you guys and I were on the opposite side, you were mostly civilized and seemed secure in your knowledge.

But now that I am on your side, my ideological opponents are shrill, angry, and frothing at the mouth, trying to beat down my opinion rather than calmly trying to refute it.

Kinda like liberals.

10 posted on 08/04/2003 10:46:39 AM PDT by Lazamataz (PROUDLY POSTING WITHOUT READING THE ARTICLE SINCE 1999!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: KDD
Straw man. Trading is fine. Tariff-free trading that does not 'tax' nations who disregard EPA-style and OSHA-style regulations, and who employ slave labor is not Free Trade. It is Unfair Trade.

But just pump out another shrill ad-hominum or logical fallacy. Who knows? The next insult or non sequitur might just change my mind!

11 posted on 08/04/2003 10:49:12 AM PDT by Lazamataz (PROUDLY POSTING WITHOUT READING THE ARTICLE SINCE 1999!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
BTW You know that website, f*****company.com? Used to be they only posted dotcom and computer company layoffs/closings/internal memos. Now it's any US company




PillowTex has been the largest and most significant layoff in the last month. A very interesting company that owns Cannon, Fieldcrest and other textile labels
_____________

Built on brands
Under another scenario, Pillowtex still could survive as a business entity, though not as a manufacturer, speculates Jack Ferner, management lecturer at Wake Forest University and an expert on the textile industry.
Ferner outlines a situation in which Pillowtex could act as a marketer of its well-established brands. The company's sheets, towels, comforters, pillows and bedroom and bath accessories could be made overseas, where wages are lower, he suggests.
Under that approach, Pillowtex would be a design and marketing company, akin to most U.S. athletic-shoe companies.
"They're dissolving the manufacturing side and (could) source the product overseas, where the labor markets are cheaper," Ferner says.
In that scenario, Pillowtex or its survivor would follow a pattern that company and union officials have complained about for the past 30 years: exporting jobs to third-world countries.


_____

AN OPEN LETTER TO PILLOWTEX EMPLOYEES AND THEIR FAMILIES
From Michael Gannaway, Chairman and CEO, Pillowtex Corporation


There is no easy way to communicate the disappointment and sadness that surrounds our need to close the doors to a Company with a proud and distinguished history. Since joining Pillowtex I have been working with a management team dedicated to finding the best possible outcome for the Company’s future. Our management team and employees have made extraordinary contributions as we attempted to avoid this unfortunate outcome. In the end we are faced with our worst-case scenario. I want to personally thank each Pillowtex employee for years of loyalty and service and assure you that this decision was not reached lightly and without deep regret.

Pillowtex is a large and complex business, and the process of exploring alternate strategies is complicated. We explored various plans focused on preserving Pillowtex as a stand-alone entity by changing our business model, but the costs to implement those changes were enormous and in the end we were not successful in securing the substantial investments needed to carry out any of those plans. We also tried to arrange for a sale of our business to a more financially stable company that could keep some of our employees working, but despite our persistent efforts, terms for a mutually acceptable agreement could not be reached. I assure you that this final outcome was accepted only after an exhaustive review of all alternatives.

The textile industry is facing unprecedented increases in global manufacturing capacity combined with softening demand in a tough retail environment. For well over two decades the U.S. textile industry has been under constant pressure to reorganize while facing fierce competition from overseas manufacturers. Cheap imports are flooding the U.S. market and driving down prices, while global sourcing has created a new business model for textile companies that we are unable to replicate without substantial investments. These trends are being seen nationwide and have created a marketplace where we can no longer offer our customers the merchandise they need at prices that are profitable for this Company.
12 posted on 08/04/2003 10:51:12 AM PDT by dennisw (G_d is at war with Amalek for all generations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
It is the maxim of every prudent master of a family, never to attempt to make at home what it will cost him more to make than to buy. The taylor does not attempt to make his own shoes, but buys them from the shoemaker. The shoemaker does not attempt to make his own clothes, but employs a taylor. The farmer attempts to make neither the one nor the other, but employs different artificers. All of them find it for their interest to employ their whole industry in a way in which they have some advantage over their neighbors, and to purchase with a part of its produce, or what is the same thing, with the price of a part of it, whatever else they have occasion for.

