" Christians missionaries were working with Indians and trying to save them"
Rog, no one is disagreeing that SOME missionaries did as you state. The POINT is that others did not. It is FACT that Christians... lay and reverends alike killed indigenous peoples that would not convert.
"it was the Christians would led the charge against slavery at least in the North."
You're rewriting history to make Christians appear better than they were. The abolitionist movement found its most fertile ground in the philosophical adherents of the enlightenment as well as in transcendentalists such as Thoreau and Emerson. To be sure, Quakers and Evangelicals DID actively oppose slavery and were major players in the movement. But you are entirely IGNORING the fact that other **Christians**, even in the north, were justifying slavery based on the Scriptures.
"It was in fact the Pilgrims who lived peacefully with Indians and even married some clearly not racist."
Some individuals? Sure. But as a society? Absolutely not.
If your argument was correct, how is it that native american civilization was largely eradicated in Christianity based New England?
Face it Rog, those good New England Christians engaged in a version of lebensraum. Where, for 20th century Germans it was the just deserts of a master race, in 17th century New England confiscation of land and destruction of former inhabitants was "God's plan".
And, whether you are willing to acknowledge the fact or not, by the 2nd generation those 17th century Christians practiced a version of the "prosperity gospel"... they believed that God had delivered the land to them for their possession. They had their own Joel Osteens back then.
Are you looking at what FRNT is "bringing to the table"?
It has 19 newbuild commitments. It needs cash to pay for those ships.
It also has a significant investment in Golden Ocean... much of Q1 earnings were related to Golden Ocean; yet... Golden Ocean is losing money... and is predicted to do so for the next two years (as far as predictions are currently available).
A short while ago (Q4 2014?) ... FRNT took a significant write down in asset value related to the newbuild contracts on which it had gorged (probably both the bulker and the tanker newbuild contracts). This was *after* JF had made a big deal about how he'd been snapping up contracts at cut-rate prices. The write-down would not have been necessary if demand for the on-order-ships was secure.
Essentially, over the past couple of years, JF skimmed cash from SFL to prop up FRO (and create FRNT). Then he skimmed cash from FRNT to prop up (build out, if you want a more positive spin on it) the bulkers. Now (it appears that) he's skimming cash from FRO to prop up FRNT.
You're looking ONLY at the on-the-water tankers. It might be useful to look BEYOND just those boats (and it might be useful to look, too, at what sorts of boats JF has on order).
True enough that I did not think JF would waste time and money re-consolidating what he'd only recently split up. I was wrong.
The pumpers (including you?) were gushing over how sky-is-the-limit-bullish a merger would be for FRO. Yet, here we are with the pps down, not up, 6% or so after the announcement.
Until there is more information about what the merged company will look like, what *appears* to be the case is that JF either:
(a) can't make up his mind about how to organize his shipping empire, so he's combining, separating, spinning off, doing all sorts of stuff that adds noise and expense but does little to nothing in terms of adding value.... or,
(b) just maybe, he's recognizing that he needs the cash flow from one entity to fund the plans of another entity (you can verify this by reading the FRNT's Q1 report). That's a "left pocket, right pocket" thing for JF, since he owns big chunks of all of the entities involved. But it would not necessarily be good news for those who own shares in *just* the entity whose cashflows are being plundered to support the cash-poor sister entity.
I'm back in for another (probably short term) flip. But the merger as a killer deal unlocking huge value in FRO? Not likely.
I could be wrong. But I'll profit (again) if that proves to be the case. One can only wish they were able to make money every time they were wrong....
Tend to agree, though I picked up some shares today.
FRNT has a bit under $1b in new builds to fund. 80% of FRNT's Q1 earnings were non-operational, some which were entirely one-off transactions. The Knightsbridge / Golden Ocean arrangement is predicted to be a money loser for the next couple of years - and it has its own significant newbuild schedule to fund, so the divy from that arrangement should probably be considered less than reliable.
At least the NYSE filing requirements should make the arrangement a bit more transparent than is currently the case.
No statistical significance re: a reduction in homicide after the ban /buyback.
The big reduction was in the reduction of suicides by firearm.
"Nike,Apple could stop child labor abuse overnight,if they chose."
Sure. If they stopped producing product.
Just as Dole, Green Giant, et. al. could (presumably) eliminate illegal immigrants from the ag industry by ceasing to buy raw material.
But as long as the product is produced there will be someone, somewhere in the supply chain, cheating the system.
I'm unclear about how your comments about southerners in the 60s is relevant to this discussion. I don't doubt that they are correct conclusions. But I do not see the connection between that situation and global corps' supply chains.
Lake, (and Rog, if you're reading this), those companies have acknowledged that their audits have found instances of child labor in their supply chains.
But those same reports also discuss the efforts that the companies employ to expunge the practice. They talk about the problems that result from human traffickers supplying workers with forged papers, selected contractors subsequently sub-contracting without Apple, et. al.'s knowledge to abusing firms.
Only the most simpleminded would think it possible for a corporate CEO to snap her fingers and immediately eradicate all illegal and offensive practices. We have extensive labor reporting here in the US and we have not been able to completely eliminate illegal labor practices; how much more difficult must it be in countries where those in power sometimes benefit financially from the practice?
