Impeachment

[Kirkland Laing]

If you don't want to be talked down to then don't make utterly moronic posts. Trying to argue against seventy five years of data with fucking anecdotes is laugh out loud idiotic. I've been really polite considering the garbage you're posting.

What I've written isn't speculation. Unions managed to secure about a third of increases in national income for their members and the wider workforce. Since the unions were neutered forty years ago the US workforce now gets absolutely fuck all because American labour has no bargaining power anymore. You can come up with an explanation why this has happened that doesn't involve unions losing their power anytime you want.

But you don't want to do that. You just can't face the fact that you're significantly worse off financially today than you would have been had unions still had the power they had back in the fifties and sixties. You're quite happy to see the top one percent loot the economy and parrot their propaganda about how it all works. It's like you're watching me come out of a bank with trolleys full of bags of cash and I'm loading my van to make a getaway and you're saying sit, wait, you dropped a bag. Let me help you load your truck. Idiot.


Fuck off, Kirk. You're a lot more belligerent than I remember you. As an avowed Reagan hater, you laughingly talk about unions getting "neutered" forty years ago, implying they don't exist or are woefully ineffective. You stupidly ignore their existence today, even if on a more measured level. You laser focus on your charts and graphs, ignoring all other factors, and the basic fact that most in the industry acknowledge and argue both the good and the bad that labor unions bring. You also laughingly attribute all of the economy's woes to the drop in union memberships and in their power and influence as well. You're good at posting charts and graphs, but lousy at logic.

Basically you're just another fucking fanatic who can't see the forest for the trees. Union... good. Management.... bad. Still living in the 60's, or whatever the fuck other era you happen to be stuck in. You conveniently ignore any other factors that may get in the way of your horse blinders. I honestly thought you were smarter and more even-tempered than that. I guess I thought wrong.

Unions can, and have on occasion, impeded their company's ability to compete by their unwillingness to compromise, even when it means reducing the competitiveness of the firm. In the end, everybody loses. But you don't see that side of that, because you have this puzzling attitude that keeps you from seeing anything big picture. You're just another fanatical bozo like the loser from Good Will Hunting who regurgitates what he memorizes from the textbooks.

Really..... fuck off.

"The industry". I'm not going on one industry or even the industrial sector of the US economy. I'm going on the entire US economy over 75 years. Not anecdata from one person's experience and the experience of a bunch of similarly clueless people that he's talked to.

And by the way, the Japanese steel industry had the same experience with being undercut by cheaper labour that America did. By the mid eighties Japan was having its lunch eaten by Korea, Taiwan and other Asian countries where the labour was cheaper. It wasn't down to unions of anything else, it was down to a second world economy becoming a first world economy and then being undercut by emerging second world economies.

But your incorrect anecdata leads me beauttifully to be able to make my point again with another excellent example. America suffered in the seventies and eighties from emerging economies taking global market share away from its domestic businesses. But eventually all these people found new jobs. You may be aware that our current president is trumpeting the best economy ever and the lowest unemployment in half a century. But there's a problem here. A lot of these new jobs are shitty jobs with low pay and no benefits compared to jobs back in the day.

Want to take a guess why? GDP per capita has doubled in real terms since Reagan busted the unions. But that huge increase in income hasn't gone to the vast majority of the country. It's going to a tiny number of people at the top of the tree. Why is that? Is the fact that American labour now can't bargain collectively with their bosses to be given a slice of that increased income to blame? Maybe the fact that the date labour/unions lost their political muscle coinciding with American wages stagnating isn't a coincidence?

Other questions you won't answer. Why did industrial/factory type jobs pay so well in the first place? Was it because it was easy to organise the labour in big industrys because big groups of people worked in the same place? Why did they have great wages and benefits back then to the point where a union wage could buy a house, raise a family, pay for holidays and cars and the American dream and even enough for college funds for the kids? How could all that be done on one wage compared to now? Have you seen when women first started to move into the employment market en masse? Nowadays families can't make ends meet working two full time jobs. How can national income per person have doubled in the last forty years yet families have gone from one income to two and are still struggling?

