3M is a POS company

Author: bmdrocks21

Posts

Total: 70
Topic's author
#1
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
3M, an AMERICAN company, was caught exporting protective gear to foreign countries while their home country was experiencing a crisis. Should companies have some sense of loyalty to their home country, at the very least during times of emergency like we are experiencing? I would certainly argue that they should. Our good markets and taxes are what made them successful, so they should in turn have a duty to help us.

3M says that they don't want to jeophardize their trade relations with other countries under an export ban. They would much prefer that we countries get into bidding wars with one another. Canada is worried that their medical workers may be imperiled when an export ban is implemented.

This really shows the issues with globalism/free trade. We, for many medical devices and drugs, have China create them for us. They are a borderline-hostile regime. Our country's safety should not be dictated by foreign powers, nor others be based on ours, as Canada and Latin America will soon learn. Outsourcing critical industries is a mistake.

Perhaps people will begin to adopt protectionist and nationalist policies in the future, at the very least I hope we do! I certainly support pro-market policies during times when these devices aren't critical for our national security, but this conflict of interest cannot be tolerated during a pandemic.   
#2
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
3M says that they don't want to jeophardize their trade relations with other countries under an export ban. They would much prefer that we countries get into bidding wars with one another. Canada is worried that their medical workers may be imperiled when an export ban is implemented.
this post is a good example of how short sighted protectionism is. On the surface, people look at this and think "If they didn't export to Canada, then there would be more masks here". But if you stopped to look at it, you would realize that alot of the materials they use to make those masks come from Canada. So if the US won't export any of those masks to Canada, then Canada just redirects those raw materials to a company that will. Now the US has less masks because they don't have the materials needed to make them. 

In short, all this would accomplish is hurting Americans, hurting Canadians, and potentially permanently damaging relations with an ally. It is stupid in pretty much every way. 
#3
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
Companies are exploring countries for their natural resources, except with China, they are developed enough to CONTROL the companies, remmebr the PS4 african mineral crap about a decade ago?

#4
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,896
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
"This is a classic example of why we've become addicted to Chinese politics and Chinese manufacture,"

"They are holding us hostage. Even an American company can't export its masks from their Chinese plants to the United States."
#5
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
3M, an AMERICAN company, was caught exporting protective gear to foreign countries

Reducing the trade deficit you mean?
Topic's author
#6
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Nope, I meant betraying its home country when it needs them most.
#7
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
What you meant and what you said was different then, because what you said was reducing the trade deficit.


Topic's author
#8
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
We should be investing in our country to make sure we can also create materials for masks. We shouldn't have to depend on foreign countries for our own safety. That doesn't make sense. Because when there is a global emergency, such as the one we are experiencing, a nation has a duty to look out for its citizens. When it comes down to it, Canada would screw our citizens over to save theirs. If another country is starts stockpiling medical supplies and using it as leverage, as we are seeing China do, then we are entirely at their mercy.

And the "protectionism" I was referring to was for the future about what I just outlined above. We need to make sure that we protect domestic industries vital to our national safety and ensure that we cannot be left out to dry if something like this happens again. We need to bring our supply chains, especially medical supply chains, back to the US from China by any means necessary.
Topic's author
#9
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Lmao, you dirty dog. American lives > trade deficit.
#10
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
I am not dirty I just took a bath.

Take it back!
Topic's author
#11
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
You didn't deny being a dog, though! Aha!
#12
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
I see you didn't deny being a communist sleeper agent. Aha!
Topic's author
#13
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Дерьмо! Ты поймал меня.

#14
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
We should be investing in our country to make sure we can also create materials for masks. We shouldn't have to depend on foreign countries for our own safety.
so let me get this straight. you are now advocating for state controls on companies. You realize that makes you a communist right?

Because when there is a global emergency, such as the one we are experiencing, a nation has a duty to look out for its citizens. When it comes down to it, Canada would screw our citizens over to save theirs. If another country is starts stockpiling medical supplies and using it as leverage, as we are seeing China do, then we are entirely at their mercy.
Ok. so your argument is that you should screw over your ally, and therefore reduce the amount of masks available both for them and for Americans because they might theoretically do the same to you? do you see how you are advocating for causing the problem you think you are avoiding?

