In Reply to: Now, they really WILL be "Eastern" AW posted by Inmate51 on December 15, 2006 at 09:31:29:
on December 15, 2006 at 09:31:29 Inmate51 wrote:>>I don't really care where something is made, on an individual basis. But the mass movement to have stuff made in China or wherever, for the sole purpose of facilitating company executives and shareholders to make more money at the expense of other Americans is not good for the U.S. in the long run.<<
I too generally don't care where something is made...to a point. That point is usually reached when the quality of that something is compromised by shoddy manufacturing or inattentive quality control.I really don't care about something not being "good for the U.S. in the long run" if that something also has "good" point (eg., its level of quality) because then at least you have balance. If I, a U.S. citizen, buy a high quality product, then that's "good for the U.S." ipso facto. My concern is that the mass movement to have stuff made in China or wherever, for the sole purpose of facilitating company executives and shareholders to make more money at the expense of other Americans is not good for our quality standards, as it will be much more difficult to find "good" products at *any* pricepoint.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: not good for the US - Roscoe East 12:52:22 12/19/06 (9)
- Re: not good for the US - Inmate51 06:12:04 12/20/06 (7)
- Re: not good for the US - Bill Fitzmaurice 06:46:56 12/20/06 (0)
- Re: not good for the US - STUART` 06:39:55 12/20/06 (5)
- Re: not good for the US - Inmate51 18:09:36 12/20/06 (4)
- Re: not good for the US - STUART 06:52:09 12/21/06 (0)
- Re: not good for the US - Bill Fitzmaurice 19:12:23 12/20/06 (2)
- Re: not good for the US - Inmate51 07:16:48 12/21/06 (1)
- Re: not good for the US - Bill Fitzmaurice 09:25:50 12/21/06 (0)
- Re: not good for the US - Bill Fitzmaurice 16:24:01 12/19/06 (0)