How come the workers at Foxconn (the people who assemble iphones) are working for a dollar an hour doing a hundred and twenty hours a week with working conditions so inhumane that the dormitories they live in are surrounded by suicide nets to stop workers creating bad publicity for Apple?




Maybe the fact that they're not allowed to unionise has something to do with it. Just a thought.

Like I said previously, take unions out of this altogether. Ban unions. End them completely. The fact remains that American labour needs some way to be able to get a slice of the increasing economic pie from bosses. American labour used to have a way to do this, now they don't. Whether it's unions or some other actor negotiating for labour then labour really needs this. It's not just a question of families struggling or fairness or anything like that. I'm not that fussed about other people to be honest. What I can see as clear as day, because I study this stuff for a living and have done for nearly thirty years now, is that the economy has become so unequal -- coincidentally starting to become so when unions lost their power -- that it is now a deformed entity, unable to generate decent economic growth even with massive ongoing economic stimulus and increasing large scale debt. And this has consequences eventually.

[El Kabong]

Maybe the fact that they're not allowed to unionise has something to do with it. Just a thought.

Actually in China the people can form unions but those unions have to be part of something called the All-China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU). And that Union is controlled by the Communist Party directly.


But I'm sure you know better....I mean you study this EVERY DAY!!!!!!....this just happened to fall off your "little shelf"

[Kirkland Laing]

Maybe the fact that they're not allowed to unionise has something to do with it. Just a thought.

Actually in China the people can form unions but those unions have to be part of something called the All-China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU). And that Union is controlled by the Communist Party directly.


But I'm sure you know better....I mean you study this EVERY DAY!!!!!!....this just happened to fall off your "little shelf"

Yes Lyle, I know. They can't form any kind of independent bargaining organisation that represents them. You either disappear or are put in prison if you try.

https://www.ft.com/content/8ca45576-...6-bf4a0ce37d49

[TitoFan]

We all know you've worked in finance 30 years, Kirk. It still doesn't excuse you from being condescending and belligerent when discussing issues having to do with the economy.

You of all people should know the economy doesn't rise and fall due to one single, solitary factor. There are always several involved.

It's just like those who think that the economy turns on a dime. I've played down the credit people want to give solely to Trump and blame they want to place squarely on Obama based on that very same principle.

But I digress. My point is that we should be able to have a conversation about something you're obviously very passionate about, like labor unions, without devolving into an insult-fest.

My only points are this:

1. The demise of unions are not solely to blame for the shrinking wages (in purchasing power) in recent economies.

2. Unions have brought both good and bad to U.S. industry. You've stated some of the good..... I stated some of the bad. (Oh..... and about your anecdote-phobia..... is your waxing on about your shipbuilding and mining ancestry not engaging in anecdotes? IMO, it's bad form to discount things like personal experience when discussing an issue. But you may differ on that.)

3. Obtaining better wages for the American worker doesn't necessarily need to be through the traditional labor unions. Can't we come up with different mechanisms to reach the same goal?


The following article points to some of the other factors that can be blamed for the worker wage situation we're facing today.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/we...ers-2019-05-29



I don't wish to continue the hostilities, but I'll insist that once in awhile we need to get our heads out of the textbooks, and see how things occur in real life. My telling you about experiences with labor unions in very unionized industries such as the steel industry isn't meant to eliminate or counter any of the data you've presented. But rather to complement it with a rounder picture of what unions bring to the table, both good and bad.

[Kirkland Laing]

We all know you've worked in finance 30 years, Kirk. It still doesn't excuse you from being condescending and belligerent when discussing issues having to do with the economy.

You of all people should know the economy doesn't rise and fall due to one single, solitary factor. There are always several involved.

It's just like those who think that the economy turns on a dime. I've played down the credit people want to give solely to Trump and blame they want to place squarely on Obama based on that very same principle.

