Quote:
Originally posted by dhamsaic
[b]Okay. I'm going to be rather brief here.
I just read that Sara Lee laid off some 14,000+ workers. Sara Lee. You know. "Nobody doesn't like Sara Lee!"
Uh... why?
|
First, if I remember correctly, most of Sara Lee's business is not confectionary or food. Underwear is just another of the many businesses that are part of Sara Lee (is it 'Fruit of the Loom'?).
Second, 9/11 is how bean counters justifying their mistakes. Recessions are created by a shortage of innovation. As the Economist noted, only 7% of the nation's industries were contributing to a boom economy. Now Bethlehem Steel and USX will cite 11 Sept for their downturn? Bull. Before 11/9 (how it is written in the rest of the world), George Jr was to apply protection from other innovative but foreign steel companies. But George did not execute that anti-American policy of increased tarrifs because he needed world-wide support for an Afghan war.
Because George Jr did not implement tarrifs against innovative steel companies, that is a reason for big steel's 'sudden' demise? Of course not. Bethlehem Steel and USX are anti-American companies that must be bankrupt so as to remove their MBA management. 11 Sept had nothing to do with those anti-innovation decisions in USX and Bethlehem Steel - companies that still have not ever built an electric arc furnace 40 some years after that technology was innovative.
Add Xerox, Kodak, Polaroid, and AT&T to the list of companies that have contributed to the recession. 11 Sept also make these companies stifle innovation for the past decade. Name a killer product in the past decade from any of these companies? Good luck. Add them to the list of anti-American companies. No innovation - no killer products and higher costs in their less innovative and 'late to market' products.
We know that the recession in the computer industry is directly traceable to the bottleneck - the last mile. OK. If the computer industry has a downturn, then what industry will be innovative instead? Autos?
We know that GM still sells 1960 technology engines in 2001 - and therefore sells cars at no profit. That GM cars are so poor as to not be exportable. We know that Jacque Nasser was so anti-American as to run up cost of Ford vehicles by more than $1000 per vehicle (the fights between Nasser and Bill Ford were so violent that security had to be called by the secretaries).
OK. A shortage and reduction in innovation in the domestic auto industry. What about energy? Good luck. We are so inefficient that the world's third largest producer of oil now imports 2/3rd of its needs. The world's second (?) largest producer of natural gas now imports natural gas. Where is there any encouragement to innovate in energy?
Enron? That is where the energy industry innovated? They used MBA school tactics to cook the books. So a biggest energy company was not making any real profits over most of the past decade. When will that appear in the economy? Did 11 Sept cause the bankruptcy of Enron? Of course not. Enron's shady business practices simply will not contribute to a recession until now - no thanks to 11/9.
The current economic problems are directly traceable to a shortage of innovative products over the past four years. 11 Sept had nothing to do with it. However 11 Sept did cause people to suddenly notice where the economy was already going.
The Economist has an index to measure the value of currencies - The Big Mac. Their index for recession is just as interesting. It has been saying we were entering recession 3 quarters ago. What did 11 Sept have to with an event that long since preceded 11 Sept? Nothing.
Name me a 'killer' product from Sara Lee in the last ten years. Maybe I better rephrase that. Name me an innovative product....
The nice thing about recessions. We get to see who has been cooking the books with MBA skulldugdery. Enron is one. Xerox will be on that list. GM's shortage of profits should start appearing on the spread sheets if they stop spinning off assets.
Maybe nuclear power will have to post real world profits and losses? How about the insurance industry that has been masking a serious 'avoidance of facts' from their actuarials.
11 Sept had but a month long effect on the economy. Things not purchased in Sept were simply purchased in October along with other things that would have normally been purchased in October. Notice the many who still use neo-classical economics theory to blame 11 Sept. We are in recession due to a shortage of innovative products - and too many economists just don't want to face that fact. So they lay blame on silly things - such as 9/11.