English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

...must be 'make or break' on it's core business only ...more competition, more opportunity for everyone to join in this robust economy [lol], less corp influence in Washington, less damage to economy if one goes down, no scam corps to shield taxes, more stability in the business world [since a stand-alone would not be subject to acquisition /merger/consolidation], no more corp asset-stripping, no more running in the red & getting away with it by offsetting the loss against a money-making subsidiary--hurting competition, etc. Please, from a PRACTICAL, nationwide angle, how is this proposal bad?

2007-01-25 13:16:12 · 1 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science Economics

1 answers

Calling for the corporations to be forthright and honorable
is not an easy thing to accomplish. By their very nature
the bottom line profits are king. Businesses will more than likely do what is necessary to maintain that advantage while paying out as little as they can. The proposal even if
practical and sound will be vigorously opposed by these
corporations. Retract the health benefits, cut pay, reneging on pension promises appears to be the order of the day.

The best we can do is look out for ourselves.


Have a pleasant day.

2007-01-26 02:40:53 · answer #1 · answered by zurioluchi 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers