Generational Dynamics Forum - New Site

China is using all its capabilities through North Korea, Nepal ,and pakistan to divert the attention of its citizens to forget CCP virus

Guest wrote: Mon Jun 22, 2020 2:29 am

My bet would be that those headquarters around Minneapolis stay right where they are. If necessary, as thing evolve, the companies will employ their own police forces and they will be brutal. Shell has a police force in Nigeria. Read up on the history of the Shell police force in Nigeria and that might be more like what the future holds than corporations abandoning their investments and locations.

The police weren't defunded in the 1970s. The police kept order (just barely) in NYC, but they were not restricted from doing their jobs. They are now.

Shell has a police force in Nigeria. Read up on the history of the Shell police force in Nigeria and that might be more like what the future holds than corporations abandoning their investments and locations.

How would private security groups be allowed to act like Blackwater in Iraq in Minneapolis when the police can't even police?

Obviously you have some kind of agenda. Do you own commercial property? I know people who do, and they are panicking. So real estate developers in large cities.

I'm going to bet with defunded police forces,crazy liberal local governments, and hyper aggressive thugs, these companies will get the hell out of Dodge. PERIOD. (To quote a really smuck governor.)

OK, so you're betting these companies will get the hell out of Dodge. You think a few broke thugs tanked up on dope are a match for a multi-billion dollar company. OK, got it.

I don't own a single piece of property, but that's beside the point. The point is that US corporations are the most powerful entities in the world and they do whatever the hell they want. If a few broke thugs can control a local government, a multi-billion dollar corporation can do it better. And they can fund their own police force just like Shell does. That is, if they want to. Otherwise, they can buy their protection some other way like the Oligarchs did when the Soviet Union fell. That's just how the world works and always has.

I gave the example of Shell in Nigeria because not even the US Department of State will guarantee US citizen protection or aid outside of Lagos and Abuja. But as a private corporation, Shell maintains plants and employee housing in the Niger Delta area of Nigeria with their own security force. It's a pretty extreme example and there is nowhere in the US that is anywhere near as dangerous for a corporation to operate in as the Niger Delta.

Guest wrote: Mon Jun 22, 2020 1:18 am My bet would be that those headquarters around Minneapolis stay right where they are. If necessary, as thing evolve, the companies will employ their own police forces and they will be brutal.

The corporations will remain secured as long as they are solvent and the US dollar has value, etc., so that they can demand or pay for protection. As we know, the deal nowadays is corporations provide jobs but they don't pay for the full cost of their infrastructure. When the corporations can no longer make profits, that is the time to be concerned. Watch the profits of the corporations, in my opinion. As they go, so goes the cities.

I would add that when a company like Shell (or any company anywhere) feels they can no longer afford the cost of the required beefed up security they will pull back before it bankrupts them. It wouldn't surprise me if things in the Delta have deteriorated to the point that they are questioning the viability of remaining there. So I think the second thing to watch is how much corporations are paying for their security. Any public company will provide that information. If they are spending a prohibitive amount on security, they will probably start squawking about it. If they do, that is also a reason to be concerned.

I would agree with the general idea that these large corporations are a stabilizing force in the capital cities and they must remain there for these cities to be viable, along with most of their employees. I guess the fact that city and state governments have given them all sorts of tax incentives and free stuff would confirm that idea.

Guest wrote: Mon Jun 22, 2020 12:26 am I can read the rhetoric and understand it, but neither of you answered the questions except to say that the large corporations around Minneapolis lease office space for their headquarters, which they don't.

These are the questions:

Will the corporate headquarters pull out of the cities and surrounding suburbs? Think companies like 3M Corporation, Target, Cargill, etc., which are the largest corporations around Minneapolis.
Can these corporations afford to abandon their headquarters and build new at at time like this? They have a lot of money invested in these buildings and locations. Do they just leave? Where do they go?
If not, will the employees of these companies flee the cities knowing that no comparable job awaits them in the country?