But I digress. My point is that we should be able to have a conversation about something you're obviously very passionate about, like labor unions, without devolving into an insult-fest.

My only points are this:

1. The demise of unions are not solely to blame for the shrinking wages (in purchasing power) in recent economies.

2. Unions have brought both good and bad to U.S. industry. You've stated some of the good..... I stated some of the bad. (Oh..... and about your anecdote-phobia..... is your waxing on about your shipbuilding and mining ancestry not engaging in anecdotes? IMO, it's bad form to discount things like personal experience when discussing an issue. But you may differ on that.)

3. Obtaining better wages for the American worker doesn't necessarily need to be through the traditional labor unions. Can't we come up with different mechanisms to reach the same goal?


The following article points to some of the other factors that can be blamed for the worker wage situation we're facing today.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/we...ers-2019-05-29



I don't wish to continue the hostilities, but I'll insist that once in awhile we need to get our heads out of the textbooks, and see how things occur in real life. My telling you about experiences with labor unions in very unionized industries such as the steel industry isn't meant to eliminate or counter any of the data you've presented. But rather to complement it with a rounder picture of what unions bring to the table, both good and bad.

Unions being neutered is the overriding number one reason that wages have been stagnant for forty years. Look at this.



That article you posted admits at the start the consensus opinion is that the lack of union power is the reason for stagnating wages and then proceeds to quote McKinsey, a consultancy firm that have been used by corporations to attack unions for generations. The best reason McKinsey can come up with that unions aren't a big factor is the "boom and bust" cycles since 2000. There have always been boom and bust cycles. You get expansions and then recessions. That's never been any different. It's incoherent garbage and the graph/numbers are bullshit too. They're counting every small busnessman, CEO, executive, doctor, lawyer, accountant, dentist and other professional as "labour". Anything thatisn't investment income is counted as "labour". What a load of shite.


Oh and globalisation. That's actually true. Workers had no say in how globalisation was done. Why was that? Unions have no political muscle anymore and don't have a seat at the table for economic policy decisions anymore like they did in the pre-Reagan era.

Look at the graph I posted though. Per capita income, adjusted for inflation has doubled since Reagan took office. That's per capita though, the average. If you and your best friend and Bill Gates share a taxi somewhere the average salary for the four people in the taxi is three billion dollars a year. So averages are misleading. Half of American workers are actually worse off over the last forty years. You can see who is making all the money. This is not rocket science. There needs to be somebody representing the people who are getting fucked up the arse every day or they're going to continue to get fucked.

[TitoFan]

We all know you've worked in finance 30 years, Kirk. It still doesn't excuse you from being condescending and belligerent when discussing issues having to do with the economy.

You of all people should know the economy doesn't rise and fall due to one single, solitary factor. There are always several involved.

It's just like those who think that the economy turns on a dime. I've played down the credit people want to give solely to Trump and blame they want to place squarely on Obama based on that very same principle.

But I digress. My point is that we should be able to have a conversation about something you're obviously very passionate about, like labor unions, without devolving into an insult-fest.

My only points are this:

1. The demise of unions are not solely to blame for the shrinking wages (in purchasing power) in recent economies.

2. Unions have brought both good and bad to U.S. industry. You've stated some of the good..... I stated some of the bad. (Oh..... and about your anecdote-phobia..... is your waxing on about your shipbuilding and mining ancestry not engaging in anecdotes? IMO, it's bad form to discount things like personal experience when discussing an issue. But you may differ on that.)

3. Obtaining better wages for the American worker doesn't necessarily need to be through the traditional labor unions. Can't we come up with different mechanisms to reach the same goal?


The following article points to some of the other factors that can be blamed for the worker wage situation we're facing today.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/we...ers-2019-05-29



I don't wish to continue the hostilities, but I'll insist that once in awhile we need to get our heads out of the textbooks, and see how things occur in real life. My telling you about experiences with labor unions in very unionized industries such as the steel industry isn't meant to eliminate or counter any of the data you've presented. But rather to complement it with a rounder picture of what unions bring to the table, both good and bad.

