Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are completely ignoring the conversation taking place.
You just said you bought up other companies, so simply buying up other companies, thus increasing your companies sales, doesnt mean the overall demand of items have increased, it just means that they are now seeing sales that would have gone to the previous businesses. In fact you are choosing NOT to buy new equipment because there isnt increased demand for your products.
Its like suggesting people are buying more food because they chose to shop at store A, who seen their sales increase, rather than store B, who seen their sales decrease.
its ridiculous. Its almost impossible to have a conversation with you because you are micro discussing the issue that's intended to be discussed on a macro scale, using examples that dont even prove what you are claiming, in fact it validates the argument being made by the OP.
Machines change hands all the time. One manufacturer in one industry may see a catastrophic decline in their demand. Another manufacturer is experiencing a boom, and buys the machine at auction. The nation's manufacturing capacity did not increase. It simply changed owners. That happens all the time. There are auctions around here all the time, and the machines go for nothing. Nobody wants the risk of trying to manufacture in America again, no matter what Obama says.
Old machines are in use for several reasons, but most importantly, they are cheap. Nobody feels comfortable enough taking out big debt to service an industry that is fly by night. Who could blame them? Read the paper? Watch the news? See where everything is made??? Lol...
We multi-tasked, some growth organic, some acquisition. Most in the US, although the ultimate parent is in the EU.
We prided ourselves on being innovative, hence 20% revenue from new product lines.
PS: YOU caused the digression. I've simply been answering your off-topic questions.
How did you manufacture new product lines without new equipment?
I'm really curious how you put the same machinery to work doing 2 things at once, manufacturing the old stuff, and the new stuff at the same time.
Machines change hands all the time. One manufacturer in one industry may see a catastrophic decline in their demand. Another manufacturer is experiencing a boom, and buys the machine at auction. The nation's manufacturing capacity did not increase. It simply changed owners. That happens all the time. There are auctions around here all the time, and the machines go for nothing. Nobody wants the risk of trying to manufacture in America again, no matter what Obama says.
Old machines are in use for several reasons, but most importantly, they are cheap. Nobody feels comfortable enough taking out big debt to service an industry that is fly by night. Who could blame them? Read the paper? Watch the news? See where everything is made??? Lol...
Exactly, simply changing who owns the machinery doesnt mean capacity has changed.
We have a growing population, in order to meet some phantom increase in demand the left keeps talking about due to a growing economy, and also due to the growing population, new machinery would have to be purchased.
There is no getting around this.
Yes, old machinery can indeed meet some of the current demand but if the economy is growing like people are saying is happening, current machinery wont meet growing demands.
Old machinery gets outdated, its no longer cost effective for example to drive a 1970 vehicle. Its not cost effective to rent a 1980's building as well.
Demands need modernization in a growing economy, industrial revolution for example, and you cant modernize and grow without investing in capital improvements. Its impossible.
All we keep hearing from the left is the reason there are so many unemployed is because all of this new technology is put into place reducing the demand for jobs.. Well this new technology has to be purchased, and from the median average of equipment, its not happening.
For new lines, we bought new equipment, and every year, some of our cap ex went to that stuff.
PS: I never said we used the same machinery, although we did have a lot of machinery which could make many different products, so we did changeovers on those in cases where single product lines would not fully utilize them all year long. But we favored dedicated machines as much as possible, as that drove profits up.
For new lines, we bought new equipment, and every year, some of our cap ex went to that stuff.
So you've just spent pages arguing with me over nothing..
Because as you bought new equipment, the median age of the equipment would fall which is what I said would happen if companies for the most part was buying new equipment.
Exactly, simply changing who owns the machinery doesnt mean capacity has changed.
We have a growing population, in order to meet some phantom increase in demand the left keeps talking about due to a growing economy, and also due to the growing population, new machinery would have to be purchased.
There is no getting around this.
Yes, old machinery can indeed meet some of the current demand but if the economy is growing like people are saying is happening, current machinery wont meet growing demands.
Old machinery gets outdated, its no longer cost effective for example to drive a 1970 vehicle. Its not cost effective to rent a 1980's building as well.
Demands need modernization in a growing economy, industrial revolution for example, and you cant modernize and grow without investing in capital improvements. Its impossible.
All we keep hearing from the left is the reason there are so many unemployed is because all of this new technology is put into place reducing the demand for jobs.. Well this new technology has to be purchased, and from the median average of equipment, its not happening.
Can you say, China? Why do you think they have been growing their GDP 8-15% annually for like, ever? You can have anything manufactured there that you would like today. Hence, American manufacturing capacity has not been forced to keep up with anything. More than anything, it has deteriorated as a whole, with some signs of advanced life lingering in busy metros.
Can you say, China? Why do you think they have been growing their GDP 8-15% annually for like, ever? You can have anything manufactured there that you would like today. Hence, American manufacturing capacity has not been forced to keep up with anything. More than anything, it has deteriorated as a whole, with some signs of advanced life lingering in busy metros.
China does explain some of it, but if China was the answer, then our unemployment numbers wouldnt be falling, unless of course they were all low income jobs, and of course with low income jobs, comes less disposable income and a less of a demand for businesses to invest since demand falls..
Oh wait.
I think I said 5+ years ago this was the exact same which was going to occur. In fact I directly disputed the notion that we encourage the growth of those in poverty and suggested we spent money to encourage bringing ofshore businesses back.
The administrations answer, some crazy talking point about taxing businesses who offshore jobs, as if thats even remotely possible. A company no longer in the USA doesnt fall without the US jurisdiction to tax.
It sounded great, but it showed the stupidity of the left.
The solution of course is to entice businesses to return using tax policies, but the left again, hates this. They'd rather we spend hundreds of billions on welfare spending rather than hundreds of billions creating jobs thus increasing revenues and decreasing expenditures which would balance the budget.
We have one fool around here who thinks that balanced budgets would mean there would be no money left in circulation, a theory I just cant wrap my head around on how stupid one must be to believe this.
I am, you argued with me for pages that you guys werent making capital improvements, but buying new companies and when it came down to it, you indeed were making capital improvements by buying new equipment which would reduce the overall median age, and a very poor example and not at all relevant to the discussion taking place.
Part of the reason why the stock market is at an all time high is because there's not enough investment in the real economy. Why no investment?
"Why aren't corporations investing in the real economy?"
Why don't YOU?
Start your OWN corporation and do AS YOU PLEASE.
Let the owners of the other corps, do as they please.
Why do so many people ALWAYS want to tell others what to do when they DON'T own it?
And if you have to ask this question, it only shows your LACK of knowledge on investments.
We COULD tell you but, I don't think you would understand.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
