When Did American Businesses Get Out Of Control?

Why do American businesses get out of control and why do we let them?

Deregulation of the airlines, supposed to create cheaper fares and better service has done the reverse. Programs have been shown on TV concerning passenger mistreatment, aircrew abuse, airline neglect to improve conditions for either and no law requiring them to report incidents of violence aboard aircraft.

The automobile industry produces defective cars, such as the SUV with it’s chronic rollover problems, uses cheaper materials, charges higher prices and has hidden dangerous defects until forced to recall the vehicles containing them.

It became ‘good business’ for certain types of large companies to forcefully take over smaller, weaker ones, fire everyone, then sell off the assets and materials at a profit. More people were hurt by this than benefited.

Major mergers by various companies have placed tremendous amounts of consumer goods under the control of just a few, who then regulate the prices to their benefit. Campbell’s soup also owns Progresso and runs ‘competition’ commercials against itself for the higher priced, single serving food over the cheaper, two serving product.

Where once there were dozens of gas companies, mergers, forced acquisitions, down and out deliberate ‘fuel wars’, and whisper campaigns have reduced the number to just a few, who now control all of the fuel in America.

Major drug companies, once concerned with developing products for the health of the nation, now are profit oriented and have priced drugs vital to life and health up so high that many people have to virtually give up their homes and savings just to get the ones they need.

Stores like the mega corporation Walmart developed a tactic to wipe out competition. They show up in as many cities as possible, undercut the local department stores like Kmart, Sears, Winn Dixie and so on until many of them have to shut down or close outlets. Then Walmart starts upping it’s prices.

A major book store uses similar tactics to wipe out competition, only they will bring in several stores at once. They also make deals with book publishers for high volume items, and buy so much that unsold books can be bought back by the publishers. The publishers then start buying manuscripts mainly of the type the stores will sell because the smaller book stores cannot compete with various orders. In the end, competition is slight and this book mega company dictates to the public not only what they will read, but what publishers will publish. Their goal is profit and only profit. They carry only what sells well and fast.

Record companies used to have to pay DJs to play their music. Now they tell them what they can and cannot play. They have the ability to take a second rate artist and have his or her songs played so much by so many stations that the public is fooled into thinking they are great. They can make or break a musical group by promoting or restricting the playing of their music. Currently they sell CDs at the highest price the market will bare and admit this, having said that so long as people buy the music, why lower prices?

Insurance companies have been called the richest businesses in the US, with good reason. Almost all invest your payments into real estate, stocks, bonds, other businesses and banks. You are required by laws they pushed through to have car insurance. Your payments go up no matter if you have an accident or not. You can be dropped over one accident. They control you via the law. major claims barely dent the insurance companies no matter what they say.

Health Care became big business via the privatization of hospitals which were once nonprofit organizations. Costs go up, staff gets cut back, services get cut back, conditions grow worse and profits soar in many cases. Health care is now one of the major expenses in a person’s life and getting more expensive.

The list goes on and on, steadily increasing since the end of the 1960s and making a huge jump in the greedy 80s.

Business have flaunted and blocked environmental laws being enacted here that other nations use with good results, have tied people who fight them up in court until they run out of money, go away or die, have smeared responsibility for ecological disasters such as Love Canal until no on know who is actually responsible anymore and the mess gets only partially cleaned up.

The greedy oil companies should have known long ago that single hulled tankers are not the safest way to transport crude, but they make greater profits that way. Mega companies have fought cleaning up missions for decades while people living in their shadow sicken and die.

Not too long back, a major agricultural sed company tried to introduce a limited life seed to farmers. It grows, produces and does not give viable seed. The reason? Greed. Farmers, to save costs, usually try to harvest some seed to not buy so much next time. With this new seed, they would have to buy fresh each season at the producers cost to grow the desired crops. We all know that eventually the cost would reach us.

Not to long back, lobbyists got the monopoly law removed on radio stations, so now major businesses may buy and own a tremendous amount of them, which they have, and essentially control what news goes out. The whole object of the communication laws was to prevent any business from controlling too much of the media and thereby controlling what the people were informed of.

We’ve all seen the mess professional sports have become since they turned into megabuck businesses.

Not too long ago, a dental business was caught deliberately blocking the importation of teeth for false teeth, brokering illegal deals with dental corporations and dentists to buy only their goods and trying to prevent small dental manufacturers from selling to dentists. The reason? Greed. The results? Higher dental costs for us. Each tooth in your $500 plate is made for about $1.00. Look what you pay. The company was stopped.

HMOs turned sickness into major bucks, for them. Now people are noticing that they might have made a mistake, but the people did not force the HMO bills through congress, investors did.

The cost of dying is soaring, yet the basic costs of doing business have not risen all that much. You’ll pay up to $2000 for a $800 casket and get hit with hidden charges later. Why? Greed.

Look at Barnett Bank. One of the biggest and most powerful banks in the nation, who almost charges now for the customer just to walk into the offices, has some of the highest loan interest rates, the most service charges and some of the toughest policies and is still growing like a cancer. It has been known to take residential properties in its care that could be converted to more expensive commercial ones, let them run down, hide ownership from prospective buyers, until the city is ready to condemn them, then buy the ‘distressed’ property from the owner at a much cheaper rate and sell it high for industrial use.

Let us not forget the faster, more casual way of handling meats which have infected them with E-coli, which means we have to handle the stuff like radioactive material. Even though such handling has been known to transmit the disease for a decade, not much has been done to clean it up. Plus, taking infected chicken manure and animal waste, treating it and mixing it in with animal food for herbivores to create a cheaper food which has more protein and means greater profit also infects the animals with E-coli along with antibiotics which humans are now becoming immune to but no major effort has been made to stop this practice. The money is too good.

I’ve read where people have wondered if there is not such a thing as too much profit and read others sneer at them and claim that all profit is good profit and the more the better.

Is profit still good profit when it actually hurts all but a few?

When and how did we let major corporations dictate our lives and even if we live or die?

Now, what do we do about it?

Cites? Compared to inflation, they do not seem to be getting that much more expensive to me compared to inflation. But then again, to really debate the issue, we would have to come up with some objective data, not just part of some extended rant on the evils of corporations.

SUV’s:People want 'em. Not much you can do about it, unless you want to refuse to give a customer the type of car that they ask for.

Rollovers:People want SUV’s. Higher cars, higher center of gravity. That’s what makes them more prone to rollovers. It’s inherint and been know about for quite a while, so unless you have some sort of magical roll-over prevention device…

Cheaper Materials:Really? Where? Do not just knee-jerkingly refernce Saturn doors. Plastics are better suited as the faces of car doors. Got a problem with it? Or are you just being colored by you initial impressions of plastic=cheap?

Recalls:The vast majority of recalls are voluntary rather than mandatory because it is cheaper to fix the cars than pay off the lawsuits. No, it does not sound nice, but that’s capatilism, right? Hurt people and you pay? Not idealistic, but effective.

Whenever companies close down, it is because they weren’t competitive. Whether they die slowly or quickly before sending their assests and workers off to more effecient positions and ultimately producing more is the question.

So? You seem to think that soup is soup and you seem to be perfectly able to choose your own brand of soup based upon factors like level of product. If a company wishes to make a certain brand appear more advanced, refined, etc., that’s their perogative. Unless you do not think that people are intellignet enough to choose their own soup and must bow humbly before the wisdom of your arrogant-soup-deciding-ass.

It’s still competition, and your still free to sell gasoline. Based upon the fact that your an American, I really would not bitch about fuel. Just compare yourself to Europe.

When again was it that pharmacutical companies were little angels concerned only with the public well being? I do not seem to recall that period in history. Right now, these companies churn out major drugs by the hundreds to be exported world-wide and vastly increase the lifespan of both Americans and foreigners, only to lose their patents when they expire so that others can make the exact same drug and sell it for less. If the pharm’s were not provided with the few years of protection that they actually get to charge as much as they want, they could not afford to develop the drugs in the first place. Drug companies simply are not that overwhelmingly profitable.
Of the top 100 net-profit companies in america with a market cap over 10 million, only two, Albany Molecular, and AEterna Bio are even close to the drug business in biotech.

Predatory pricing just does not work. No matter who Wal-Mart kills, sombody else can open up shop in five minutes and sell what Wal-Mart sells. It is not a profitable business model, and although you may be able to pull it off in perhaps one market or two, you’ll go down eventually. At a net-profit of a mere 3.3%, I would not call Wal-Mart overly financially healthy.

Hey, independent music still exists, but just try getting your music distributed without someone there to give you some cash, connections, and luck. Going back to that top-100 profabilility thing, none of them were in the music industry.

Without sounding like a broken record, again, profitability. It is not overly there. And there goes your argument.

On the other issue, required car-insurance, it bears some clarification that you are only required to get liability insurance. Why exactly you think it is okay to let somebody manuver a one-ton hunk of metal and plastic around wihtout making sure that there is someone behind them to pay off injured parties when that drivers gets into an accident is beyond me. Most people probably do not have the cash lying around to pay for the accidents that they get into, and by having someone else back you up and average out the damage helps to prevent the courts from being overloaded with lawsuits and then Chapter-11 filings.
How would you like it if some punk-kid like me who barely started off driving crashed into you and left you with the bill because I did not really have any assests that you could reimburse yourself with?

Since when were hospitals good investments? They run on slim margins, but overall, the standard of care has increased dramatically over the years. New life-saving treatments are now more readily available than any time in the past.

This is no run-of the mill crop of corn. This is some pretty increible corn. Why you think that Monsanto does not have the right to recover its expenses is beyond me.

If, in the end, it turns out that the corn is not worth the expense, then noone will buy it.

Problem solved.

If it is, then what’s wrong? People would not buy the corn if it was not worth what they were paying. If it is worth it, then everyone benefits.

Alright now, at 3:31 in the morning, it is getting to late, the rest of the post too incoherent, and you too annoying to even bother with the rest of the post. Why don’t you rebut some of this before bitching about how your superior intellect cannot find someone willing to face up to and debate the rest of your revolutionary concepts, ordained by God (you) himself.

Okay?

I saw an ‘Investigative Reports’ on A&E about this just tonight. It said that since deregulation in 1978 (under Pres. Carter, I always assumed it was under the Reagan administration) average fare prices had went up 30-38%. They (Bill Kurtis) phrased it in such a way that I was meant to be shocked. (30-38%, WOW, what an increase) But what hasn’t increased 30-38% over the last 22 years?

Deregulation HAS lowered airfares. If you don’t believe me, come to Canada where air travel’s regulated and see how much it costs to fly.

U.S. airfares would be substantially higher with regulation.

All these things happen in places with regulated air travel. Believe me, it sucks.

Considering the products being sold and the people buying them, cars are amazingly safe. I would challenge anyone to come up with a way to mass-produce high speed land vehicles capable of carrying entire families for hundreds of thousands of miles, sell them at affordable prices to people who don’t take care of them, and have them any better than they are now.

I don’t see how any of this is as bad as it was in the 19the century, or in the case of the fuel industry, the early 20th century with Standard Oil running things. Americans pay less for fuel than almost anyone else in the world.

Major drug companies have always been profit-driven.

I admit that every Walmart I’ve ever seen was surrounded by thriving small business. In my home town, the arrival of a Walmart SAVED an entire mall of independent stores.

I suppose it’s possible that any store will damage other stores, but Walmarts offer plentiful products at cheap prices, even when they’ve been around for years. I don’t see the problem.

The same goes for book stores. I sympathize with small book stores if they can’t make ends meet, but most small bookstores are big corporate chains anyway. If I can buy the same book for a lower price at a big store that lets me drink coffee and sit on an easy chair while I read, I fail to see why the big store should not get my business.

You’re saying payola’s a good thing? :slight_smile:

Oh, that’s new. Wasn’t Nancy Sinatra a 90’s act?

Uh… doesn’t that make perfect sense?

I have never, ever understood why people complain about the price of CDs. They are not especially expensive, and they are NOT more expensive than LPs used to be, considering inflation. Why the record companies should lose money so we can have $11 CDs instead of $16 CDs baffles me.

No, it hasn’t been increasing since the 60’s. Business has ALWAYS been profit-hungry. They were profit huingry in the 1860’s. Geez, read some Dickens. What makes you think any of this is a change? Consider this:

If you can point me to a time when professional sports WEREN’T all about money, please do so.

I’m not going to get involved in the general basic debate here, which starts with a question that assumes facts not in evidence, then asserts a number of things about business without evidence that they are acccurate charges to support the concept. I’ll leave ‘debating’ such silliness to those who can’t resist the bait.

But one thing that should be jumped on with ferocity is the silly notion that we pay more for air travel now on an inflation adjusted basis. I only bring this up because the local newspaper, The (Toledo) Blade constantly rants in editorials about the supposed bad effects of de-regulation of the airlines, especially applied to Toledo. Their basic charges of injustice are higher fares and having to travel from Toledo to a hub before connecting to a city.

Airline fares are a notoriously difficult to quantify now. Airlines charge official prices for travel that they never dream of actually making for 80% or more of the seats in the plane. Instead, the official fares are based on what extra income they need and want from the last few seats on a plane for which the buyers can’t afford NOT to pay an inflated price (usually businessmen on last minute travel). The vast majority of seats in the plane are sold at discount. It is the discounted nature of most seat fares that allows priceline.com to even operate.

Assuming that you can schedule your travel at least two weeks ahead of time, and have some flexibility as to when during the day you can fly, it shouldn’t cost you more than $400 to travel from one side of this country to the other. Some markets are higher, some lower. I flew from Columbus via Detroit to San Francisco this summer round trip for $200. By comparison, when I used to fly in the late '70s from LA to Rochester, NY for college (usually through Chicago or Cleveland), it often cost as much as $200 one-way. During the course of a year, with two round-trip flights, I figured my folks shelled out something like $600 to $750 on flights. Now, you can do any calculations you want, but face it: current fares used by most of us aren’t higher than that, especially after factoring in inflation for the last 20 years.

Does this mean that fares when averaged out over the entirety of all travel haven’t gone up? Probably not. But as someone else pointed out, who would expect them to do otherwise. For most of us who travel, de-regulation has done exactly as promised: provided us relatively cheap travel that has become more of a hassle for anyone not living near a major hub airport.

http://www.corporatepredators.org/top100.html#Annotated

This site lists quite a few American corporations which have been caught and prosicuted for greed.

http://x35.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=492385201&CONTEXT=931832115.1511784546&hitnum=0

The above site comments on a few more interesting business practices, like in the meat industry. I especially like the part about record profits.

http://x24.deja.com/[ST_rn=md]/threadmsg_md.xp?AN=513660454&CONTEXT=935255276.2120810532&thitnum=549

The above is a nice little report concerning Monsanto, the seed giant, now working to gain control of and market water rights for profit.

http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=440865519&threaded=1&CONTEXT=918260808.1324417031&hitnum=318

This site contains a report on Monsanto and limited life seeds along with their policy of farmers using their product must buy new seeds each year.

Enough for now. More sites later.

threemae, that was an excellent post, marred only by this little bit of free-market-capitalist-mythology:

I know of several companies who were efficient and profitable who have been bought out by larger companies with more power and cash, who then destroyed the smaller company by simply not understanding the business.

I don’t see a solution for the problem (particularly without bringing in government intervention that will be more harmful than the problem), but it is simply not true that every company that fails would have failed even without the hostile takeover. There are a lot of fools running corporations. The corporations succeed because market inertia can sometimes carry the company through a period of indifferent management. However, when those fools step outside their own companies, they can wreak immeasurable harm on perfectly well-run companies that simply did not have the resources to defend themselves.

(Classic example: North Central Airlines could have been SouthWest Air before SWA got going–they had excellent on-time delivery, 99% customer satisfaction, excellent labor relations, and very high profitability. NorthWest decided that they would make a good “feeder” line, bought them in a hostile takeover, and destroyed them.)

Corporations even own the ideas of many people, though they fancy themselves as sophisticates and independent thinkers. Some of the pro-corporate responses to your excellent post are pure creations of the corporate propaganda mill, which includes almost everything that can be used to influence public opinion.

On the question of the airfares, I think it is true that the inflation adjusted price of an excursion ticket is as low as it has ever been. But why? It is not primarily because of economies of scale due to mergers but to other factors. Larger planes and more efficient engines are a large factor.

Many people fail to realize that megaprofits are made not only by screwing the consumer, but by superexploition of the producers, i.e., the workers. Inflation adjusted wages of airline workers are in the toilet. Many flight attendents qualify for food stamps and cannot afford to rent an apartment by themselves. Their work rules have made them migrant workers. This is a social cost of deregulation, which is not factored into the ticket price, but is a cost that must be borne, nevertheless.

Many small cities have no airline service now. For those which do, tickets for short flights to or from them costs as much as a ticket from New York to London. There is usually no competition there. The hub system means fewer direct flights. The seats are narrower and the planes are packed like cattle cars. These are also costs which are borne by the public, but not factored into the price of a ticket. And what about those small non-union feeder “airlines” most airlines have formed to serve small cities. They fly small propjets and their captains look like college students.

And while it is true that 21 and 14 day excursion fares are really cheap because they simply fill up otherwise empty seats, check out the price of regular tickets. Call an airline and tell them you want to fly cross country tomorrow and get a refund if you decide to cancel and see what it will cost. A couple of grand. Seriously. Business mostly buys these tickets. Guess who ultimately pays. You do, but you don’t see it.

The OP is right on the mark in his indictment of corporate capitalism. And it will get worse if Bush is elected. But the corporate propaganda mill will convince millions that this is only the natural order of things.

http://www.nuro.com/stopthewal/

A good look at what was mentioned about Walmart.

BTW, it has been noted, reported and even commented upon in the not too distant past about major corporate raiders buying up smaller companies through force and not to reorganize or run them, but to simply destroy. In doing so, these raiders were able to turn a quick profit through the sales of the materials, inventory and properties of the luckless business, at the cost of the livelihoods of the managers and workers. This practice became very apparent in the 1980s.

Buying them up by buying all their stock? If thats so then thats one of the risks you take when you have more than 49% publicly traded stock.

One thing I will say though, A buisness has to be inefficient or exploited for someone to get rich.(excluding dumb luck)

Corporate Raiders were the parasites of the 1980’s. And I mean that in a GOOD way. In nature, parasites clean up. They get rid of bloated bodies and profit from waste. That’s exactly what the corporate raiders did. The business climate of the time was rather bloated and inefficient. So the raiders came in and fed off it. The result today is that companies have learned to operate leaner and tougher than they used to. That benefits consumers.

Airline prices HAVE dropped, but more importantly what has happened is that de-regulation freed up the airlines to create a whole new class of customers - bargain-basement, no-frills flyers who will sit in coach and put up with poorer service and more hassle in exchange for cheap travel.

I’ve heard arguments against this - people saying things like, “Air travel used to be so nice - now the airplanes are full of squawling brats and lower class people”. Well guess what? That’s an elitist attitude. The fact that a lower middle class family with children can now fly is a GREAT boon to them, both in terms of quality of life and safety. I have zero tolerance for people who would kick them off the plane so that air travel can be more ‘civil’.

And BTW, one of the main claims that the pro-regulation activists made was that airplanes would become unsafe as competitive pressures forced them to cut corners, while lower regulatory barriers allowed them to get away with it.

Well, guess what again? Airplanes have never been safer than they are right now. The airlines set new safety records every year. Because safety IS a competitive tool, and the forces of the market push airlines towards ever-higher safety standards even if they don’t want to do it. You could even say there’s an ‘invisible hand’ at work…

http://www.untied.com/complain/

Take your pick on airline complaints here, especially those concerning disabilities. The other day, Investigative reports had an hour show concerning the dangers and problems of this particular airline, and how little is being done.

http://www.eiu.edu/~kuoeng/research/cw/welcome.htm

The above site gives you a wonderful view of corporate welfare, which is not needed, but is another indication of corporate greed.

Sam Stone Nothing like taking pleasure in the destruction of employee jobs, families and livelihoods.
Not all that many companies were bloated failures just ticking along, but were small, long term businesses happy to keep 200 or so employees working at a livable wage for the last 20 years or so, existing on moderate profits and not exactly seeking major expansion.

Corporate raiders targeted such companies along with those in trouble but whom were working towards solutions and deliberately wiped them out. I guess it is good for the economy to remove a stumbling company and fire a couple of thousand people a year in the process. Then the banks get to repossess homes, cars, boats and take the newly unemployed to court while dumping them on the street. I guess you are a corporate man yourself.

The unemployment roles swelled dramatically in the 80s as not only did $30,000 dollar a year, long term workers suddenly have to hit the bricks, but $100,000 a year ones as well, and many of them were at the age where finding a similar paying job was hard or impossible.

In the 80s, older, long term executives making 6 figures and up were dumped to replace them with new, younger employees willing to do the same work cheaper. Company loyalty went right out of the window.

What all this is doing is making mega corporations increasingly stronger, a trend which has not gone unnoticed. In my area alone, hospitals which were once nonprofit and doing a good job, switched to profit orientation and did several things. They upped all charges, thinned out the nursing staff, and nurses assistants. Quality of care plummeted, they have a higher employee turn over of very qualified nurses who are unwilling to have themselves worked nearly to death in an environment more cost oriented than safety. The only ones making money are the investors and the administrator, who has a couple of million in guaranteed perks while doctors have to argue for budget increases to get new diagnostic equipment.

Good business? For whom?

Your cite is cute, but it really doesn’t have much bearing on the conversation at hand. The first screen noted that the database only extends back to 1998, 10 years after deregulation took place. There’s no comparison to the number of customer complaints that were lodged during the era of government regulation. Nor is there way to compare the number of complaints per capita.

Airline departures have risen [/url=“http://www.heritage.org/library/backgrounder/bg1173es.html”]approximately 63% since deregulation from 5 million to over 8 million while the total number of passengers has doubled from 300 million to 600 million. Isn’t it possible that the increase in the number of overall complaints is connected to the increase in passengers flying as compared to the time prior to deregulation? I certainly think that it’s a contributing factor.

Even if we stipulate, for the purposes of discussion, that complaints have risen on a per capita basis, it doesn’t neccessarily mean that the airlines are simply unconcerned about remedies. The cost of air travel has dropped by about 40% in the years since deregulation. As Sam Stone pointed out, air travel used to be considered a luxurious way to travel, with perqs and assorted amenities considered normal parts of the trip. With the huge increase in passengers and the corresponding drop in fares, it’s difficult to imagine how the airlines are supposed to stay in business offering those same amenities to all the passengers who aren’t paying what they used to pay. Air travel is much more mundane now than it was prior to deregulation. The drop in fares has brought it within reach of almost anyone who has to travel long distances. The very nature of the industry is evlolving, it’s normal that there will be unsettled periods as the airlines struggle to adapt themselves to the new realities.

Nor can the blame be laid at the feet of only the airlines, if the blame is to be laid at all. We’ve all had hassles in travelling by air, even those of us who have limited experience. But by the same token, we’ve all seen assholes who overreact and freak out when some small annoyance crops up and threatens to derail his or her inviolable plan. How much of the increase in the complaints are due to people who aren’t willing to take into account the incredible complexities of the system and machines themselves?

The entire air travel infrastructure itself is stretched to the limit. No one anticipated that deregulation would lead to the increase in passengers and flights that has occured. Airports are running at or near capacity as it is, within such narrow tolerances that the slightest delay or mistake can throw the whole system into an uproar. It’s not the fault of the airlines that they can’t simply add more flights because the airports which they service are already nose to tail on the taxiways.

It strikes me that you’re looking to have the best of both worlds, you wish for the ‘good old days’ of amenities and personal touch services while flying, but you don’t want to pay the fares that required that sort of extra attention.

I love that well reasoned logical construct, it’s a joy to see. Ad hominen attacks are emotionally rewarding, I suppose, but they don’t do much to increase your credibility or the strength of your argument.

Moving on to the substance of your statement. It actually is good for the economy for a non-competetive company to go out of business. The resources that were used by that company can then be applied to a company that is competetive and can provide the same goods or services to the consumer for a lower cost, enabling them to spend the money saved on other goods or services (or, if you’re of a more philanthropic bent, to donate it to some charity). That is one of the bases of a free market economy. You may decide that it is a negative outcome for the society in general, but the fact that it’s good for the economy is hardly the issue.

Having lived in Pittsburgh during the 80’s, I lived through the experience. You rightly point out the upheaval that took place within the lives of the people who were affected by the changes in the job markets, but you fail to address the reasons for those changes. Your general tone strikes me as being one of assuming that these people were fired/laid off/etc simply in order to maximize profits for the greedy fat cats and corporate overseers. While that probably did happen, nad still does, the majority of people were let go because the companies found they couldn’t stay in business if they didn’t fundamentally change the manner in which they did business. Pittsburgh was, for all intents and purposes, a company town in the 70s, and US Steel was the company. Suddenly, the company found that it couldn’t compete with the influx of products from overseas. Their overhead forced them to charge significantly more for their products than the comparable producers in (insert foreign country here).

I’m curious to know how you feel they should have handled it in this instance.

Twenty years, not ten.

approximately 63% is the corrected URL.

No one is arguing that people aren’t hurt when companies close, relocate, etc. But that’s just an unavoidable fact of living in an *efficient economy. Efficiency means adaptation, which means entire industries will be wiped out, new ones will rise from the ashes, etc.

I feel sorry for all the blacksmiths and stable owners that went out of business when the automobile replaced the horse. An entire lifestyle was wiped out. But what solution would you have offered then? Protectionism? Tariffs on autos to ‘protect’ the poor blacksmith? Perhaps government subidies for horseshoe manufacturers, to keep the ‘family business’ alive?

In hindsight, do you think society would have been better off if we had entrenched those jobs at the turn of the century? Do you think the blacksmith himself would have been better off? How about his children?

In fact, we are better off if we let businesses conduct themselves in the most efficient way possible. That means poor people can afford more things. Rich people find more opportunities for investment, which speeds growth even more.

I work in an extremely volatile industry (Computer Programming). We have no job security, no unions. We just laid 30% of our workforce off a few months ago due to shifting market demands. I personally lost my company 5 years ago when the sub-industry I served vanished almost overnight. This stuff happens, and it hurts. But any regulatory attempt to stop it will hurt even more.

Asmodean writes:

Yes, it ought to be remembered that “hostile takeover” means “hostile to interests of oft-entrenched corporate management”. Real hostile takeovers are done at gunpoint.

i would select 1900 as a good date. that’s when technology became so complex the average person couldn’t understand it without training. the schools waste time on liberal arts garbage and turn science into abstract nonsense.

the purpose of ignorance is to be taken advantage of, otherwise known as NEVER GIVE A SUCKER AN EVEN BREAK.

Dal Timgar

As a devout capitalist, it is refreshing to see so many step up to the plate and go to bat for our system.

However, I also believe that there are some aspects to our system that are not so nice. This is not due to intrinsic flaws in capitalism, but rather, inherent flaws in the mixed economy that we operate.

Most important is the distinct conflict of interest when large corporations donating to political campaigns. The ability to buy the ear of a politician is contrary to the interests of the American people. We need to eliminate the power structure of the lobbyists.

If a corporation has the best interests of its workers in mind then it is a fairly safe assumption that those workers will vote for the passage of legislation that will benefit their company. I feel that this is the best way for large corporations to influence legislation. By rallying the support of their workers on their behalf.

If we could eliminate the undue influence that is routinely applied to our capitol we might find smoother and more fair government to be the end product.

I know that history is full of American Corporations grabbing up as much power as possible until Congress was forced to create various restriction laws, like Antitrust and monopoly. Some of the men who have been praised as builders of the Nation were also some of the greediest and ruthless individuals of the time.

When the rail roads were the primary cargo and people movers and making money hand over fist, they averaged 1 train wreck a day with large death totals because of fire and cheap car construction. They already had the means to drastically reduce this by building metal cars – which they did for the wealthy only – using steam heat instead of coal stoves and, later, installing the pneumatic safety breaks. They delayed for years, because of the enormous profits they were getting, preferring not to upgrade their equipment.

Once a business takes hold and begins to generate major profits, gains a powerful congressional lobby and a team of expensive lawyers, it seems that profit becomes all. There is case after case of businesses ‘secretly’ maneuvering to avoid monopoly laws and attempting to fix the prices on goods from food to drugs, or knowing before a product is released that it has hidden dangers and releasing it anyhow because of the cost to redo it.

There is profit and then there is PROFIT. The latter seems of the type that has no reguard for human life.

http://www.essential.org/monitor/focus/focus.9708.html

This is a great site. Notice the Occidental Petrolium report along with the Columbia Hospital chain.