3M is headquartered in a suburb of St Paul. Target's headquarters is in downtown Minneapolis but it's already moved a lot of people out to a satellite campus in the suburbs. Cargill has been in the suburbs for decades as has General Mills. Of the ones still in the core cities, many if not most no longer own their own buildings having sold them to property companies; they lease their space now. Once leases run out it wouldn't be hard to move out of the core cities. It actually would be easier now because so many people have been working from home for a while and like it.

This has already been identified as a problem for Manhattan with some companies stating that they're never going to bring all their employees back into the office. They've found that that can function perfectly well with remote employees. They likely will retain much smaller spaces for certain employees and meeting space for when video won't do.

Despite what the news wants to push, Minneapolis really isn't that bad with crime mostly limited to certain heavily minority areas. While some politicians have spouted out regarding defunding police, the mayor has already shot that down and there would be serious push-back from residents if they tried. Some groups are very loud but it doesn't mean they have much support.

Xeraphim1 wrote: Mon Jun 22, 2020 11:13 am

Guest wrote: Mon Jun 22, 2020 12:26 am I can read the rhetoric and understand it, but neither of you answered the questions except to say that the large corporations around Minneapolis lease office space for their headquarters, which they don't.

These are the questions:

Will the corporate headquarters pull out of the cities and surrounding suburbs? Think companies like 3M Corporation, Target, Cargill, etc., which are the largest corporations around Minneapolis.
Can these corporations afford to abandon their headquarters and build new at at time like this? They have a lot of money invested in these buildings and locations. Do they just leave? Where do they go?
If not, will the employees of these companies flee the cities knowing that no comparable job awaits them in the country?

3M is headquartered in a suburb of St Paul. Target's headquarters is in downtown Minneapolis but it's already moved a lot of people out to a satellite campus in the suburbs. Cargill has been in the suburbs for decades as has General Mills. Of the ones still in the core cities, many if not most no longer own their own buildings having sold them to property companies; they lease their space now. Once leases run out it wouldn't be hard to move out of the core cities. It actually would be easier now because so many people have been working from home for a while and like it.

This has already been identified as a problem for Manhattan with some companies stating that they're never going to bring all their employees back into the office. They've found that that can function perfectly well with remote employees. They likely will retain much smaller spaces for certain employees and meeting space for when video won't do.

Despite what the news wants to push, Minneapolis really isn't that bad with crime mostly limited to certain heavily minority areas. While some politicians have spouted out regarding defunding police, the mayor has already shot that down and there would be serious push-back from residents if they tried. Some groups are very loud but it doesn't mean they have much support.

It does mean, however, that you have a potential problem in regards to hollowed out urban cores. Pehaps someone could find value moving into one, but if that turns out not to be the case in the forseeable future, it is a lot of infrastructure to maintain. And the costs, well...

I do agree with the sentiment however that you'll ultimately see an aggressive long-term response to the recent events in the U.S., perhaps overly aggressive. Some people have suggested fully privatized policing to reduce the liability on the muni, and there's companies out there that could provide that service already. In fact I believe good old Tim Geithner from the Obama cabinent is heavily involved with one of those these days, so the "smart" money (smart in the loosest sense of the word) is already in position for it if a few legal wheels are greased.

So, no, I don't think there will be a medium-term collapse of the system, since there's a lot of money to be made in by companies providing basic services to everyone.

Guest wrote: Mon Jun 22, 2020 11:55 am
It does mean, however, that you have a potential problem in regards to hollowed out urban cores. Pehaps someone could find value moving into one, but if that turns out not to be the case in the forseeable future, it is a lot of infrastructure to maintain. And the costs, well...

I do agree with the sentiment however that you'll ultimately see an aggressive long-term response to the recent events in the U.S., perhaps overly aggressive. Some people have suggested fully privatized policing to reduce the liability on the muni, and there's companies out there that could provide that service already. In fact I believe good old Tim Geithner from the Obama cabinent is heavily involved with one of those these days, so the "smart" money (smart in the loosest sense of the word) is already in position for it if a few legal wheels are greased.