What is prudence in the conduct of every private family, can scare be folly in that of a great kingdom. If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of our own industry, employed in a way in which we have some advantage.

Adam Smith
13 posted on 08/04/2003 10:52:51 AM PDT by KDD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
What I haven't got an answer to yet from the anti trade people is: If it's such a great idea to erect trade barriers between countries, then why don't we erect them between states?
14 posted on 08/04/2003 10:56:18 AM PDT by narby (Terminate Gray Davis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KDD
Tell it to George Washington -- who refused to wear a coat cut of British cloth to his inauguration and signed the Tariff Act of 1789. He believed "A free people…should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent on others…" Likewise, Alexander Hamilton wrote in his 1791 report as Treasury Secretary, "Every nation ought to endeavor to possess within itself all the essentials of national supply." Similarly, Abraham Lincoln said, "Give me a tariff and I will give you the greatest nation on earth." McKinley called prosperity the "trophy of a protective tariff." Teddy Roosevelt wrote, "I thank God I am not a free trader."
15 posted on 08/04/2003 10:56:53 AM PDT by Lazamataz (PROUDLY POSTING WITHOUT READING THE ARTICLE SINCE 1999!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: narby
What I haven't got an answer to yet from the anti trade people is: If it's such a great idea to erect trade barriers between countries, then why don't we erect them between states?

Because states are in this together, whereas nations compete against one another.

16 posted on 08/04/2003 10:57:39 AM PDT by Lazamataz (PROUDLY POSTING WITHOUT READING THE ARTICLE SINCE 1999!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
WE ARE ALL GONNA' DIE!!!
17 posted on 08/04/2003 11:05:06 AM PDT by cibco (Xin Loi... Saddam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: cibco
WE ARE ALL GONNA' DIE!!!

Four exclamation points, and it's "We're", and you gotta capitalize only the first letter of each word.

18 posted on 08/04/2003 11:08:56 AM PDT by Lazamataz (PROUDLY POSTING WITHOUT READING THE ARTICLE SINCE 1999!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
The Corn Laws

Overview. The Corn Laws were a series of statutes enacted between 1815 and 1846 which kept corn prices at a high level. This measure was intended to protect English farmers from cheap foreign imports of grain following the end of the Napoleonic Wars.

Note: in this context "corn" means grain of all kinds, not simply the vegetable corn.

Background. During the Napoleonic Wars, the British blockaded the European continent, hoping to isolate the Napoleonic Empire and bring economic hardship to the French. One result of this blockade was that goods within the British Isles were protected against competition from outside sources. Farming became extremely lucrative, and farming land was traded at very profitable rates.

When the wars ended in 1815 the first of the Corn Laws was introduced. This law stated that no foreign corn would be allowed into Britain until domestic corn reached a price of 80 shillings per quarter.

Who Benefited? The beneficiaries of the Corn Laws were the nobility and other large landholders who owned the majority of profitable farmland. Landowners had a vested interest in seeing the Corn Laws remain in force. And since the right to vote was not universal, but rather depended on land ownership, voting members of Parliament had no interest in repealing the Corn Laws.

Who suffered? The artificially high corn prices encouraged by the Corn Laws meant that the urban working class had to spend the bulk of their income on corn just to survive. Since they had no income left over for other purchases, they could not afford manufactured goods. So manufacturers suffered, and had to lay off workers. These workers had difficulty finding employment, so the economic spiral worsened for everyone involved.

Reform. The first major reform of the Corn Laws took place during the ministry of the Duke of Wellington in 1828. The price of corn was no longer fixed, but tied to a sliding scale that allowed foreign grain to be imported freely when domestic grain sold at 73 shillings per quarter or above, and at increasing tariffs the further the domestic price dropped below 73 shillings. The effect of this reform was negligible.

The Reform Act. In 1832 the right to vote was extended to a sizable portion of the merchant class through the passage of The Reform Act. The merchant classes were far more likely to look favorably on changes to the Corn Laws.

The Reformers. Several groups arose during the early and mid 1800s to fight for repeal of the Corn Laws amid other social reforms. Most prominent among these movements were the Chartists and the Anti-Corn Law League. The ACLL began in 1836 as the Anti Corn Law Association, and in 1839 adopted its more familiar name. Despite its social reform agenda, the league drew its members largely from the middle-class; merchants and manufacturers. Their aim was to loosen the restrictions on trade generally, so that they could sell more goods both at home and around the world. After constant agitation, the ACLL was successful, and in 1846 the government under Sir Robert Peel was persuaded to repeal the Corn Laws.

LINK

19 posted on 08/04/2003 11:09:59 AM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
"Four exclamation points, and it's "We're", and you gotta capitalize only the first letter of each word."

It's been awhile. You know what they say about memory. It is the...

20 posted on 08/04/2003 11:17:00 AM PDT by cibco (Xin Loi... Saddam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: cibco
It's been awhile. You know what they say about memory. It is the...

....second thing to go.

21 posted on 08/04/2003 11:17:45 AM PDT by Lazamataz (PROUDLY POSTING WITHOUT READING THE ARTICLE SINCE 1999!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Dane
So is your point that the US should abolish farm subsidies, or that the US should outlaw unions (such as those for police, firemen, and other government workers)?

Maybe the point should be that government should be downsized and privatized, and funded locally to only the amount the local communities will vote to fund.

22 posted on 08/04/2003 11:27:25 AM PDT by meadsjn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: meadsjn
Huh? Reply #19 is a historical perspective of the damage high tariffs can do.
23 posted on 08/04/2003 11:32:51 AM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Dane
I gathered as much, but one example does not a principle make.

Adam Smith described some circumstances where tariffs were justified and would benefit an economy. Some of those passages have already been posted several times.

24 posted on 08/04/2003 11:47:58 AM PDT by meadsjn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
The true believers aren't allowing much room for dissenting opinions these days are they?

Richard W.

25 posted on 08/04/2003 11:51:58 AM PDT by arete (Greenspan is a ruling class elitist and closet socialist who is destroying the economy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: meadsjn
I gathered as much, but one example does not a principle make

Maybe not a principle, but a precedent.

And the corn laws were generally damaging to the 19th century UK.

26 posted on 08/04/2003 11:54:50 AM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: KDD
US Factory Orders Higher Than Expected (The Bush Recovery)

That means nothing . The products are made with third world labor.No jobs will be created here from that slight bump

27 posted on 08/04/2003 11:59:15 AM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: arete
The true believers aren't allowing much room for dissenting opinions these days are they?

If there is any dissent on Free Trade, when you might prefer Fair Trade, you are immediately branded a Buchananite. I must toe the party line, or I was clearly a Florida Jew who voted for Buchanan in 2000.

Of course, I could aspire to be a Whiner or a member of the Axis of Eeyore.

But my favorite is to be called a doom-and-gloomer, precisely because I used to taunt YOU in PARTICULAR with that phrase.

Kinda a little ironic self-Schadaenfreud going on there.

28 posted on 08/04/2003 12:00:35 PM PDT by Lazamataz (PROUDLY POSTING WITHOUT READING THE ARTICLE SINCE 1999!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: KDD
Does Trading With Poor Countries Hurt the U.S.? http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a392eb6bf2a18.htm

In a word...NO!

Note the date on that article. That was before reality set in

29 posted on 08/04/2003 12:01:04 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
In 1886 Henry George said, “Free trade consists simply in letting people buy and sell as they want to buy and sell. Protective tariffs are as much applications of force as are blockading squadrons, and their objective is the same—to prevent trade. The difference between the two is that blockading squadrons are a means whereby nations seek to prevent their enemies from trading; protective tariffs are means whereby nations attempt to prevent their own people from trading.” It's sad to see so many people on this forum and elsewhere taken in by fallacious arguments that were thoroughly refuted centuries ago. Restrictions on trade are restrictions on freedom. When the government says that you can't buy or sell a product to a foreigner at an agreed-on price, it's interfering with your freedom to do as you please as long as you're not hurting someone. (And the claim that you're hurting someone indirectly by not doing business with them doesn't count: If we start saying that you can't have your hair cut by Smith rather than Jones because this will hurt Jones, we abolish freedom altogether.)