And the "protectionism" I was referring to was for the future about what I just outlined above. We need to make sure that we protect domestic industries vital to our national safety and ensure that we cannot be left out to dry if something like this happens again. We need to bring our supply chains, especially medical supply chains, back to the US from China by any means necessary.
so you want the government to control what companies are allowed to do, who they can trade with etc. When did you become a communist?
Topic's author
#15
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
so let me get this straight. you are now advocating for state controls on companies. You realize that makes you a communist right?

I don't care what this makes me. I am advocating for state coercion of companies if they act against the country's interest during times of crisis, such as a pandemic or war. During the rest of the time, they should be left on their own because state direction of resources is not viable is the long-run whatsoever. In the short term, a little inefficiency is worth it to protect medical personnel.

In the long-term, I would like protectionism to keep vital industries in operation. Preferably these would be privately-run companies, but not necessarily.

Ok. so your argument is that you should screw over your ally, and therefore reduce the amount of masks available both for them and for Americans because they might theoretically do the same to you? do you see how you are advocating for causing the problem you think you are avoiding?

Masks are being given to foreign countries in preference to ours, when some cities are running into shortages. Federal employees had the funds and put in an order at 3M and the request was denied. Companies operating in America should have a duty to America first. The argument that "there will be less masks overall" is just a BS statement put out by them to justify making a larger profit by selling to the highest bidder.

so you want the government to control what companies are allowed to do, who they can trade with etc. When did you become a communist?

Well, in the past month, I have become more nationalistic, but hardly a communist. Not to big of a fan of the "free market". Still like low taxes and little regulation, but more protectionist and not really tolerant of letting companies sell out America. 

As outlined above, only when there is some sort of very pressing emergency do I think this is a good idea to prohibit certain actions from companies.
#16
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
I don't care what this makes me. I am advocating for state coercion of companies if they act against the country's interest during times of crisis, such as a pandemic or war. During the rest of the time, they should be left on their own because state direction of resources is not viable is the long-run whatsoever. In the short term, a little inefficiency is worth it to protect medical personnel.
wow that is completely fucked up. You want government controls so that companies will be forced to disrupt their supply lines and cause people to die during a crisis. But no government controls when companies are cutting corners and killing people during the rest of the time. 

Masks are being given to foreign countries in preference to ours, when some cities are running into shortages. Federal employees had the funds and put in an order at 3M and the request was denied. Companies operating in America should have a duty to America first. The argument that "there will be less masks overall" is just a BS statement put out by them to justify making a larger profit by selling to the highest bidder.
no, the materials needed to make the masks come from canada. If the US refuses to allow the masks to be sold to Canada, then not only can they not produce the masks for Canadians, they can't produce any for americans either. You are saying that 3M should stop producing masks for as long as it takes to get a new supplier, which could be weeks or months. 

Well, in the past month, I have become more nationalistic, but hardly a communist. Not to big of a fan of the "free market". Still like low taxes and little regulation, but more protectionist and not really tolerant of letting companies sell out America. 
i see. so you want the worst aspects of both. Cruel authoritarian control, but also cruel, heartless greed. 


#17
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,896
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
i see. so you want the worst aspects of both. Cruel authoritarian control, but also cruel, heartless greed.

As opposed to the compassionate greed of the left.
#18
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
As opposed to the compassionate greed of the left.
yes, because giving people healthcare is greed.... somehow.... while denying healthcare to everyone who can't pay through the nose is somehow compassion. 


#19
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,896
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
yes, because giving people healthcare is greed.

It's funny that doctors in the democratic party still draw a salary. Greedy bastards. Compassionate greed.


#20
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
yes, because giving people healthcare is greed.
It's funny that doctors in the democratic party still draw a salary. Greedy bastards. Compassionate greed.

