"Sanjaya" wrote in
link.net:


I don't believe that companies that owe their initial existence and
success to a particular country should become so blind to their profits
that they ignore the citizen's futures in said country.

Of Henry Ford, an excerpt from a sited article:

"Ford was called "a traitor to his class" by other industrialists and
professionals, but he held firm in believing that well-paid workers
would put up with dull work, be loyal, and buy his cars."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank...es/dt13as.html

American companies are becoming financial whores. They are allowing the
people, whose patronage helped create the companies, to suffer and
perish, all for the bottom line $$$$$.

If Nike makes shoes in this country, say at a cost of $15 per shoe, then
transfers their operation to China, and makes them at a cost of $2 per
shoe, notice that they never lower the price of the shoes. $100 for
shoes made in China should be a crime.

Enter Michael Moore, a man that I deplore (the rhyme is unintentional).
I saw a show he did about Nike shoes, very interesting.

http://www.dogeatdogfilms.com/mikenike.html

"I think Nike's CEO Phil Knight regrets he said the things he said when
I interviewed him last year at his Portland headquarters. However,
instead of apologizing to American workers for saying 'Americans don't
want to make shoes'; instead of apologizing to the children of Indonesia
for saying he saw nothing wrong with 14-year-olds working in his
factories; instead of apologizing to the Indonesian people for insulting
them by calling them 'the poor little Indonesian workers'; instead of
apologizing to his shareholders for admitting on camera he had never
once stepped inside his Indonesian factories, Knight has chosen to
create a red herring and lash out at a person who simply turned on the
camera when Phil began to speak."

As an earlier post in this thread said, (another damn rhyme), why don't
we outsource the corporate and political positions? I'm sure that as
with Nike, we could find trustworthy people (hell, big salaries in this
country haven't gotten us trustworthy people anyway) to run the
companies at a significant savings to the company and would be
beneficial to the stockholders.

But noooo, they corporate honchos believe that "they alone" account for
the profits of the company, even if it involves laying off 2000 people
at Christmas, and after accomplishing such dastardly deeds, they are
given a $3,500,000 bonus from the company for their accomplishments.
Although the $3.5 Million would not pay the 2000 salaries very long (1-2
Months?), it's insulting to reward the CEO for terminating the jobs.

I think the real problem is a lack of Scrooge type ghosts to make these
*******s see the harm they are doing to their fellow Americans. (I
believe that any company should be loyal to its country of origin, not
just American companies).

I do wish that Americans would become more proactive. I have, quite
often, paid more for an item because it's Made in America. In some
instances, such as electrical items, you may more properly assure that
your family will live to see tomorrow if you buy American. I have seen
several items that have been made in China, and that plug into 110VAC,
just burn up over time. I don't believe that they have the same
accountability as American manufacturers do.

Dr. Artaud




Isn't that the whole point of Capitalism... to maximize profits?

Outsourcing The Corporate CEO & his high paid Staff sounds like a great idea.

In that way, they could employ more people in this country, avoiding the
continuous corporate layoffs

- which we all have Yet to pay the full price for . . .

If you fire someone making $60,000, and he finally gets a job for $20,000

- where does the money come from to pay for schools, road repairs, hospitals,
police and Firemen where he lives..?

How can said person pay his Mortgage?

How can said person consume & spend , the thing that keeps our economy
afloat..?

& eventualy buy the products from the Company that Laid him off ??

- No one in Corporate America ever thought that one through . . .



In article , Doctor Artaud
writes:


As an earlier post in this thread said, (another damn rhyme), why don't
we outsource the corporate and political positions? I'm sure that as
with Nike, we could find trustworthy people (hell, big salaries in this
country haven't gotten us trustworthy people anyway) to run the
companies at a significant savings to the company and would be
beneficial to the stockholders.

But noooo, they corporate honchos believe that "they alone" account for
the profits of the company, even if it involves laying off 2000 people
at Christmas, and after accomplishing such dastardly deeds, they are
given a $3,500,000 bonus from the company for their accomplishments.
Although the $3.5 Million would not pay the 2000 salaries very long (1-2
Months?), it's insulting to reward the CEO for terminating the jobs.

Yes, they have thought it through. They know very well that it will lead to
economic disaster but they will have made their money by that time. As a CEO
of a major corporation making several million dollars a year, how many years
do you have to work before you get financially independent? After that, it
makes no difference to them. Someone once termed this as "bugger your
neighbor economics". This is a very appropriate term and is the motto of
most of corporate America. Although it is a lousy way to run a business, it
must be done or the business can't compete. The real problem is the economic
trade deals the government is making. Making deals such as "if you buy 200
thousand worth of goods from us, we will buy 200 billion worth of goods from
you is not good policy. In addition, most countries in the industrialized
world have import duties high enough that foreign imports are expensive to
buy. Not us. When I was a kid, imported goods were expensive. Consequently,
the majority of goods were American made. That has changed.


"Diverd4777" wrote in message
...

- No one in Corporate America ever thought that one through . . .