Unions being neutered is the overriding number one reason that wages have been stagnant for forty years. Look at this.



That article you posted admits at the start the consensus opinion is that the lack of union power is the reason for stagnating wages and then proceeds to quote McKinsey, a consultancy firm that have been used by corporations to attack unions for generations. The best reason McKinsey can come up with that unions aren't a big factor is the "boom and bust" cycles since 2000. There have always been boom and bust cycles. You get expansions and then recessions. That's never been any different. It's incoherent garbage and the graph/numbers are bullshit too. They're counting every small busnessman, CEO, executive, doctor, lawyer, accountant, dentist and other professional as "labour". Anything thatisn't investment income is counted as "labour". What a load of shite.


Oh and globalisation. That's actually true. Workers had no say in how globalisation was done. Why was that? Unions have no political muscle anymore and don't have a seat at the table for economic policy decisions anymore like they did in the pre-Reagan era.

Look at the graph I posted though. Per capita income, adjusted for inflation has doubled since Reagan took office. That's per capita though, the average. If you and your best friend and Bill Gates share a taxi somewhere the average salary for the four people in the taxi is three billion dollars a year. So averages are misleading. Half of American workers are actually worse off over the last forty years. You can see who is making all the money. This is not rocket science. There needs to be somebody representing the people who are getting fucked up the arse every day or they're going to continue to get fucked.

To be clear, I don't disagree with you regarding the plight of the average American worker and his/her wages. Just wanted to clear that up front. I'm also definitely not part of that "top 1%" in your graph, so I'm not knocking unions for that reason. I think it all boils down to me asking you how would you solve this problem if it were up to you. Would you favor the old, traditional model of labor union? Or would you prefer another way or vehicle to have labor's interests better represented? You see.... all I was saying from the very beginning (and still saying) is that some of those traditional labor union models did some harm to industry which had nothing to do with stagnating wages or downtrodden American workers. So looking at the big picture... in what way do you think labor would be well served while maintaining the competitiveness of industry in today's globalized market? I'm all for American workers not having to hold down two jobs just to make ends meet. That's what has eroded the essence of American families over the last several decades. At the same time, and I know you hate "anecdotes and personal experience", traditional unions can and have been somewhat self-serving, and IMO you can't be narrow minded when demanding a list of conditions from a company. Big picture..... the ideal relationship between management and labor is a win-win where the workers are happy with the wages..... and companies are allowed to maintain their competitiveness.

[Kirkland Laing]

We all know you've worked in finance 30 years, Kirk. It still doesn't excuse you from being condescending and belligerent when discussing issues having to do with the economy.

You of all people should know the economy doesn't rise and fall due to one single, solitary factor. There are always several involved.

It's just like those who think that the economy turns on a dime. I've played down the credit people want to give solely to Trump and blame they want to place squarely on Obama based on that very same principle.

But I digress. My point is that we should be able to have a conversation about something you're obviously very passionate about, like labor unions, without devolving into an insult-fest.

My only points are this:

1. The demise of unions are not solely to blame for the shrinking wages (in purchasing power) in recent economies.

2. Unions have brought both good and bad to U.S. industry. You've stated some of the good..... I stated some of the bad. (Oh..... and about your anecdote-phobia..... is your waxing on about your shipbuilding and mining ancestry not engaging in anecdotes? IMO, it's bad form to discount things like personal experience when discussing an issue. But you may differ on that.)

3. Obtaining better wages for the American worker doesn't necessarily need to be through the traditional labor unions. Can't we come up with different mechanisms to reach the same goal?


The following article points to some of the other factors that can be blamed for the worker wage situation we're facing today.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/we...ers-2019-05-29



I don't wish to continue the hostilities, but I'll insist that once in awhile we need to get our heads out of the textbooks, and see how things occur in real life. My telling you about experiences with labor unions in very unionized industries such as the steel industry isn't meant to eliminate or counter any of the data you've presented. But rather to complement it with a rounder picture of what unions bring to the table, both good and bad.

