Dee D. Flint wrote:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:
Actually I think it's simpler than that. They have to consider both the
short-term buck and the long-term buck.

Henry Ford was criticized by other industrialists because he paid workers

the

princely sum of $5 per day. His response was that it did not make sense to

him

to have people building a product they could not afford to buy. He traded

off

the short-term buck of higher wages for the long-term buck of a bigger

market.

I don't think he did this out of any love for the workers or the country,

but

rather because he saw a bigger picture.



Exactly, he saw that by looking at the longterm, his overall total profits
would be enhanced. He wanted a longterm, stable income than a quick buck.

And the most amazing thing is that with just that outlook, we not only
stabilize the situation, but we preserve the best part of how our
econmmic system works.

I always thought that the best way was to let the businesses do their
thing as much as possible, with a light touch. The time for intervention
is when the business threatens the environment, employee rights (such as
there are any) or of course engaging in illegal activities, which there
will always be some companies willing to do that. And of course the
monopoly problems.
- Mike KB3EIA