Freedom lovers should support free trade just as much as they support freedom in all other areas, and for the same reasons. The real effect of accepting restrictions on trade is (surprise) that those with connections with the government (typically those who are already rich or powerful) get special favors (tariffs or quotas protecting them, or subsidies) while the rest of us get dumped on. Don't fall for the arguments of the special pleaders, the sophists, the con artists, who almost always turn out to be in the pay of those who stand to benefit from the trade restrictions they advocate, at the expense of everyone else. BD

30 posted on 08/04/2003 12:09:51 PM PDT by KDD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: KDD
So you got an industrialist and an admittedly brilliant economist, and I've got two founding fathers and two presidents. In the application of the logical fallacy of the Appeal to Authority, I seem to be beating you.
31 posted on 08/04/2003 12:16:37 PM PDT by Lazamataz (PROUDLY POSTING WITHOUT READING THE ARTICLE SINCE 1999!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: narby
That is a dumb question
32 posted on 08/04/2003 12:17:37 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
...market conditions could force Ormet to curtail up to two potlines

Will this become a problem for you? :~)

33 posted on 08/04/2003 12:20:40 PM PDT by verity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KDD

Tell Adam (who BTW bought shoes from American shoe makers, now an impossibility!)


* The government missed a whopping 440,000 jobs that were lost last year. Why should this year's figures be any more accurate?

* Last January the unemployment rate was "adjusted" downward by 0.2 percent for changes in surveying methods. Right now the closely watched rate should actually be 6.6 percent, not 6.4 percent. If the rate does drop - as some on Wall Street are hoping/predicting - so what?

* The government recently started seasonally adjusting its employment figures each and every month. Washington may as well let the numbers be picked by a Lotto machine.

* Back in the 1990s, the government changed the questions it asked in its household unemployment survey; more recently, it lowered the number of people it canvassed in chronically underemployed inner cities.

The result, not surprisingly: an unemployment rate that is lower than it was in the last recession more than 10 years ago.



* In a less widely watched section of its report, the government is reporting that the unemployment rate in June was 10.6 percent, when you include people who are too discouraged to look for jobs and/or not fully employed.

The figure would be worse if the government hadn't booted millions of people from the discouraged worker category into a no-man's-land where they aren't counted at all.

The two surveys the government conducts aren't even close in their picture of the job market.

The survey of households, from which the unemployment rate is calculated, reports that there are 138 million jobs in this country. The survey of employers counts 129 million.

Even when you adjust for things like one person having more than one job, the figures can't be reconciled to within a million jobs of each other.


file:///Users/teresari/Desktop/Trade/New%20York%20Post%20Online%20Edition%3A%20business.html
34 posted on 08/04/2003 12:21:09 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
LOL

At least you haven't lost your sense of humor.

Just your mind.
35 posted on 08/04/2003 12:22:42 PM PDT by KDD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
Perhaps the fact that the US imports much of its aluminum from Russia instead of obtaining it locally may be of cause.

http://www.manufacturing.net/pur/index.asp?layout=article&articleid=CA118570

Nice free subsidy for Russia! - Must be because they are so supportive of the USA. Our politicians have no clue.

36 posted on 08/04/2003 12:28:04 PM PDT by thtr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thtr
Our politicians have no clue.

The sad thing is I think they know exactly what they are doing. No one could be this dumb

37 posted on 08/04/2003 12:37:58 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: KDD
If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of our own industry, employed in a way in which we have some advantage.

The problem is that the employment we enjoyed with some advantage has been handed on a silver platter to foreign countries. They will indeed make the commodity cheaper with the help of the high technology we invented. We have squandered our competitive advantage before finding an alternate means of employment where we possess an advantage. A similar mistake was made when Clinton handed over the ICBM guidance secrets to China for campaign contributions. China acquired for peanuts what took the the U.S. 30 years of research. A fool gives away his advantage over his competitors. Those who believe we will innovate our way out of this stupidity are themselves fools. The innovations will be handed over just as readily.

38 posted on 08/04/2003 12:55:57 PM PDT by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
So Karl Marx dies and shows up at the gates of heaven to be met by Saint Peter.

"Name?" asks Peter.
"Marx, Karl Marx." replies the famous author.
"Hmm," says Peter to himself, "why do I know that name?"
"I am Marx," Marx said, beaming with pride, "founder of socialism and the driving force behind the communist ideal called Marxism."
"I see," Peter said. "I'll have to check with God."

So Peter rushes off to confer with God. God hears the name Marx and immediately a look of disgust infects His face. "Marx?" God says, "He's nothing but a trouble maker. Send him down to hell."

