Stop the Dolphin Massacre

[Tarbicus]

Corporations have shareholders, and corporations have little or no compassion (being real people in law and name only). Their sole raison d'etre is to make as much money as possible for the shareholders. Hit them in the bank account and they'll do absolutely anything to correct that.

[Memmia]

Hi,

Whilst I am against such barbarity on this Earth, there are pros and cons with boycotts.

Large corporations have vested interests in many things. Fingers in every pie so to speak.
Big companies are also insured to the hilt and have a lot of 'legroom'.
However, the first effects of a boycott don't really hit the big bosses, they hit the 'little people'.
They hit the suppliers of the big firms and the first to suffer are the poorest workers. 'Disposable assetts' so to speak.
For instance, we all remember the Danish boycott not so long ago. Now I'm not going into any religious argument here, NO WAY! :lol: just using this as an example.
When some people stopped buying Lurpak, the first to suffer were aluminium processers in Africa, as they had huge contracts to supply aluminium used to make foil lids. Whole tribes in Africa fell into dire poverty because of the boycott of Danish products, children were abandoned by their parents, and some died! In some countries in Europe, the lowest, poorest workers lost their jobs when Lurpak made jobcuts.
The big bosses didn't suffer, they were insured. All it did was damage their profits (recoverable) and just make them shake in their boots a bit.
The 'little people' at the bottom of the workforce, and the poorest suppliers lost everything !

I feel education on matters to do with unscrupulous manufacturers, expose them to the world, and make use of petitions, enough sigs and bad publicity and the promoters get their butts kicked.
Believe me, I have seen this work in practice with one former not-so-green 'environmental' company I worked for many moons ago.
I don't like boycotts as it is the poorest and most innocent workers who suffer the most, not the big bosses.

[Tarbicus]

Joanne, how can a company be insured against a drop in profit?

[Memmia]

Joanne, how can a company be insured against a drop in profit?

They are not technically 'insured' by an outside source, but self insuring so to speak.

By this is just means 'creaming off the profits from another source' :wink:

Large car manufacturers are prime examples of this. You'd be amazed how much loss one plant can make and then use another plant as it's prop up.

Sorry that previous post was a bit misleading

[Memmia]

P.S. Just to add...

Extremely bad publicity, exposures, petitions and the THREAT of a boycott usually works wonders without the need for the poorer workers to suffer. :wink:

[Magnus]

I don't know about that, to use your example Joanne, look at the North American car industry. For years and years they were making an inferior product which was costing people more money in repairs than they were worth, so people began buying foreign makes. Now we're seeing the backlash of this because Ford, GM and Chrysler are all suffering massive layoffs and profit loss. They may not even be able to recover, I guess we'll see.

[Tarbicus]

Large car manufacturers are prime examples of this. You'd be amazed how much loss one plant can make and then use another plant as it's prop up.

Right, I get you - and fully understand that. But money is being lost, which means the 'insurance' is actually still profits being eaten up by the shareholders in the end. I sympathise about the little people, but as a consumer I can't feel like there's a gun being held to my head, and I'm to blame if I decide not to buy something for whatever reason.

A free market's a free market, and as unpredictable as the weather. Get-rich-quick profiteering in China is far more likely to lose people their jobs. :?

To add: it usually comes down to bad management, which involves reading the market.

[Memmia]

I don't know about that, to use your example Joanne, look at the North American car industry. For years and years they were making an inferior product which was costing people more money in repairs than they were worth, so people began buying foreign makes. Now we're seeing the backlash of this because Ford, GM and Chrysler are all suffering massive layoffs and profit loss. They may not even be able to recover, I guess we'll see.

5 to 8 years is still a relatively long time for a company to 'float on bulls**t'
Believe me, some car companies in the UK have been doing this for a lot longer :wink:

[Tarbicus]

5 to 8 years is still a relatively long time for a company to 'float on bulls**t'
Believe me, some car companies in the UK have been doing this for a lot longer :wink:

//www.amazon.co.uk/Corporation/dp/B0006NKBXW/ref=sr_1_6/203-7259964-9105534?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1172791138&sr=1-6:29bwgp0m]corporation[/url]' is often likened to a psycopath, and not for no reason :wink:

[Magnus]

5 to 8 years is still a relatively long time for a company to 'float on bulls**t'
Believe me, some car companies in the UK have been doing this for a lot longer :wink:

No, it's not instant results, but if you look at the changes being made by N. American car companies in order to compete with foreign ones it's encouraging, albeit too late in my mind. Point is if you hit the companies where it hurts, changes can be made.

[Robert Vermaat]

Problem these days is that Jack-in-the-street simply doesn't care..

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Joanne, how can a company be insured against a drop in profit?

Usually by laying off employees! Not always a good solution, but one of their usuals.

[hoplite14gr]

Signed.
I am afraid that Robert is right.
Matt, thanks for clarifying I still partly agree with your statements but well, in the world you can have everyone thinking alike.

Kind regards

[Magnus]

Yeah, that kind of sucks. But I wonder if there was ever a point in our history where people did for the most part care, and if it's something we can set as a goal for human kind?

[Memmia]

Yeah, that kind of sucks. But I wonder if there was ever a point in our history where people did for the most part care, and if it's something we can set as a goal for human kind?

Myself and a group of friends were discussing this the other day funnily enough.

We said we are an uncaring generation compared to our forefathers, however, when you look back to even just a few hundred years ago, you hear of children working in poor conditions, orphans, child prostitutes, as well as animals being treated extremely cruelly, but people were slow to protest. Many species of animals were wiped out by game hunters, especially in Africa.
I don't feel that we are uncaring. Just look at all the recent demos, and societies like Greenpeace etc. These are all general 'people off the street'.
We have more tools at our disposal, such as the media and internet. If you look at the BBC's 'Have your say' for example, people do care.

Maybe it's more of a case that due to the wide distribution and easy access to media, each of us seems to care for widely different causes and there is less unity for a common goal than previously. :?