Some of you may recall a whistleblower action that was brought against Starrett about five years ago, in regard to problems with their coordinate measuring machines. Got some large headlines, as the claim implied that the problems might have resulted in defective parts used in the NASA program, passenger airliners, pacemakers, and such. Pretty serious stuff.
Starrett felt they had done nothing wrong, and fought it. Their expense was in the millions, and the government probably spent the same. We'll never know that, though. The action was settled only recently, with Starrett agreeing to a $50,000 fine. Which is pretty much the government saying "we tried to find that you had done something wrong but couldn't, but since we have worked so long and spent so much money trying to do so, we'll fine you a token amount just to save face".
That is our government at work. The government lost, Starrett lost. The only ones who came out of it happy were - can't you guess? - the lawyers. Wonderful, no?
Capital gains tax has no effect, and you can't provide any examples of how it would to support your original statement. All of your responses just run off on tangents.
That's the risk any company takes, foreign or domestic, when it bids on US Government contracts (and I'm assuming the coordinate MM was for a government contract.) The contract language for government bids is typically very disadvantageous for the vendor (unless your Halliburton.) Sell at your own risk when dealing with G'ment bids, otherwise keep your sales in the private sector.
Simple Patriot Act logic. If they did not have something to hide, they wouldn't be moving off shore to keep them closed.
Unka' George [George McDuffee] ============ Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains.
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), U.S. president. Letter, 17 March 1814.
I think it would be safe to say Starrett hasn't paid a dime in Capital gains tax. And again, you can't provide one specific instance where cap gains affects manufacturing.
How is it a bad assumption? The lawsuit against Starrett resulted from a claim under the False Claims act. Apparently Starrett was a federal contractor, or subcontractor.
The False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq., also called the "Lincoln Law") is an American federal law which allows people, whether affiliated with the government or not, to file actions against federal contractors claiming fraud against the government. The act of filing such actions is informally called "whistleblowing". Persons filing under the Act stand to receive a portion (usually about 15-25 percent) of any recovered damages.
The Act provides a legal tool to counteract fraudulent billings turned in to the Federal Government. Claims under the law have been filed by persons with insider knowledge of false claims which have typically involved health care, military, or other government spending programs.
The Company notes that the Government itself, notwithstanding two years of investigation, only intervened in this action for the purposes of settlement. In addition, the United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts in early August informed the Company in writing that based on the facts known to the Office of the United States Attorney, the United States Attorney's Office does not intend to seek criminal charges against the Company or its CMM Division in connection with allegations arising out of, or relating to, the manufacture, sale or service of CMMs.
So where does it show that Starrett committed a crime?
T> How is it a bad assumption? The lawsuit against Starrett resulted from a
As this was involved with G'ment contract provisions, the "whistleblower" law applied. The links I posted provide further details.
I was at the Grumman auction on Bethpage Long Island a few years ago, they were auctioning off the equipment used in F14 production. (an interesting visit, and sad to see at the same time.) Well I do remember the large Mitutoyo CMM, didn't see any Starrett CMM there.
My Starrett 0-1" micrometer manufactured around 30 years ago is still as good as the day it was made, apart from a (free) repair to the spindle lock around 25 years ago it's travelled just 100 miles south of its place of manufacture..... Scotland, some 3000 miles east of the USA :)
I was talking to a Canadian this week, and he told me that china wants
70% of a product sold in china to have chinese content. If a product is less than 70% chinese, then tariffs are slapped on it. As I said, Starrett tools made for the chinese market are fine, but when those chinese Starretts come back here, I have issues with that.
This fantasy of the huge chinese market still draws moths to the flame. Could someone be so kind as to point out how non-chinese manufacturers in china are profiting?
With the Slide of the US dollar you have no idea how much more appealing shopping direct in USD looks and how much more Affordable midrange american tools have become to the rest of the world. If i'm making a MAJOR purchase right now i'd be nuts to do so in canada. The US dollar being on the slide it is has basically added 25% to the bottom line of a US manufacturer exporting tools. Foreign customers can afford to buy more of the US made tools compared to any given country.
I try whenever possible and reasonable to buy "G7 Made" or at least EU member made tools and equipment so that my purchases are done in nations where quality control and employee conditions are not negotiable.
there are products in my toolbox made in china and india ESPECIALLY portable power tools it seems. I cannot even find the top of the line tools that are not made in china now. but whenever reasonable i would RATHER buy from an industrialized nation
MADE IN THE USA midrange tooling and measuring have now entered my budget when i Import it myself (A la Enco, MSC)
I hope American Manufacturing has NOT been decimated to the point where it cannot profit from the weak dollar.
And with this observation you lay bare the entire fallacy about trade adjustment.
In many cases manufacturing is as much mind-set and attitude as it is materials and machines, and the people with the required mind-set and attitudes have long been dispersed.
In the US the equipment/tools/tooling was sold for scrap and the facilities were sold for redevelopment as yuppie condos. The workers, including the lead men and foremen, with the required skills and knowledge to actually get parts out the door have long since gotten other jobs, and are not about to trust the suits again. The infrastructure of second & third tier suppliers, and support such as the local mill & metal supply houses no longer exists.
Even more critical, the industrial environment has been poisoned, so that the new younger desirable employees with drive, ambition, smarts, etc. will take industrial employment only as a temporary and last resort. Much of this is based on their first hand observation as they saw parents and relatives discarded by their employers after 10 -- 20 or more years, and the advise and counsel of the older generation who took it in the shorts.
Where new manufacturing has been successfully established in America, it has not generally been American firms, but Japanese, Korean, and German firms, leading to my observation that the Korean, Japanese, and German companies/executives are more ethical [or at least perceived as more ethical] than their American counterparts.
This has ominous implications.
When a national company does well, the profits are reinvested or go to the owners/stock holders. If this is an American company, the profits are reinvested in America and American stockholders rewarded. If it is a Korean, etc. company, the profits are reinvested in Korea and the Korean stockholders are rewarded.
In the case of transnational corporations, the profits simply vanish, no taxes are paid, and no investments are made, thus while temporary economic activity may be generated in the host country, no permanent improvement results, and the transnational will ship the manufacturing operations out to an even lower wage area as soon as the opportunity arises.
Welcome to the new flat world. for explication of this statement click on
formatting link
Unka' George [George McDuffee] ============ Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains.
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), U.S. president. Letter, 17 March 1814.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.