What are you talking about? Why would doctors work for free? they have to feed their families too. You know what is a much better plan? Have the government actually pay for people's healthcare so that poor people aren't dependent on charity to be able to live. 

#21
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,896
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
What are you talking about? Why would doctors work for free? they have to feed their families too. You know what is a much better plan? Have the government actually pay for people's healthcare so that poor people aren't dependent on charity to be able to live. 

If socialist doctors don't believe in free healthcare, then why should I? They should be giving heathcare for free as it's a human right.

Greedy doctors shouldn't deny poor people healthcare, right?

#22
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,896
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Why would doctors work for free? they have to feed their families too.

I guess we can compromise here. Poor people can pay their doctors with boxes of macaroni and cheese. That's affordable healthcare for all if doctors refuse to work for free.

#23
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
If socialist doctors don't believe in free healthcare, then why should I? They should be giving heathcare for free as it's a human right.

Greedy doctors shouldn't deny poor people healthcare, right?

the fundamental flaw with your "logic" is that you are proposing that only a tiny group of people should have to sacrifice anything at all. Healthcare is a something every single person needs. It is something we should guarantee every single person gets. 

I guess we can compromise here. Poor people can pay their doctors with boxes of macaroni and cheese. That's affordable healthcare for all if doctors refuse to work for free.
or, america could have a real modern medical system and not one where poor people are left to die for the financial benefit of the rich. 
#24
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,896
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
financial benefit of the rich. 

You misspelled doctors.

#25
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,896
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
It is something we should guarantee every single person gets. 

 you are proposing that only a tiny group of people should have to sacrifice.

It's far, far easier to put a gun to a Doctor's head than putting a gun to every taxpayer's head. Way fewer guns involved.

Efficient authoritarianism. Castro style.

#26
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
financial benefit of the rich. 
You misspelled doctors.
1) Most doctors would qualify as rich
2) the system is designed to benefit lots of very rich people. Drug companies, health insurance companies ETC. not to mention the politicians those rich people donate money to. The problem is the million of working class people it bankrupts and the millions of people who can't get care and suffer and/or die needlessly. 

It's far, far easier to put a gun to a Doctor's head than putting a gun to every taxpayer's head. Way fewer guns involved.

Efficient authoritarianism. Castro style.
do you realize that most modern countries have some version of medicare for all? America is pretty well the only 1st world country that doesn't ensure all citizens get healthcare. But yes, it is everyone else that is wrong. America is right to let poor people die and go bankrupt trying to stay alive. 
#27
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,896
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
do you realize that most modern countries have some version of medicare for all?

And it's inefficient. They are fucking up.

If you wanted to guarantee free healthcare for all, Castro style is far more efficient.

If you are going to go retard, it's way better to go full retard.

#28
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
do you realize that most modern countries have some version of medicare for all?
And it's inefficient. They are fucking up.
America's system is wildly inefficient. America spends way more per person on medical care. 

If you are going to go retard, it's way better to go full retard.
only a psychopath or an idiot would think it is "retarded" that everyone should be able to get healthcare. 

#29
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,896
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
only a psychopath or an idiot would think it is "retarded" that everyone should be able to get healthcare. 

Free bandaids and Tylenol. Human right.
#30
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
only a psychopath or an idiot would think it is "retarded" that everyone should be able to get healthcare. 
Free bandaids and Tylenol. Human right.
America has a system where if you don't have money, you don't matter. You will get sick and die or bankrupt yourself trying to pay for it. There is literally no upside to this system.

It isn't more efficient. In fact the chaotic insurance system and the price fixing of drug companies and medical providers actually makes it much more expensive. 

Since it is punitive to use the system, people avoid seeking care for relatively minor issues. This lets them escalate and get more serious which is then much harder to treat later. This causes more strain on the system.

In a national emergency, a privatized system is completely inadequate to deal with it. there is no reason for health companies to cut people any slack or provide additional services. They only care about profit. They only want to squeeze money out of people. So when we need our healthcare system the most, in America, they are standing by to gouge you or throw you out to die.