External factors of buying decision...

[E-Stat]

So it largely rests on employment standards and the debate over off shore building and the like.

As for me, I buy well made, reliable and good sounding components because I keep them for a long time.

rw

[luvtolisten]

If people want things changed they need to organize - vote and "think." The fact that China pays their people $1 a day doesn't mean we have to compete. Government can simply apply a thousand percent tarriff or slow global trade until things are on par. Something. But it requires people to control government and corporations not the other way around.

I agree. People need to get involved and vote, not wait for someone else to do it. Boycotting only hurts the small companies. I saw on CBS news the other night,people are boycotting BP and their sales are down. Who does BP do? Cut off the independent dealers. The mom& pop stores. Let's face it most places that sell gas are mom & pop stores. They don't make money selling gas. Selling gas is just a reason to get you into the store to buy something else.The problem is, the people in charge of these large corporations are not held accountable. They are well padded from any boycott with guaranteed salaries. The CEO of BP, came in, gave his "sorry sorry sorry' speech for a day then sped off to vacation on his yacht.
Look at the travesty with the banks & CEO's. They get a "bail out" and a month later respond by giving themselves a bonus for such a "good" year. What we need to do is get involved and vote for politicians with integrity, to hold the people responsible (I thought that's why CEO's made the big bucks) accountable. We need another "Give 'em Hell Harry". I was glad to see Obama shut down the mines in WVa. after the coal mine disaster till things were made right. But I am disappointed to see his "walk bys" on the gulf coast. Looks like I'm comparing dollars to donuts, I would like to see him on that ba*tard BP CEO a$$, at least get him off his yacht and raking a beach!

[RGA]

luvtolisten

That's why I posted about the movie "The Corporation." It has all the freedoms of an individual - a Psychopathic individual" and cannot be held accountable - unless you call a fine accountable. The first step is to dismantle the notion of the "corporation" and you simply say the corporation as a concept is banned. The owner of the company is 100% responsible and can be held liable (or whoever the decision makers are). A starting point would be to make public safety the first priority not the bottom line.

The Ford Pinto incident at the very least should have gone something like this. The person who signed off on the decision to pay legal bills instead of fix the problem - executed. The company is fined a trillion dollars payable by the end of business day or all assets seized by the government and sold to the competition. Hell in China you drink you drive you kill someone you get shot. We have too many people in the world and the slime balls don't need to be draining the system. The milk scandal in China - people involved shot. you kill babies for money - you get shot. You'd think in America with more gun owners than pet owners this kind of thing would be acceptable. Probably would not need the guns if you got rid of the slime balls the first go around.

I'm being partly facetious here but if they have total disregard for the masses then the good of the many outweigh the good of the one. Gotta Love Spock. http://www.time.com/time/specials/20...657866,00.html - I say let the CEO burn and take his millions

[Feanor]

luvtolisten

That's why I posted about the movie "The Corporation." It has all the freedoms of an individual - a Psychopathic individual" and cannot be held accountable - unless you call a fine accountable. The first step is to dismantle the notion of the "corporation" and you simply say the corporation as a concept is banned. The owner of the company is 100% responsible and can be held liable (or whoever the decision makers are). A starting point would be to make public safety the first priority not the bottom line.
...

Good point, RGA, and basically the same one on made earlier: the contemporary large corporations have only one interest, and that is to make as much money as possible as soon as possible, and, as a corollary, increase the market value of their stock in the short run.

And the more broadly held a corporation, the more fixed is its profitability focus. A company like BP is a good example. The owners of these companies are largely investors -- mutual funds, hedge funds, government, private, and union pension funds who are very far detached from the local employees and communities where the companies operate. Much more even than the company's top internal management, these owners are fixed on profits to the exclusion of any and all other considerations. Furthermore the outside owners are not especially interested in the longer term viability of the companies, but instead in their market performance over few months or couple of years. No wonder that employee welfare, community welfare, national prosperity, and the environement get so little empathy from these organizations.

