Larry Jaques wrote in
news
On 12 Oct 2011 16:16:49 GMT, Han wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote in
m:
On 12 Oct 2011 11:55:54 GMT, Han wrote:
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in
:
"scritch" wrote in message
...
A brilliant innovator and marketer. Changed the way we work with
computers.
However, Apples have stolen family-wage jobs here to be made in
foreign factories that cruelly exploit their employees and ruin
the environment, with the expectation that the poor folks here
will still forever buy the Apples with their last dimes, all to
enrich some shareholders who apparently believe these bad
practices will never affect them.
I'm pretty conflicted about Mr. Jobs.
I own no Apple products. As for Jobs and jobs, I'd guess he is no
better or worse than any other computer/electronics maker. What
portable phone is made in the US or Canada? Try to find a toaster
not made in China. Yet we buy because it is such a good value.
Is it?
The Pogo rule seems to apply inmost cases. "we have met the enemy
and it is us:
Pretty soon the US$ will have devalued sufficiently so that
manufacturing here will become profitable again (it is already for
cars and some other things). Now whether this new-found wealth will
flow to workers or investors/rich people will be the next question
...
What's your best guess, Han? Why should things change regarding
wealth?
Seems to me that if the US can produce more cheaply, the US will do
more of the earning, less of the buying from other countries. Sort of
the reveerse of the flight of manufacturing and services to East Asia?
Or isn't it that simple?
I don't think it is. In reducing the cost of U.S.-made goods, the cost
of labor and bennies will almost certainly have to come down...unless
you can figure out how to limit the profits made by stockholders and
wages of CEOs and other upper mangle^H^H^Hagement.
Remember that the dollar is worth far less than it once was?. 1 € costs
now about US$1.32, but earlier it was almost $1.50. At the high point of
the $ vs € it was $0.82 or so. So between high and low there is almost a
2-fold difference. The more $ "they" can get for a €, the cheaper our
goods are to them, and vice versa. And that was without finagling wages
or benefits. We would be even richer as a nation if the resulting wealth
was spread out more evenly, not going to corporations and really rich
people who can afford to stash it abroad.
IMNSHO, we will grow the economy more if we let the less affluent
buy more ...
GOOD punchline. g
(On the off chance that you're serious, what's your logic there?
How do the poor buy more?)
Getting more spending power into the hands of the less affluent will
lead to more purchasing of manufactured goods (my opinion).
Do you have any good ideas as to how to accomplish that? I'd love it!
Good! Same as above: We would be even richer as a nation if the
resulting wealth was spread out more evenly, not going to corporations
and really rich people who can afford to stash it abroad.
--
The ultimate result of shielding men from folly
is to fill the world with fools.
-- Herbert Spencer
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid