--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 05:12 PM 3/13/2004 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote: > >>>> One poorly stood conclusion of economics is that "Buy American" > >>>> campaigns > >>>> (or as Doug recently suggested, "Loyalty Polcies") are actually highly > >>>> counterproductive. > >>>> > > > >We were discussing the relationship between employers and employees. Why > >is employer loyalty essentially "buy American?" > > Its two sides of the same coin. > > In your example, the producer's choice is essentially between loyalty to > the current employee *or* contracting out the employee's job to a > lower-cost overseas producer. Certainly, in the short term, the employer > can either accept lower margins or else rely upon the willingness of > consumers to "buy american". In the long term, however, this is > unsustainable - the employer will be forced to choose the best combination > of quality and price available for his inputs. > > I'm not sure by what you mean that employers should not "kick their > employees." Forgive me if I am putting words in your both, but I once > argued with someone who firmly believed that employees had a right to not > have their jobs become obsolete, and my best interpretation of your remarks > is along similar lines.
What would you think of a system where the employees would have to each own an equal part of a company? It's fiction, but what whoudl you think, It's not socialism, but it has some simmilarities. It just seems to me that the best model for maintaining a high quality of life is a capitalist economic system where the focus is not on the ability for individuals to aquire welth, but on the economic well being of the members. Employee ownership seems to fit this consept. National ~ownership~ is the natural extension of this consept and perhaps a better first step. In any event, this idea that it doesn't matter if jobs are destroyed or moved becouse more will be created is fatacy at best. There is no reason for the average workor to be a pawn in the games of the wealthy. As long as the leaders in a system are concientious of how their actions affect the individual, and as long as they have compasion and national regional and local loyalty the individual benifits. When they care more about themselves, the system emplodes and the system failes in a ripple effect out from that individual. An ethical capitalist has the following set of prioritis: Environent, Nation, State, County, City, Company Employees, Self. The problem is that it seems the best way to postpone the negative effects of neglecting any priority in favor of ones self, is to begin to directly cause negative effects starting as close to oneself as possible and then working out from there. For me this is mostly socio-fiction but I know there are a lot of economists out there and I would like to know what they think. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