Yet for example in the US, corporations are allowed to make unlimited contributions to the election campaigns of candidates. This is monsterous stupidity and a thing that tends to ensure that there willl be little progress to address the increasingly urgent problems of the real people. With polititians in the pockets of large-scale investors, what can the rest of us do besides bend over and take the shaft??

[luvtolisten]

Yet for example in the US, corporations are allowed to make unlimited contributions to the election campaigns of candidates. This is monsterous stupidity and a thing that tends to ensure that there willl be little progress to address the increasingly urgent problems of the really people. With polititians in the pockets of large-scale investors, what can the rest of us do besides bend over and take the shaft??

Excellent point. There are far to many private interest groups and corporations getting preferred treatment. The CEOs that gave themselves a bonus was a crime, and should have been treated as such.You can call it embezzling or just plain grand larceny. They should have been thrown in jail instead of a severe tongue lashing. You or I or anyone else on a different level would have.

[mlsstl]

Yet for example in the US, corporations are allowed to make unlimited contributions to the election campaigns of candidates....

I think you are incorrect on this point. According to the Federal Election Commission web site, corporate contributions to candidates are expressly prohibited.

See http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/c...ns_Labor_Banks

There is also a chart that shows the limits for individuals, political parties and PACs. Also, all contributions are public record so you can always check to see who has contributed to a candidate.

[frenchmon]

I think you are incorrect on this point. According to the Federal Election Commission web site, corporate contributions to candidates are expressly prohibited.

See http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/c...ns_Labor_Banks

There is also a chart that shows the limits for individuals, political parties and PACs. Also, all contributions are public record so you can always check to see who has contributed to a candidate.

Ahhh...unless I miss understood, the highest court in the land overturned that ruling about 2 months ago?

[bobsticks]

Ahhh...unless I miss understood, the highest court in the land overturned that ruling about 2 months ago?

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/201...ned-parenthood

[Feanor]

I think you are incorrect on this point. According to the Federal Election Commission web site, corporate contributions to candidates are expressly prohibited.

See http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/c...ns_Labor_Banks

There is also a chart that shows the limits for individuals, political parties and PACs. Also, all contributions are public record so you can always check to see who has contributed to a candidate.

Now the corps can spend, spend, spend ...

... New York Times report, January 21, 2010

[pixelthis]

Its silly to punish a company because of its corp history.
Ford, Dupont, several oil barons(one whose name starts with R) funded Nazi GERMANY,
so are you going to not use air conditioning, gasoline, petrochemical products?
THE germans commited crimes, they paid for them.
FORD makes an exelent product these days, boycott them and put some Americans outta work.
OH, BTW, you also have to boycott Mazda , as Ford owns them(a mazda 3
is a focus, basically).

[mlsstl]

Ahhh...unless I miss understood, the highest court in the land overturned that ruling about 2 months ago?

This court decision was in January 2010.

Direct contributions to candidates by corporations are still prohibited.

What the decision said is the absolute ban on independent political speech by corporations was unconstitutional. For example, under the original law (McCain Feingold) that was challenged, a corporation could not run TV ads on a subject that might be perceived to favor one candidate over another.

Under the original law, if one candidate favored increasing auto registration taxes and other favored lowering them, a corporation that happened to be a car dealer could not run public ads pointing out the advantages of lower auto taxes even if they did not expressly name a candidate.

The Supreme Court decision says a corporation is free to say what is on their mind, but still cannot contribute money directly to a candidate nor can they coordinate with a campaign when running their ads. And, they still have to disclose their involvement in their ads.

Incidentally, the "corporation" at the center of the lawsuit was a non-profit that was not selling a product. They made a movie about Hillary Clinton.

See: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us.../22scotus.html

[mlsstl]

Now the corps can spend, spend, spend ...

In 2008 there was over twice much spent on Viagra advertising as was spent on the Obama/McCain presidential election (about $1.2B by Pfizer versus $445M spent on both campaigns.)

