Seeing that he had fully taken the initiative in this conversation, Tom continued to export his theory to the top management of the American Staff Federation:

"In times of economic crisis, social unrest, unsalable goods, it is difficult for every factory owner to make a profit from the goods produced by the workers."

"Not to mention profits, as you know, many factories declared bankruptcy at the first moment of the economic crisis, and the owners of these factories declared that they were penniless because of the losses of the factories, and finally had no choice but to close the factories and lay off their employees."

"It's all a lie!"

"If you look at the United States of America since its founding, if nothing else, the most powerful consortium in the United States today -- the Boston and Boston Consortium."

"Have the big families of the Boston consortium changed families?"

"In addition to the surnames of Lowell, Lawrence, and Adams, are there any other surnames in the Boston consortium?"

"What do these factory owners say are penniless?"

"If you are really penniless, why did the two economic crises improve during that period of economic improvement, and new factories in the old Yankee area sprung up like mushrooms."

"If the factory owners really don't have money, then the start-up capital of these new factories is not the money that these new factory owners have accumulated by working in the factories themselves?"

"Therefore, the fact that the factory was forced to go bankrupt because it was so loss-making that it ran out of money is a lie that these consortia used as an excuse to escape the banks and creditors to collect their debts."

Here, Tom has begun to mislead the executives of the American Staff Union with sophistry.

Neither the Boston consortium, nor any American consortium, would have full control over the local factories.

It is a partial control of a factory by several major families, and finally guarantees the absolute control of the factory by a consortium of several families.

The factory owner declared the factory bankrupt because he had no money, whether it was a lie or a real lack of money, the direct cause was not to blame on these consortia.

From a purely financial point of view, why do these consortia continue to inject capital into loss-making factories in the context of the economic crisis?

Tom cleverly took advantage of the ignorance of the internal reasons of the top management of the American Workers' Federation, and began to equate the factory owners with the capitalists such as the old Yankee consortium.

In Tom Smith's own experience, factory owners and capitalists are two completely different things.

Capitalists include factory owners, but capitalists are not just factory owners.

It's a bit like the capitalist is a horse, and the factory owner is a white horse,

White horses are indeed horses, but do horses have to be white horses?

A white horse is just a type of horse.

The factory owner is only one type of capitalist.

Tom's previous remark was to completely integrate all the capitalists with the factory owners.

The investment behavior of the capitalist investors is confused with the exploitation of the factory owners.

Isn't it a safer and more reasonable behavior for investors to withdraw their investments, collect assets, preserve their strength, and wait for the economic upturn before investing during the economic downturn?

And whether it is the era that Tom is in now, or the era in which Tom lived in his previous life,

The only way for factory owners, especially small factory owners, to make a living is to exploit the productivity of the employees in the factory.

In order to maintain their only means of profit, they may continue to invest in the factory until they really go bankrupt.

On the other hand, the other kind of capitalists, investors, should have withdrawn early, and they went overboard.

Tom deliberately blended the behavior of the factory owner with the behavior of the investor, in order to make the executives of the American Employee Federation, who had been in direct confrontation with the factory owner, turn to attack the Yankee old consortium.

Let the top management of the American Workers' Federation, with the support of Texas, challenge the real controller of the United States - the Yankee old consortium standing behind the factory owner!

"And why did the factory owners of the old Yankee lie and had no money to bankrupt their factories?"

"And why should I use unprofitable infrastructure to keep my employees working, to maintain their income, to keep them alive?"

"It's not like I'm boasting, but if you think about it, are the much-fanfare infrastructure projects in Texas and Mexico really profitable for me, a man who completely controls Texas and Mexico?"

"Now Texas and Mexico have almost no trade with the outside world."

"The whole of Texas and Mexico is mine, what am I transporting is not the equivalent of a left hand to a right hand, and collecting transportation fees is not collecting my own money?"

"The construction of transportation is a unprofitable industry, let alone the housing in the city, the staff dormitory in the factory area, and the free HERO school in the major cities."

"Why would I, a Texas factory owner, in the midst of an economic crisis, prefer to build unprofitable schools, roads, and railroads while maintaining the income of my employees?"

"And the factory owners in the old Yankee area are going to fire employees and reduce their income in the midst of the economic crisis?"

The executives of the American Workers' Federation became more and more confused by what Tom said, and the executives of the American Employees' Federation always felt that they had learned the truth of the matter under Tom's guidance, but they always felt that they were missing a little.

Missing the last link of the formal Tom's crookedness.

"It's because there's not just one factory owner in the old Yankee area, they have a lot of factory owners."

"In order to ensure that they are not defeated and swallowed up by other factory owners, these factory owners must close the loss-making factories, reduce the flow of funds, and ensure that after the economic crisis, they can have enough funds to regain control of the industry in the old Yankee area!"

"And in times of economic crisis, employees have become a burden to these factory owners."

"Imagine if you put yourself in the shoes of a few factory owners of similar value, in an economic crisis, it is the factory owner who fires employees who has more cash after the economic crisis?"

"Or do factory owners who keep their employees paid in the midst of an economic crisis have more cash after the economic crisis?"

"The answer is obvious."

"So in order to ensure that they can have more funds and build more profitable factories after the economic crisis, do you think they should close the factories that are losing money in the economic crisis?"

The executives of the American Staff Federation, thinking about Tom's words, couldn't help but stand upside down,

The executives of the American Staff Union put themselves in their shoes, and indeed as Tom said,

Source change app】

During an economic crisis, employees should be fired to save money, which is what factory owners should do.