No question; corps are not squeaky clean in regards to child labor, environmental sensitivity, and a host of other issues.
But it is FACT that the firms being most severely bludgeoned ALSO audit for, and seek to eradicate, the infractions. In many cases it is the global players that are imposing higher standards on the local manufacturing that was common in the regions BEFORE the global players set up shop.
Yes, there is more to do. But the reality is that the big names are not the caricature child consuming villains that anti-globalists make them out to be.
Who is borrowing at 0% and loaning at 5%? Certainly not individuals...
And for those living on fixed income, QE is an ongoing disaster.
Depletion allowance is to natural resource sales, what parts and labor are to auto sales. It is the *cost* of the product that is subtracted from sales revenue to arrive at taxable income (ignoring every other cost).
Maybe the better analogy would have been depreciation of plant and equipment. Either example, parts or depreciation, is part of cost of goods sold for the auto mfg just like depletion allowance is to the nat resource company.
The point is that depletions are not tax credit delivered "subsidies". They are a deductible cost, just as parts, labor, depreciation, etc. are deductible costs of production to a manufacturer.
That is not to say that method of calculating the depletion allowance could and should be rejiggered...
Wow. So much bile. So much error.
The only one telling lies, Rog, is you. But, given your (apparently) limited education, one can understand your propensity for spewing falsehoods; you just don't know any better.
WHY would a penal colony NOT put its residents to work at profitable enterprise? Modern day prisons do the same thing. Tax payers would be pleased to have the inmates earn the cost of their keep. If the prison can generate more revenue than it costs to run the place (as Sing Sing did in the 19th century), so much the better.
Only to a narrow minded marxist such as yourself is turning a profit a form of evil. Even Jesus believed that revenues greater than expenses was something to be celebrated, rather than condemned. He employed several parables that celebrated profits, the largest profits, most of all. But you're so pig-headed about trying to appear knowledgeable in secret wisdom (which is a gnostic heresy, btw), you zoom right past the obvious, basic plots of the stories.
Clearly your economics, like your religion, is NOT founded on the teachings OR the examples provided by Jesus. If anything, the opposite is true.
So, save the hyperventilating imagery about evil global corporations lashing children to the presses and then squeezing the very lifeblood out of them for someone naive enough to believe you.
That such hideous circumstances do exist is not in question, of course. The falsity of your argument is in advancing the moronic idea that global corps actively enlist and encourage such perfidies. Major corporation expend effort expunging that stuff from supply chains; most hold their suppliers to higher standards of operation than the countries of domicile.
But that reality is not convenient to the fiction you attempt to peddle as a deterrent to globalism. So you fib about it.
Or, perhaps, you are actually SO deluded that you've come believe the nonsense?
Not THAT would not come as a surprise.
Not quite, Rog.
Yes, countries did established colonies for economic reasons (and even the "ancient" Greeks and Phoenicians engaged in colonial enterprise - as did the Tatars, the Celts, the Norse...)..
But, no, not every colony was established for the explicit purpose of economics. Some examples: Plymouth (1620) and Boston (1630) were established as religious havens. S. Carolina and Australia were penal colonies.
For those that were established for pecuniary purposes, the controlling economic theory of the 17th century was Mercantilism, not Capitalism. The American revolution was motivated by colonial businessmen trying to change the dominant world economic system *from* Mercantilism *to* Capitalism.
And you are dead wrong that "capitalism" - the system - is responsible for abuse of children (or anyone else). **Some** individual businesses may do so, but most do not.
And abuse is not exclusive to capitalistic enterprises. It exists in ANY system where one group of people exploits another group of people
And while it is true that many missionary efforts did not involve destruction of indigenous peoples and societies, it most certainly **is** the case that other such efforts sought to extirpate every vestige of heathen or pagan society (rather like modern day ISIS). Where the natives were docile the process was largely peaceful. But where the natives resisted conversion, the response was often violent and brutal.
Simply put, your preferred economic and religious systems are not the unassailable beneficent theories that you naively believe them to be.
Neither are the systems which you deplore the embodiment of inveterate evil.
As with so many things in life, it depends.
They had no problem stealing land from one another. All done in the name of tribal superiority.
White europeans were just one more competitor.
If depletions are subsidies, then GM is getting a subsidy equal to the cost of the parts and labor that go into the vehicles that they sell..
"ge has a long way to go before going bust."
In the long run, we're all....
Wait. You already know how that maxim ends.
As a long time owner of GE, I'm ecstatic that most of the finance segment is on the block. If I'd wanted to invest in dog grooming studios, I would have done so through other means.
Your $27ish base line for finance-less GE might be correct. S&P and others are projecting EPS as stable to slow-growing and project pps of $30 - $34. GE won't be APPL, but it won't be entirely "dead money" either. And there is a lot of room to grow the dividend at current EPS trends.
Personally, I'd rather not see stock buy-backs; firms always seem to execute these when the stock is expensive. Much better, IMO, to spend the cash on capital improvements, R&D, a special dividend, etc. etc.
And *maybe* some buy-backs if the pps craters during a market downdraft..