Given what is spent advertising little blue pills, dog food and perfume, when has too much been spent on politics? Interesting question.

;-)

[Feanor]

This court decision was in January 2010.

Direct contributions to candidates by corporations are still prohibited.

What the decision said is the absolute ban on independent political speech by corporations was unconstitutional. For example, under the original law (McCain Feingold) that was challenged, a corporation could not run TV ads on a subject that might be perceived to favor one candidate over another.

Under the original law, if one candidate favored increasing auto registration taxes and other favored lowering them, a corporation that happened to be a car dealer could not run public ads pointing out the advantages of lower auto taxes even if they did not expressly name a candidate.

The Supreme Count decision says a corporation is free to say what is on their mind, but still cannot contribute money directly to a candidate nor can they coordinate with a campaign when running their ads. And, they still have to disclose their involvement in their ads.

Incidentally, the "corporation" at the center of the lawsuit was a non-profit that was not selling a product. They made a movie about Hillary Clinton.

See: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us.../22scotus.html

Thank you for this clarification. Although my reading of the cited article doesn't make clear the continued limitation, I'll take your word for it since you seem to be familiar with the background.

However apparently corporations and other interested groups can now spend unlimited amounts throughout election campaigns to promote their points of view, including pointing out the supposed strengths or weaknesses of candidates. This being true, it is scarcely different than directly financing a candidate's campaign, notwithstanding that they still may not "coordinate with a campaign".

[mlsstl]

However apparently corporations and other interested groups can now spend unlimited amounts throughout election campaigns to promote their points of view, including pointing out the supposed strengths or weaknesses of candidates. This being true, it is scarcely different than directly financing a candidate's campaign, notwithstanding that they still may not "coordinate with a campaign".

IMO opinion, there was a lot of unwarranted hysteria about this issue. There were plenty of organizations prior to this ruling that were attempting to influence public opinion one way or the other.

All that had to be done was form a 501(c)(4) organization (MoveOn is a classic example) or a 527 organization and millions of dollars flowed in favor of targeted candidates and against others.

In other words, there were plenty of hi-jinks being played prior to this court decision and I personally don't believe much has changed on the playing field.

There will always be people who try to game the system one way or the other. It is like pushing in on a balloon - push here and it simply bulges somewhere else.

I'm in the sunshine camp. I've got no problem with people promoting their cause, but there needs to be full disclosure so that one can follow the money.

I think that's the last of my comments on this subject. Back to audio, everyone!

[Feanor]

In 2008 there was over twice much spent on Viagra advertising as was spent on the Obama/McCain presidential election (about $1.2B by Pfizer versus $445M spent on both campaigns.)

Given what is spent advertising little blue pills, dog food and perfume, when has too much been spent on politics? Interesting question.

;-)

I'd be happy with a Viagra limitation personally. And when it comes to politics, consider that in some democratic countries there are limitations on the total of political spending.

But in the political case, the fundamental problem is less the total spending but rather that huge amounts might be spent on one side of an issue and only relatively tiny amounts on the other.

Needless to say corporations (and their supposedly not-for-profit surrogates) have vast sums that they will spend to promote low corporate profits, low product safety standards, low employee safety standards and miniumum wages, and minimal environmental regulations. Whereas individuals, environmental advocates, and even unions, have much less money to defend the contrary options.

[Ajani]

The first step is to dismantle the notion of the "corporation" and you simply say the corporation as a concept is banned. The owner of the company is 100% responsible and can be held liable (or whoever the decision makers are).

Such a move would potentially collapse the US economy (and I don't mean a recession - think 4th world status)... Consider the size of the major corporations - very few persons are rich enough to have ownership of them, which is why you find pools of investors (buying and selling shares on the stock market). Very few investors would be willing to invest in a company if the were 100% liable for the failings of the company. Essentially only persons with enough shares to control the company might take such a risk.

Imagine if a person with a few share in BP could be sued for the current environmental disaster. That person has essentially zero control over the actions of BP.

So what would likely happen is that most major corporations would collapse. As much I support the notion of having more small businesses with owners fully accountable and in control of their business, I don't think that you can just dismantle the existing corporations without causing economic chaos.

[Feanor]

Such a move would potentially collapse the US economy (and I don't mean a recession - think 4th world status)... Consider the size of the major corporations - very few persons are rich enough to have ownership of them, which is why you find pools of investors (buying and selling shares on the stock market). Very few investors would be willing to invest in a company if the were 100% liable for the failings of the company. Essentially only persons with enough shares to control the company might take such a risk.

Imagine if a person with a few share in BP could be sued for the current environmental disaster. That person has essentially zero control over the actions of BP.

So what would likely happen is that most major corporations would collapse. As much I support the notion of having more small businesses with owners fully accountable and in control of their business, I don't think that you can just dismantle the existing corporations without causing economic chaos.

Quite right, Ajani. The concept of the "limited liability" enterprise is fundamental to modern capitalism and the industrial age. Without it we'd retreat to the middle ages -- or give over to public ownership of all major production.

On the other hand, with "limited liability" should go limited rights. The concept that the corporate legal "person" should have same rights as an actual human person is absurd.

[hifitommy]

find another place to vent.

[recoveryone]

I got on this late and read most of the post on the first page, but I too would have to side with those that urge a since of caution on that line of thinking. In the case of Ford Motor Co, I guess you can count out buy several types of vehicles (brands) for Ford is global and has its finger in many brands:

Volvo
Jaguar
Land Rover
to name a few and I guess if you like to BBQ don't use charcoal either for it was Ford (KING FORDS) that has that market cornered, As worf pointed out about how companies are global you would need to be totally self sufficient (grow your own food, fuel, clothing ...etc) to really boycott any company.

[YBArcam]

And before you buy the Taurus - read the Lemon-Aid guide. Trust me - you have been warned.

Edit - the Lemon-Aid may not be available in the United States - but here is an example of Taurus issues http://fordsuckz.0catch.com/___3_8L_...lemon-aid.html

That isn't about the current Taurus. Therefore, it's largely irrelevant. The current Taurus uses a 3.5L engine, not the 3.8L.

OH, BTW, you also have to boycott Mazda , as Ford owns them(a mazda 3 is a focus, basically).

Ford gave up their controlling interest in Mazda recently. I think they still hold a small stake, but it's drastically reduced from what they once held.

As for the topic of this thread...while I agree that corporations have way too much power, to suggest that limited liability should be done away with, well, a few posters here have already shown that this isn't feasible. Is there another suggestion that is? Frankly, I'm not going to punish Ford for mistakes made long ago by people who no longer run the company. Ford is under new management who have done much to turn things around. Why punish them? They may be better corporate citizens now than Honda's or Kia's management for all we know. To punish them seems more out of spite than anything else, looking at things that happened decades ago, at the hands of different people, and ignoring what's going on now. When a company makes poor decisions and product, that's when the market should punish them. If they are smart enough to fix those issues, especially when new people do so, that to me warrants praise.

As for audio, like you said RGA, some companies that have moved mfg to China treat their employees well. It seems to me then, that to punish a company that has made this kind of move is presumptuous. Unless you know of a company that is mistreating workers, it's just jumping to conclusions. So I've got no problem buying a Chinese made product. Frankly, if you don't want to spend an arm and a leg, you often have little choice.

Almost any company that competes in terms of value is going to feel pressure to move manufacturing to China, assuming of course they want to remain competitive and thus survive. So while I like that Paradigm still makes their speakers in Canada, I wouldn't be surprised, nor would I blame them, if they decided in the near future to change that fact. Seems to me that you cannot dish out blame at the individual company level for this. The government is going to have to come up with a solution that discourages this sort of behavior, otherwise it won't change of it's own volition.