Unions being neutered is the overriding number one reason that wages have been stagnant for forty years. Look at this.



That article you posted admits at the start the consensus opinion is that the lack of union power is the reason for stagnating wages and then proceeds to quote McKinsey, a consultancy firm that have been used by corporations to attack unions for generations. The best reason McKinsey can come up with that unions aren't a big factor is the "boom and bust" cycles since 2000. There have always been boom and bust cycles. You get expansions and then recessions. That's never been any different. It's incoherent garbage and the graph/numbers are bullshit too. They're counting every small busnessman, CEO, executive, doctor, lawyer, accountant, dentist and other professional as "labour". Anything thatisn't investment income is counted as "labour". What a load of shite.


Oh and globalisation. That's actually true. Workers had no say in how globalisation was done. Why was that? Unions have no political muscle anymore and don't have a seat at the table for economic policy decisions anymore like they did in the pre-Reagan era.

Look at the graph I posted though. Per capita income, adjusted for inflation has doubled since Reagan took office. That's per capita though, the average. If you and your best friend and Bill Gates share a taxi somewhere the average salary for the four people in the taxi is three billion dollars a year. So averages are misleading. Half of American workers are actually worse off over the last forty years. You can see who is making all the money. This is not rocket science. There needs to be somebody representing the people who are getting fucked up the arse every day or they're going to continue to get fucked.

To be clear, I don't disagree with you regarding the plight of the average American worker and his/her wages. Just wanted to clear that up front. I'm also definitely not part of that "top 1%" in your graph, so I'm not knocking unions for that reason. I think it all boils down to me asking you how would you solve this problem if it were up to you. Would you favor the old, traditional model of labor union? Or would you prefer another way or vehicle to have labor's interests better represented? You see.... all I was saying from the very beginning (and still saying) is that some of those traditional labor union models did some harm to industry which had nothing to do with stagnating wages or downtrodden American workers. So looking at the big picture... in what way do you think labor would be well served while maintaining the competitiveness of industry in today's globalized market? I'm all for American workers not having to hold down two jobs just to make ends meet. That's what has eroded the essence of American families over the last several decades. At the same time, and I know you hate "anecdotes and personal experience", traditional unions can and have been somewhat self-serving, and IMO you can't be narrow minded when demanding a list of conditions from a company. Big picture..... the ideal relationship between management and labor is a win-win where the workers are happy with the wages..... and companies are allowed to maintain their competitiveness.

Corporations are never going to have any kind of relationship with unions. Long story short, since FDR allowed collective bargaining back and give unions a seat at the economic policy table in the 1930s corporations have fought a scorched earth battle to overturn the legislation and take things back to before the New Deal era. There's a long history you can read about this. Under Reagan they succeeded.


It isn't about competitiveness. That's what corporations say when they're asked about why they're not increasing wages. It's not about international trade either. Less than one percent of American businesses export and ninety plus percent of exports are high quality manufactures and products that have patented IP or are products like airliners that few countries make, wages are an irrelevance with big value added products like this. Competitiveness is the absolute last thing they want. Do you know what happens in an actual competitive market with no barriers to entry and universal level playing field access to customers and suppliers? Profits trend towards zero. And profits are the single issue with corporations. If you're a CEO your one job is to maximise profits. If you can do this by screwing your workforce, cutting jobs, lobbying for legislation that fucks any competitor, buying up competitors or merging with one or just buying back your shares to increase the share price this is your job. If you don't succeed you're out on your arse.

How can we tell we have a sclerotic corporate landscape with a few big firms in every industry dominating the market by using the measures outlined above? Right now we have record corporate profits, that's how.




Corporate profits versus wages



Here's an economist from the noted communists Goldman Sachs:

http://blogs.reuters.com/macroscope/...es-are-so-low/

[El Kabong]

Yes Lyle, I know. They can't form any kind of independent bargaining organisation that represents them. You either disappear or are put in prison if you try.

https://www.ft.com/content/8ca45576-...6-bf4a0ce37d49

Oh....wow.....the Communists, they do things like that?