So Peter happily signs the appropriate forms and deports Karl Marx to Satan's firy hell.

Some time later, a free trade agreement is forged between Heaven and Hell. The deal is hailed by all to be a great economic leap forward that would revitalize both struggling economies. But soon after the treaty, God realizes that Heaven is no longer receiving any products from Hell. So he sends Saint Peter down to investigate.

"Well?" asks Peter of Satan, "What's the hold up? We have an agreement!"

Satan shrugs his shoulders, exasperated. "It's that Marx fellow," Satan replied. "Ever since he got down here, all we've had are strikes and labour demands. Productivity has dropped to zero!"

"So?" Peter asks, "What would you have us do?"

"Take him back. Take Marx back to Heaven, and I guarantee productivity will sky rocket!"

So Peter agreed, on God's behalf, to accept Karl Marx back to Heaven.

Some time later Satan realizes that Hell has not received any orders for product from Heaven. In fact, very little communication at all has leaked from Up Above. So, concerned for the economic welfare of Hell, he makes a trip to Heaven.

"Peter! Peter, are you there?" Satan demands.

"Yes, what is it?" Peter answers.

"What's the hold up? What about the flow of trade?"

"Oh I'm sorry," Peter said, "We have decided to adopt a Marxist isolationist stance. We are an intrinsic self-governed body that is now based on the needs of the prolitariate. It is our opinion that this free trade agreement only benefits the bourgeois."

"What?!" Satan was furious. "I demand to speak to God!"

Peter's eyebrow is raised in confusion. "Who?"
39 posted on 08/04/2003 1:00:42 PM PDT by KDD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: KDD
We have decided to adopt a Marxist isolationist stance.

The premise behind your joke is flawed.

Marx favored Free Trade.

40 posted on 08/04/2003 1:03:12 PM PDT by Lazamataz (PROUDLY POSTING WITHOUT READING THE ARTICLE SINCE 1999!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
To sum up, what is free trade, what is free trade under the present condition of society? It is freedom of capital. When you have overthrown the few national barriers which still restrict the progress of capital, you will merely have given it complete freedom of action. So long as you let the relation of wage labor to capital exist, it does not matter how favorable the conditions under which the exchange of commodities takes place, there will always be a class which will exploit and a class which will be exploited. It is really difficult to understand the claim of the free-traders who imagine that the more advantageous application of capital will abolish the antagonism between industrial capitalists and wage workers. On the contrary, the only result will be that the antagonism of these two classes will stand out still more clearly.

Gentlemen! Do not allow yourselves to be deluded by the abstract word _freedom_. Whose freedom? It is not the freedom of one individual in relation to another, but the freedom of capital to crush the worker.

Why should you desire to go on sanctioning free competition with this idea of freedom, when this freedom is only the product of a state of things based upon free competition?

We have shown what sort of brotherhood free trade begets between the different classes of one and the same nation. The brotherhood which free trade would establish between the nations of the Earth would hardly be more fraternal. To call cosmopolitan exploitation universal brotherhood is an idea that could only be engendered in the brain of the bourgeoisie. All the destructive phenomena which unlimited competition gives rise to within one country are reproduced in more gigantic proportions on the world market. We need not dwell any longer upon free trade sophisms on this subject, which are worth just as much as the arguments of our prize-winners Messrs. Hope, Morse, and Greg

If the free-traders cannot understand how one nation can grow rich at the expense of another, we need not wonder, since these same gentlemen also refuse to understand how within one country one class can enrich itself at the expense of another.

But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade.

Marx's speech appeared in French, in Brussels, in early February 1848; translated into German the same year and published in Germany by Joseph Weydemeyer -- friend of Marx and Engels.

Read for yourself.

Do you think he favored it for his ideal of government?
41 posted on 08/04/2003 1:08:12 PM PDT by KDD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: KDD
I have read a quote of Marxes that counters this opinion. It must be that he was of two minds about it. Maybe he changed his mind.

Why, so did I! There's another way you can equate me with Marx! That'll win me over!

42 posted on 08/04/2003 1:19:58 PM PDT by Lazamataz (PROUDLY POSTING WITHOUT READING THE ARTICLE SINCE 1999!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: KDD
At least you haven't lost your sense of humor. Just your mind.

The pro-tariff people have always been very polite to me, even when I wasn't. But the anti-tariff people are really quite rabid.

I've only seen that level of anger in liberals. Hmmmmm......

43 posted on 08/04/2003 1:21:33 PM PDT by Lazamataz (PROUDLY POSTING WITHOUT READING THE ARTICLE SINCE 1999!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Tariffs on foreign products will not be as damaging to our economy as the taxation and regulation currently levied against our workers and businesses.

It is absurd to talk of "free trade" with foreign nations, some of which utilize near-slave labor, when our own businesses and workers are shackled with such onerous taxes and prohibitions.

At some point, the taxpayers are going to catch on to the fact that they have been betrayed by those they have elected to represent them, and they might get a little more stingy with their tax payments. It is already way past time for Washington to collect its taxes from the Chinese and Indians they truly represent.

Workers and businesses should be paying zero taxes here first, while imports and offshoring are taxed at 125% or so; then, we will see a level playing field. If we did this, India and China would be more likely to develop capitalist economies internally, and might subsequently be more willing to engage in international trade with a better sense of balance.

My purpose for using 125% is that is about the cost of payroll taxes on American workers. Even if the employer pays some of this, it is still included in the cost of hiring an American. It is the government, not the workers, that create these costs.

44 posted on 08/04/2003 1:23:16 PM PDT by meadsjn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Hey...I was just trying to tell you a joke.

45 posted on 08/04/2003 1:26:37 PM PDT by KDD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: KDD
Hey...I was just trying to tell you a joke.

I got a great joke. How many programmers are laid off programming a lightbulb changing simulation? 3,000,000 because people are outsourcing it to Bangalore, India...., and now they can't get a job anywhere, and their unemployment benefits are running out, and some of them take restaurant work at minimum wage, and some of them move back in with their parents at the age of 35, and some even kill themselves!!!! AAAAAAAHHHH HAHHAHH AHHAHHHAH AHHHAHAHAHHAH ......

Oh G-d, I slay me sometimes.....

46 posted on 08/04/2003 1:31:01 PM PDT by Lazamataz (PROUDLY POSTING WITHOUT READING THE ARTICLE SINCE 1999!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: KDD
Adam Smith thought countries would be doing things themselves. He never anticipated the global flight of capital.

He viewed things from a nation-state POV, not a "globalist" POV.
47 posted on 08/04/2003 1:47:34 PM PDT by superloser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
If you are in Trinidad, go down to the docks and look at all the empty steel hull fishing boats sitting there rusting and for sale at a quarter of their value. Think about all the captains and crews that manned them and wonder what happened to them when their boat was tied up for good because, for various reasons, they were unable to compete with the forces that put them out of buisness.

I watched an entire industry die. But life goes on and some adapt and some do not. We couldn't compete any longer. A man I knew for 20 years jumped off the back of his boat in 15 ft. seas with 60 pounds of sash weights duct taped to his body. Others fell into crime or drug abuse. I learned that life on the reef is tough. A wounded creature won't last long there. I own a buisness now and do well. Some did not. I need less government intrusion in my life not more. But protectionism put me out of buisness once. Government is no friend to free enterprise. Big Centralized Government solutions are never a conservative solution. I perfer "natural selection" to that.
48 posted on 08/04/2003 2:03:12 PM PDT by KDD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
It hurts me deeply to agree with you on something, but we're both rowing the same boat on this globalism scam.
49 posted on 08/04/2003 2:16:18 PM PDT by warchild9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: KDD
If you are in Trinidad,

I'm not.

I watched an entire industry die. But life goes on and some adapt and some do not.

If almost all the jobs related to manufacturing are nearly wiped-out as a profession in America; and if we are offshoring (and thusly not doing) accounting, engineering, software, call-center work, reading and interpreting medical data, financial planning, and soon enough medical doctor and lawyering work; and if immigrants are doing transportation, agriculture, and the remaining other low-tech work; and if robotics will be completely eliminating 90% of retail sales jobs with RFID technology and self-checkout lanes.....

.....what will we be doing? How, exactly, do you propose that people 'adapt'?

50 posted on 08/04/2003 2:24:00 PM PDT by Lazamataz (PROUDLY POSTING WITHOUT READING THE ARTICLE SINCE 1999!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-62 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson