Just Plain Wrong !

[N80]

I don't belive this is a consumer issue alone. As much as quality workmanship is supposed to be an American 'ideal', so too is getting a good product for a good price. And in many cases the foreign manufacturers are doing a better job of that than the Americans.

I personally believe that the primary problem lies within the structure of corporations. I think that LMTC's description of what corporations 'are' is spot on. I think he just hasn't taken the next step in recognizing those characteristics as the source of the problem rather than an excuse for the problem. Two issues are key. First, because corporations are extremely large collections of disparate people they are not percieved as having or requiring any 'duty'. Corporate responsibility is an oxymoron. The only things corporations are truly responsible for is making these disparate shareholders happy (ie money) and staying within laws that are forced upon them. Any pretense of being concerned about the worker, the environment or the local or national economies is just that, pretense. If a corporation thinks that making the worker happy helps its bottom line, it will do so. Otherwise, it will not. The same goes for being 'green'. They will be responsible to the environment only in as much as it will profit them. So in this regard Vice Grip (if it is a corporation) is unconcerned with its loyal employees because Vice Grip is only a collection of shareholders, many of whom don't even know they are shareholders (they own shares through mutual funds) and have no connection with the worker.

The second problem with corporations is that they are never satisfied. Watch the stockmarkets. A corporation can have a wonderful, bountiful quarter with fanatastics profits and dividends for everyone....but if those profits do not meet expectations then the stock DECLINES! That's because shareholders, who, as mentioned, often have no connection with the corporation other than owning a mutual fund, want more. And more. And more. Which is perfectly natural. But it puts enormous stress on the corporation because you can't just do good. You can't just sustain. You have to do great, every quarter or people start demanding change. And the change almost always comes at the expense of the worker....from decreased benefits, to layoffs, to leaving the country entirely.

I know this may sound corny but the heart of the problem is that corporations do not have souls. No one cares about anything but profit. Contrast this to a company...which is owned by one person or one entity that usually has their name as part of the company name. Such a company can have as its goal to provide a resonable income and condition for its workers. Wealth for its owners. Environmental responsibility. When it meets those goals each quarter they can be happy and satisfied. They are not bound to make whopping profits for people who are not part of the company family. Corporations cannot be satisfied. A company can.

I'm not pointing fingers, calling names, whining, or even offering a solution. I'm just pointing out the problems that are associated with large corporations. (Edit: Okay, so I did a little name calling. More to come too.)

But it does beg the question, how can we beat up on the consumer for not supporting a 'corporation'? What does the name 'Vice Grip' mean? Nothing but a lable for a massive, faceless, heartless hoard of shareholders. Why do they deserve my loyalty when they will, at the drop of a hat, cut benefits, layoff or abandon the American worker who I would like to support?

 

[Chuck52]

Did America invent the corporation? It would seem to be the ultimate expression of the free market ideal.

Chuck

 

[N80]

Did America invent the corporation?

No. Corporations have been around for centuries. The Dutch East India Compnay comes to mind. I suspect corporations existed long before that even.

It would seem to be the ultimate expression of the free market ideal.

Chuck

The corporation in its current form is very much the ultimate expression of the free market ideal, especially on an international level. No doubt about it.

I wonder if that makes them an unqualified success? Is 'profit' the sole measure of what makes a 'market' successful? Are markets for the benefit of humans or are humans for the benefit of markets? The latter seems to be true now. The American worker is discarded like so much trash and no matter how hard-working the Asian worker is, he is very much abused by Western standards. And in a way, when we move our labor force off shore the primary reason is because we can treat foreign workers in a way that would seem inhumane and illegal if it were on shore.

 

[LMTC]

I don't belive this is a consumer issue alone. As much as quality workmanship is supposed to be an American 'ideal', so too is getting a good product for a good price. And in many cases the foreign manufacturers are doing a better job of that than the Americans.

I personally believe that the primary problem lies within the structure of corporations. I think that LMTC's description of what corporations 'are' is spot on. I think he just hasn't taken the next step in recognizing those characteristics as the source of the problem rather than an excuse for the problem. Two issues are key. First, because corporations are extremely large collections of disparate people they are not percieved as having or requiring any 'duty'.

The above is a partial quote. Actually I have taken the next step in my own head, but it leads to the same culprit(s). Take a look at the history of "corporations"; wikipedia has a good concise article, and there are others. I agree that the large, disparate group of people who make up a corporation, who generally have little to no direct communication with each other and usually no common goals other than profit, are a great part of the problem. They tend to exhibit the herd mentality in absentia (as opposed to what large crowds do in presence). However....once again, it is the individual, but voters in this case rather than consumers, who allows their elected representatives to pass the laws regulating or deregulating corporations. Ultimately corporations are limited by law just as are individuals. If the voters pay no attention to what their legislators are doing so long as they perceive their legislator as bringing home their piece of the pie, then these laws will be unduly influenced by the few who do pay attention. Once again we are back to the individual level, which is where I believe the vast majority of responsibility (and thus control) for most things rests.

 

[N80]

If the voters pay no attention to what their legislators are doing so long as they perceive their legislator as bringing home their piece of the pie, then these laws will be unduly influenced by the few who do pay attention.

You are absolutely right. But, for many it is not so much apathy that is the reason for inaction and is for many of us a conundrum. I think it is fair to say that most of us at TBN would be considered more conservative than liberal. Conservatives usually prefer less and smaller government. But we also agree that the excesses and abuses of corporations are not within our conservative 'feelings' and beliefs, i.e. we value the worth of the American worker. It is hard for us to vote for more laws and more government intervention because we fear that it will create an even more intrusive government. Tough problem.

Once again we are back to the individual level, which is where I believe the vast majority of responsibility (and thus control) for most things rests.

I do agree with this. But as before I would contend that our system of government has increasingly disenfranchised that individual voter.

Which leads to the concern that corporations have more power than the 'people'. The coporation is now so important to the economy and to individual government officials that it can be hard to tell who's who. We have elevated our economic happiness to the level of national security. We depend on corporations for our economic happiness so the government views their health as a national security issue. Chrysler, air lines, Bear-Sterns and now Fannie and Freddie are prime examples of this principle in action. But the principle is demonstrated in far more sinister ways, in my opinion, when it comes to lobbying and campaign donations. Corporations have much more access to the system than the average voter or even masses of voters.

"We" as voters have our responsibility to change things. Most, if not all, of our officials promise change. How many keep those promises in meaningful ways?

 

[MossRoad]

What should we do to solve the GM problem or the JD problem?

Mismanagement and failure to adapt to market trends combined with excessively high labor costs = bankruptcy. Oh, wait... that was Studebaker in the 60's. I got them confused with G.M. and the labor unions in the present. History repeats itself.

 

[LMTC]

You are absolutely right.

Another one for my mom! (see my earlier post)

"We" as voters have our responsibility to change things. Most, if not all, of our officials promise change. How many keep those promises in meaningful ways?

How many citizens even bother to know the voting record of their representatives? Too many people are content with the herd mentality, too accepting of the "us vs them", "rich vs not rich", "privileged vs underprivileged" (and what the deuce does that mean anyway???), and are willing to vote for whoever will scratch their itching ears. More than once I have written, called, or emailed an elected official. More than once, on an issue that was non-negotiable for me, I have called AND written a rep notifying them I will never ever vote for them again for any office if they took a certain position. That is the limit of my personal ability. Our current governor is on my "will never vote for" list as the result of one of his votes in Congress.

Remember, our framers set up a Federal Republic, NOT a democracy. State legislatures (Constitutionally the selection of President is in their hands, and they have defaulted) were to select electors to pick a President, and one by one they caved in and dumped that to the public, resulting in the debacles we now know as campaigns. The result of years of reduced emphasis on critical thinking skills, changed emphasis in education (from hard studies to soft, i.e. social issue, studies) and so on have led us to where we are...the last days of Rome.

 

[N80]

Again, I agree. And it is good to see someone who understands how the system was framed vs how it currently exists.

However, in its current state, the power of the individual voter borders on meaningless despite being led to believe that we somehow rule by democratic referendum. It has been my experience in SC that incumbent congressmen (Thurmond, Hollings, Graham, and locally, Spratt) are unasailable. Death, in the case of Thurmond, was barely sufficient to remove him from office (and yes, he is the only one of the bunch that I liked). Neither Graham nor Spratt will ever get my vote but that matters very little.

As you mention, education is the only answer. But who is educating us? The public school system.....or as my B-I-L calls them: government schools. And the in toto message and goal of our public school system is simply this: make better consumers. And qualification of 'better' is nothing more than MORE. As in buys more.

So what do we do as we watch this country not only lose the industries that make things and make them well.....but even more frightening, lose the ABILITY to make things, good or otherwise. That's what scares me to death. Not the economy or where my widget is made, but that fact that before long we won't even have the skill or knowledge to build a Vice Grip, or a hammer, or a car or a boat or a ship or a tank. It is the crime of the century, literally, that this country will willfully make itself dependant....and in many cases dependant to those destined to be our enemies.

All we can really do is remember the names that led us there and that list has an equal number of D's and R's on it, conservatives and liberals. So if we are going to fall like Rome, we at least need to provide our shildren with the names of those responsible.

Whew. I'm off the soap box and its open for the next windbag. But hurry up, i won't be out of breath long!

But seriously, if we don't like losing Vice Grip to China...what can we really do about it?

 

[LMTC]

All we can really do is remember the names that led us there and that list has an equal number of D's and R's on it, conservatives and liberals. So if we are going to fall like Rome, we at least need to provide our shildren with the names of those responsible.

Couldn't agree more. For close to a decade now I've been convinced the two parties are no more different than two trains on different tracks heading for the same cliff....both will wreck the train. And no, I do not know how you stop it at this point. Any suggestions I have are not for this forum.

I know one man who took his entire extended family to elsewhere in the world nearly 8 years ago for just this reason....a very, very bright and talented man. His intent was to try to set up as independent a living situation as he could in as safe a place as he believed there was on the globe. And no, he did not disclose the location to even his closest friends. His background, FWIW, was, umm, how shall we say it....non-existant? It's my belief he had access to lots of info I'll never know.

 

[LMTC]

And we are not losing Vice Grip, but Vise Grip Unfortunately we have gained way too much of a grip on Vice.....therein lies part of our problem.