Hi, my name is MadHound, and I use a (insert electronic device here) made in China.

[OrwellwasRight]

71. Yes and no.

I agree with what you said above, but in the post I originally responded to, you said Henry Ford would have moved all of his production to China if it would have maximized his profits -- and that I disagree with.

If China had been economically developed enough at the time we are talking about (turn of the century) to be capable of pumping out Model-Ts (as they do now with iPhones, etc.), Henry Ford would most assuredly have maximized his profits by moving to there and minimizing his cost for labor--but only in the short run because his moves would not have helped create a market for his goods and helled increased sales. Had he had venture capitalists running his board at the time, they probably would have taken that short term view and forced him to move production overseas. Howevr, since he did not at the time have to answer to investors looking for next quarter's profits, he was able to take a different strategy, with better long term profits. That's one of the differences between short-term and long-term profit maximization. The market incentives of US corporations are to maximize short-term profits. And that is just one of many problems with our economy.

And I agree with all that stuff about the damage done by turning cars into a "necessity," but as I said, that is a different question than the question of what choices a company made about how to remunerate its employees. Frankly, I think the world would be better off if all employers made it a point to ensure that their employees were paid enough to generate demand. That is one of the problems right now -- a global dearth of demand. Sure, it is great for reducing "consumerism," but not great for a world economy built on such consumerism.