Patriotism and Business

[Lucky]

I was struck tonight by Tim Pawlenty's recollection of a fellow in Arizona (I think it was) who said he was moving his business overseas to avoid having to comply with the new laws regarding health care. It started me thinking again...do businesses (which means businessmen and businesswomen) owe anything to our country? Or does profit justify anything they want to do?

I grew up in a union household. One of the things that meant was that we bought American automobiles, without exception. I still buy American automobiles, even though I think the Japanese and Korean cars in my price range are better values.

If I owned a business and could make $4 million dollars a year by moving it overseas, but only make $3 million a year keeping it here, I'd keep it here, regardless of whether it was a union shop or not.

Does anyone else see an issue here? That someone would fire all their workers and move their business overseas just to keep from having to comply with federal law?

If it made the difference between the business surviving and not surviving, I could understand. But if it is just to squeeze out a little more profit, wouldn't the patriotic thing be to stay here in America?

[Erik]

In the case of multinational corporations, stuff like patriotism isn't a factor at all, and hasn't been for a while.

In every other case, I suspect it depends greatly on what business you're in. If you are making commodities that can be produced cheaply by anyone, you're probably not going to survive if you continue to manufacture where labor costs are high. If you are making something more sophisticated than that, then these issues come in to play.

[Hammer]

Why should our businesses care about the American brand name when American government doesnt seem to mind whoring itself off to other countries?

[Gregg]

I was struck tonight by Tim Pawlenty's recollection of a fellow in Arizona (I think it was) who said he was moving his business overseas to avoid having to comply with the new laws regarding health care. It started me thinking again...do businesses (which means businessmen and businesswomen) owe anything to our country? Or does profit justify anything they want to do?

I grew up in a union household. One of the things that meant was that we bought American automobiles, without exception. I still buy American automobiles, even though I think the Japanese and Korean cars in my price range are better values.

If I owned a business and could make $4 million dollars a year by moving it overseas, but only make $3 million a year keeping it here, I'd keep it here, regardless of whether it was a union shop or not.

Does anyone else see an issue here? That someone would fire all their workers and move their business overseas just to keep from having to comply with federal law?

If it made the difference between the business surviving and not surviving, I could understand. But if it is just to squeeze out a little more profit, wouldn't the patriotic thing be to stay here in America?

For many it is not about making giant profits, but about staying in business. It is about the eroding of clients over the long haul that forces many business decissions.

[Wonderboy]

But if it is just to squeeze out a little more profit, wouldn't the patriotic thing be to stay here in America?

Not just the patriotic thing, but the smart thing in the long run. Moving businesses overseas has the direct result of lowering the American consumer base, which means less profits for American companies, which means they move more jobs overseas, resulting in less American consumerism...

So they are like many of us and get caught up in short term solutions instead of thinking long term. Really, in large part, this is a self-inflicted wound on business. But it may be inevitable since they don't act in concert with each other. Once a competitor jumps overseas, a business may not have much choice but to follow. Still, it is short-sighted.

Also, we consumers bear responsibility. Do we buy American or just buy the cheapes product we can find? (On the other hand, maybe we buy the cheapest product because our job went overseas and that's all we can afford now.)

[primetime]

If I owned a business and could make $4 million dollars a year by moving it overseas, but only make $3 million a year keeping it here, I'd keep it here, regardless of whether it was a union shop or not.

You say that you would (and I am not doubting you), but that same argument comes up when a superstar turns down 55 million from his hometown team to take 60 million from the Yankees. It seems like 99 percent of people take the extra few bucks even though they would be rich either way. It's easy for those of us not in these positions to take the moral high ground.

[Wonderboy]

You say that you would (and I am not doubting you), but that same argument comes up when a superstar turns down 55 million from his hometown team to take 60 million from the Yankees. It seems like 99 percent of people take the extra few bucks even though they would be rich either way. It's easy for those of us not in these positions to take the moral high ground.

Plus businesses have stockholders they have to listen to and provide for. (Albeit they are in most part one and the same as the B of D.) So it's tough to justify taking a 25% loss of income and a lower dividend check for patriotism.

[cardboardbox]

Erik has the right idea. If you are talking about a sole proprietor making a choice between staying in the US and making $2 million and moving to another country and making $3 million and he has no competition, then you have a point. I might keep my business here in that situation.

But if he has competition he has to keep his costs as low as possible. If its a corp, we the stockholders demand profit and would toss out a CEO who didnt drive down costs.

[Bob Kohm]

If its a corp, we the stockholders demand profit and would toss out a CEO who didnt drive down costs.

As succinct a definition as I've ever seen of the rot at the heart of our broken economic system. In the end it proves that capitalism is not compatible with the republican model of democracy in the international system. It is time to pull back from the fallacy of laissez faire "governance" and to protect what should be ours while we still can by harnessing the horses of business to the wagon of nationality.

[johnnya24]

Dirk a doerrrr

[senorsheep]

As succinct a definition as I've ever seen of the rot at the heart of our broken economic system. In the end it proves that capitalism is not compatible with the republican model of democracy in the international system. It is time to pull back from the fallacy of laissez faire "governance" and to protect what should be ours while we still can by harnessing the horses of business to the wagon of nationality.

Prepare to be shocked, Bob...

I think I'm coming around to this, too - American-style capitalism "broke" when we went global. It worked pretty well in a defined universe where everybody was committed to playing by the same free market rules. We expanded out into the brave new world of global markets without careful consideration of the consequences, and I think we're just now starting to realize that we're kind of flying around by the seat of our pants. It's time to re-imagine a framework that makes capitalism work for all Americans again.

[Wonderboy]

Yeah, I really had hesitated to say something like, "gee, it's too bad there isn't some centralized organization that could help jobs stay in America and benefit all of us in the long run, including corporations and their stockholders."

The idea that America got to a preeminent economic position due solely to our dedication to free enterprise is way overblown, imo. Sometimes I think we got to the top in spite of free enterprise rather than because of it. But admittedly, even I think that is an over-statement. Still, we need to realize that free enterprise can be a sword that cuts two ways.

Also, a good post by Sheep, if I may be permitted to kiss up.

[Erik]

It also doesn't help that everything is hyper-analyzed these days, and a firm's stock price is punished if earnings fall short of analyst expectations. Therefore, meeting earnings numbers has become the ONLY goal for a lot of public companies, much to the detriment of employees and customers at times.

[senorsheep]

Yeah, I really had hesitated to say something like, "gee, it's too bad there isn't some centralized organization that could help jobs stay in America and benefit all of us in the long run, including corporations and their stockholders."

The idea that America got to a preeminent economic position due solely to our dedication to free enterprise is way overblown, imo. Sometimes I think we got to the top in spite of free enterprise rather than because of it. But admittedly, even I think that is an over-statement. Still, we need to realize that free enterprise can be a sword that cuts two ways.

Also, a good post by Sheep, if I may be permitted to kiss up.

Thanks. I think your post kind of sucks, actually, because free enterprise is, realistically, despite its flaws, far and away the system that serves all the people best, IMHO, and is clearly the primary reason we have achieved our standing in the world. People on your side of the debate sneer at the so-called "trickle-down" model; I see it as the best of all possible worlds. BUT, it only works when the wealth is actually trickling down to the folks on the lower rungs of the ladder. When the wealth that used to trickle down to our bottom rung is instead being paid to cheap foreign labor, invested in foreign capital, and being pocketed by the guys on our top rung, that's a problem. Low-skilled low-earners used to still be able to carve out a passable living for themselves in America; I'm worried that that's not going to be the case if we continue down our current path.

[Erik]

Sheep, you're up in the Dylan draft.