[Kirkland Laing]

Yes Lyle, I know. They can't form any kind of independent bargaining organisation that represents them. You either disappear or are put in prison if you try.

https://www.ft.com/content/8ca45576-...6-bf4a0ce37d49

Oh....wow.....the Communists, they do things like that?

The Communists do do things like that Lyle. And the capitalists don't give a flying fuck. They pretended to give a fuck back when China wouldn't do business with them and China was vilified for decades by America as a prison camp tyranny. The only thing China have changed is that they now allow western capitalists to invest there. The prison camps remain. We just found out that hundreds of thousands of Chinese minorities are now being used as slave labour for various western businesses. Here's a partial list of the wonderful western companies currently profiting from slave labour from people whose only crime is to be a minority in China:

Apple, BMW, Gap Nike, Samsung, Abercrombie & Fitch, Acer, Adidas, Alstom, Amazon, Apple, ASUS, BAIC Motor, BMW, Bombardier, Bosch, BYD, Calvin Klein, Candy, Carter’s, Cerruti 1881, Changan Automobile, Cisco, CRRC, Dell, Electrolux, Fila, Founder Group, GAC Group (automobiles), Gap, Geely Auto, General Electric, General Motors, Google, H&M, Haier, Hart Schaffner Marx, Hisense, Hitachi, HP, HTC, Huawei, iFlyTek, Jack & Jones, Jaguar, Japan Display Inc., L.L.Bean, Lacoste, Land Rover, Lenovo, LG, Li-Ning, Mayor, Meizu, Mercedes-Benz, MG, Microsoft, Mitsubishi, Mitsumi, Nike, Nintendo, Nokia, The North Face, Oculus, Oppo, Panasonic, Polo Ralph Lauren, Puma, Roewe, SAIC Motor, Samsung, SGMW, Sharp, Siemens, Skechers, Sony, TDK, Tommy Hilfiger, Toshiba, Siemens, Skechers, Sony, TDK, Tommy Hilfiger, Toshiba, Tsinghua Tongfang, Uniqlo, Victoria’s Secret, Vivo, Volkswagen, Xiaomi, Zara, Zegna, ZTE.

https://www.aspi.org.au/report/uyghurs-sale

Nobody in the corporate world gives a fuck about what political system a country has, whether it's a democracy or a tyranny, they don't care about human rights or any of the other bullshit we're told we stand for over here. It's all about the benjamins.

[El Kabong]

Yes Lyle, I know. They can't form any kind of independent bargaining organisation that represents them. You either disappear or are put in prison if you try.

https://www.ft.com/content/8ca45576-...6-bf4a0ce37d49

Oh....wow.....the Communists, they do things like that?

The Communists do do things like that Lyle. And the capitalists don't give a flying fuck. They pretended to give a fuck back when China wouldn't do business with them and China was vilified for decades by America as a prison camp tyranny. The only thing China have changed is that they now allow western capitalists to invest there. The prison camps remain. We just found out that hundreds of thousands of Chinese minorities are now being used as slave labour for various western businesses. Here's a partial list of the wonderful western companies currently profiting from slave labour from people whose only crime is to be a minority in China:

