NY Times Story on Pilot Population Decline

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 11:38:15 GMT, kontiki
wrote in :

Larry Dighera wrote:



Are you able to articulate them? How would you address the implicit
mandate in a Capitalistic system, that drives corporations to
continually seek cost reductions to the point of absurdity and


Damm Larry, why doesn't government ever try to do that?

The topic was Capitalism, not government.

corporations have to make a profit... ot they go bankrupt.

That is my point. Today's Capitalism demands that producers meet the
lowest price in the marketplace, or face insolvency. That means that
if one producer is willing to reduce the cost of production through
unethical or immoral means, all the other producers are FORCED to do
the same or go broke. The cost-cutting efficiency of Capitalism is
commendable, but Capitalism's continual dive to the bottom begins to
cause problems after a certain point. That issue should be addressed.
Surely, even you can see the truth in what I'm saying.


_dishonesty_ just to meet the competition's price and remain viable in

Oh, so any business that makes a profit or trims down to be
more successful is _dishonest_ ???

I'm sorry if I failed to make myself clear enough for you to
understand. That is not what I said at all.

I have restated what I said above. Hopefully you'll take the time to
read and COMPREHEND it.


the marketplace? Do you believe outsourcing US jobs is good for our
nation? Do you believe that forcing US corporations to move to other
countries in order to escape income tax liability on income earned in
the US is desirable? Let's see how simple you can make the solutions
of which you speak.


As stated, businesss have to be profitiable or they go OUT of
business.

I for one, would be willing to pay a little more for goods produced in
the USA, wouldn't you? I would be willing to pay a little more for
goods that are produced responsibly, and I think there is a
significant segment of the marketplace that would also. The concept
I'm trying to get across, is that the cost of a product shouldn't be
the sole criterion for purchasing decisions.

The change in consumer's spending decisions is slowly gaining
momentum, such as locally grown produce over supermarket fair supports
local agriculture, and Southern California Edison subscribers are able
to choose "green" sources of power:
http://www.poweryourway.com/pages/greenpower.html

(sort of like Darwin's theory). It is good decisionmaking
to adjust your business (downsize, move manufacturing elsewhere)
to offset increased taxation by government in order to stay
competetive and keep the shareholders happy.

How do you determine at what point the price of lowering the cost of
production further is not worth its non-monitory impact?