So, no, I don't think there will be a medium-term collapse of the system, since there's a lot of money to be made in by companies providing basic services to everyone.

At least here, occupancy in high rise commercial buildings has been falling for more than a decade. I attribute it to extremely poor decisions made by the city leadership which should be made obvious by the comments of our lame-brained City Council president.On the other hand, residential buildings have been in boom mode for more than 15 years now. The population of the city has been rising for a while now reversing the decline that started in the 1960's. The only areas not doing well are the heavily black districts. The Asian and Hispanic areas are doing quite well.

I don't see privatized police forces being a thing since the only thing worse than a police force to leftists is a police force that they don't completely control. Remember that control is the important thing. Everything else is just a way to mask that goal.

** 22-Jun-2020 World View: The explosive Ladakh situation

John J. Xenakis wrote: > Unconfirmed reports claim that Chinese soldiers crossed into
> Indian territory and unarmed Indian soldiers with barbaric
> weapons, including iron rod studded with steel nails, killing
> 20.

Warren Dew wrote: > Unconfirmed reports also say 34 Chinese soldiers were killed,
> which is likely true given China never confirms casualties. his
> isn't hatred of Chinese toward Indians, but rather fearmongering
> toward Chinese by Indians and others.

> That said, I recognize that the perception is what matters here,
> not the reality.

I didn't ignore the issue of Chinese casualties. In one article I
wrote "According to some reports, about 40 Chinese soldiers were
killed." In another article I quoted Modi as saying, "Twenty of our
bravehearts were martyred in Ladakh but not before they taught a
lesson to those who raised an eye at Bharat Mata." So the Indian
public has been made aware of Chinese casualties.

However, what's animating the anti-China protests in India is the
photo of those horrific, barbaric weapons used by Chinese soldiers --
iron bars studded with steel nails, used as weapons against unarmed
Indian soldiers.

• Iron rods studded with steel nails, used by Chinese soldiers
  to kill Indian soldiers

In 2017, I wrote about another border conflict, on Bhutan's Doklam
Plateau. There were clashes at that time, but it was almost humorous
that the attacks were of Indian and Chinese soldiers bumping each
other with their chests to push each other back.

So to say that this situation is significantly different from the last
one and far more dangerous is not an overstatement. By decades-old
agreement, neither side was armed, meaning that neither side had guns.
But the Chinese used a loophole to get around the agreement by using
these barbaric weapons, which goes well beyond chest-bumping. It's
this Chinese action that has shocked the Indian public, not some
mindless "fearmongering."

What's very interesting to me is that neither side has yet issued an
official statement on what happened. I would have thought that by
this time, over a week later, we'd have more to go on than uncomfirmed
reports. It seems clear to me that both the Indian and Chinese
governments are trying to control public opinion and the xenophobia
being exhibited on both sides, because neither side (officially) wants
a war. A war would quickly expand to an India-Pakistan war, and to an
India-China naval war in the Indian Ocean.

The international community is also well aware of the explosive nature
of the Ladakh situation. Trump has offered to mediate, and the
Russians are meeting with both sides as well. So there's a lot of
pressure on the top-line political leaders to reach a negotiated
settlement, but the question then is whether the Chinese and Indian
people will accept whatever settlement is agreed, without demanding
further revenge.

www.india.com/news/india/ladakh-clash-f ... 63906/amp/

This news is nearly 2 days old at the moment. I can't help but feel like this ups the stakes.

** 22-Jun-2020 World View: India's change of engagement

Guest wrote: Mon Jun 22, 2020 7:08 pm > www.india.com/news/india/ladakh-clash-f ... 63906/amp/

> This news is nearly 2 days old at the moment. I can't help but
> feel like this ups the stakes.

You're absolutely right. The Indian army is not only moving troops to
the Ladakh region (as is the Chinese army), but is also changing the
rules of engagement so that now their troops can be armed, so that
they won't fall again into another Chinese ambush with those iron rods
studded with steel nails.