Victor Milne wrote:
> This is by no means the first time that I have seen this usage of
> "competitiveness" to mean high profitability, a meaning that is
> pretty much diametrically opposed to the classical meaning of low
> consumer prices. It is also far from clear how staff cuts are going
> to result in "heightened ability to serve customers effectively.
> The traditional defence of capitalism is that because of competition
> [for the purchasing power of the consumer] good products are
> produced at the lowest possible price.
"Globally competitive" firms are pretty much uncoupled from *serving*
consumers and that meaning of "competitive" is part of the
obscurantist jargon of economic theological dogma intended for the
laiety. The same is true of "consumer choice" and "free trade".
Most small firms live or die by offering service and choice. A
massive rejection can shake a big company, too, as we've seen with
asbestos and British beef, but those cases are anomalies. For the
transnationals, "we're competitive" means approximately "we're
in charge here and we're winning", independent of everything else.
- Mike
--
Michael Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://home.tallships.ca/mspencer/