Apple, BMW, Gap Nike, Samsung, Abercrombie & Fitch, Acer, Adidas, Alstom, Amazon, Apple, ASUS, BAIC Motor, BMW, Bombardier, Bosch, BYD, Calvin Klein, Candy, Carter’s, Cerruti 1881, Changan Automobile, Cisco, CRRC, Dell, Electrolux, Fila, Founder Group, GAC Group (automobiles), Gap, Geely Auto, General Electric, General Motors, Google, H&M, Haier, Hart Schaffner Marx, Hisense, Hitachi, HP, HTC, Huawei, iFlyTek, Jack & Jones, Jaguar, Japan Display Inc., L.L.Bean, Lacoste, Land Rover, Lenovo, LG, Li-Ning, Mayor, Meizu, Mercedes-Benz, MG, Microsoft, Mitsubishi, Mitsumi, Nike, Nintendo, Nokia, The North Face, Oculus, Oppo, Panasonic, Polo Ralph Lauren, Puma, Roewe, SAIC Motor, Samsung, SGMW, Sharp, Siemens, Skechers, Sony, TDK, Tommy Hilfiger, Toshiba, Siemens, Skechers, Sony, TDK, Tommy Hilfiger, Toshiba, Tsinghua Tongfang, Uniqlo, Victoria’s Secret, Vivo, Volkswagen, Xiaomi, Zara, Zegna, ZTE.

https://www.aspi.org.au/report/uyghurs-sale

Nobody in the corporate world gives a fuck about what political system a country has, whether it's a democracy or a tyranny, they don't care about human rights or any of the other bullshit we're told we stand for over here. It's all about the benjamins.

I like that you responded as if my comment was serious.

[Beanz]

Yes Lyle, I know. They can't form any kind of independent bargaining organisation that represents them. You either disappear or are put in prison if you try.

https://www.ft.com/content/8ca45576-...6-bf4a0ce37d49

Oh....wow.....the Communists, they do things like that?

The Communists do do things like that Lyle. And the capitalists don't give a flying fuck. They pretended to give a fuck back when China wouldn't do business with them and China was vilified for decades by America as a prison camp tyranny. The only thing China have changed is that they now allow western capitalists to invest there. The prison camps remain. We just found out that hundreds of thousands of Chinese minorities are now being used as slave labour for various western businesses. Here's a partial list of the wonderful western companies currently profiting from slave labour from people whose only crime is to be a minority in China:

Apple, BMW, Gap Nike, Samsung, Abercrombie & Fitch, Acer, Adidas, Alstom, Amazon, Apple, ASUS, BAIC Motor, BMW, Bombardier, Bosch, BYD, Calvin Klein, Candy, Carter’s, Cerruti 1881, Changan Automobile, Cisco, CRRC, Dell, Electrolux, Fila, Founder Group, GAC Group (automobiles), Gap, Geely Auto, General Electric, General Motors, Google, H&M, Haier, Hart Schaffner Marx, Hisense, Hitachi, HP, HTC, Huawei, iFlyTek, Jack & Jones, Jaguar, Japan Display Inc., L.L.Bean, Lacoste, Land Rover, Lenovo, LG, Li-Ning, Mayor, Meizu, Mercedes-Benz, MG, Microsoft, Mitsubishi, Mitsumi, Nike, Nintendo, Nokia, The North Face, Oculus, Oppo, Panasonic, Polo Ralph Lauren, Puma, Roewe, SAIC Motor, Samsung, SGMW, Sharp, Siemens, Skechers, Sony, TDK, Tommy Hilfiger, Toshiba, Siemens, Skechers, Sony, TDK, Tommy Hilfiger, Toshiba, Tsinghua Tongfang, Uniqlo, Victoria’s Secret, Vivo, Volkswagen, Xiaomi, Zara, Zegna, ZTE.

https://www.aspi.org.au/report/uyghurs-sale

Nobody in the corporate world gives a fuck about what political system a country has, whether it's a democracy or a tyranny, they don't care about human rights or any of the other bullshit we're told we stand for over here. It's all about the benjamins.

I like that you responded as if my comment was serious.

You really don't get it do you? Ha! It's like talking to a child mate. Trump and your right wing bollocky media corporations don't give a flying fig about you. Just another gullible faceless consumer they can sell to. They have sold you the lie that Trump is a break from tradition and you swallowed it, selling out your country, your morals, your ability to reason and convincing you to join in pretending that filling the swamp is all you can do.

Be worse. Be empty. Be vacuous. Repeat what you are told. Do not question

You are the biggest party line spokesman on here mate.

A full on Commie on so many ways.

😁