Where a product is made has no informational content. It is simply a way for some people to pretend that their well-being and yours is the same thing. Kristyn Birrell of the Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment has a very nice essay on labels in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle. It opens this way:
If you had a label, where would you be made? I would be “Made in
Valencia” or “Made in California,” or, if we took a broader
perspective, I could have one of those little flag logos on my sticker
and it would say “Made in the USA.” But would either of these
identifiers tell the whole story? Yes, I was born in the U.S., as were
my parents and grandparents, but what about more distant ancestors? My
father’s grandparents were born in Scotland, Italy, England, and
Germany, while my mother’s were born in Denmark and the United States.
Look back only three generations, and already my label has gotten quite
complicated—“Made in Scotland (1/8), Italy (1/8), England (1/8),
Germany (1/8), Denmark (1/4), AND the USA (1/4).” My label is not an
anomaly; most Americans have similarly complex histories. Given this
mosaic of hominal origins, what should we make of products whose label
proclaims simply “Made in Mexico” or “Made in China?”
Read the whole thing. It’s excellent.
Hal Varian made a similar point citing a study by Greg Linden, Kenneth L. Kraemer and Jason Dedrick. The iPod is "made in China." But what does that really mean? It’s assembled in China. But the value comes from all over the world:
…let us look at the production process as a sequence of steps, each
possibly performed by a different company operating in a different
country. At each step, inputs like computer chips and a bare circuit
board are converted into outputs like an assembled circuit board. The
difference between the cost of the inputs and the value of the outputs
is the “value added” at that step, which can then be attributed to the
country where that value was added.The profit margin on generic parts like nuts and bolts is very low,
since these items are produced in intensely competitive industries and
can be manufactured anywhere. Hence, they add little to the final value
of the iPod. More specialized parts, like the hard drives and
controller chips, have much higher value added.According to the authors’ estimates, the $73 Toshiba hard drive in
the iPod contains about $54 in parts and labor. So the value that
Toshiba added to the hard drive was $19 plus its own direct labor
costs. This $19 is attributed to Japan since Toshiba is a Japanese
company.Continuing in this way, the researchers examined the major
components of the iPod and tried to calculate the value added at
different stages of the production process and then assigned that value
added to the country where the value was created. This isn’t an easy
task, but even based on their initial examination, it is quite clear
that the largest share of the value added in the iPod goes to
enterprises in the United States, particularly for units sold here.The researchers estimated that $163 of the iPod’s $299 retail value
in the United States was captured by American companies and workers,
breaking it down to $75 for distribution and retail costs, $80 to
Apple, and $8 to various domestic component makers. Japan contributed
about $26 to the value added (mostly via the Toshiba disk drive), while
Korea contributed less than $1.The unaccounted-for parts and labor costs involved in making the
iPod came to about $110. The authors hope to assign those labor costs
to the appropriate countries, but as the hard drive example
illustrates, that’s not so easy to do.This value added calculation illustrates the futility of summarizing
such a complex manufacturing process by using conventional trade
statistics. Even though Chinese workers contribute only about 1 percent
of the value of the iPod, the export of a finished iPod to the United
States directly contributes about $150 to our bilateral trade deficit
with the Chinese.
I love that last line. As loyal readers know, Don and I don’t put much stock in the trade deficit as an economic indicator. That last sentence from the Varian excerpt is one more reason to ignore the trade deficit.
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 43 comments }
Made on Earth.
Good lord.
You say "Where a product is made has no informational content". What???
That is absurd on its face. Why do you always traffic in black and white statements. Sure, the location a product made is not everything but it provides important informational content.
Right now, a toy made in China clearly is more likely to have lead content in its paint because it comes from a country with less regulatory protection than, say, Sweden. Is a toy from Sweden totally safe? No, but the made in label gives me some important information.
Also, you of all people who claim to believe in free markets, should allow people to buy products based on their criteria, not based on your imposed criteria. Many people want to buy Made in USA products as opposed to Made in China. You might want to believe there is no difference. Let us even assume there is no difference (which is objectively wrong). But to the person who wants to use made in information as a criteria that is their right in a free market. The label thus provides a lot of valuable information. If it makes a consumer feel better to buy Made in USA versus made in China for whatever reason, who are you to devalue their choices in a free market.
Stop making such silly blanket assertions, apparently for the only purpose of giving cover to your ideological compatriots.
To expand on my last sentence, big business wants to kill labeling that they say 'makes no difference' including made in labeling, no growth hormone, no GM modification, etc. Why do they want to kill it so badly? Some due to the cost of labeling (though that is silly because they label all the time and adding a few words costs little). Almost 100% because they know people read and react to the labels in making informed choices as to what to purchase.
As per my last post, even if could be proven that growth hormone in milk has no negative effect (and it is impossible to prove a negative), people have a right to decide to buy or nor for any reason they choose. The more information is available about a product, the better the marketplace will function to provide products people want for whatever reasons they decide.
Shouldn't you be in favor of that Mr. Roberts?
Ed,
Don't you know that to the libertarian price trumps even liberty. Shoes made with child labor, t-shirts made under communist rule, oil refined under dictatorships, cars from maquiladoras, drugs diluted with ethylene glycol, old growth wood, factory farm meat, ivory from the black market and even cotton from slaves…..who needs labels if the price is right.
Ed and muirgeo,
Do you two even read what you are responding to? The whole point is that just because it says "Made in China" does not mean that much of the actual content comes from China. The example given of the Ipod is that only one percent of the value comes from China but it says "Made in China."
Ed, your Swedish toy might very well have most of its components and value come from China. If the products you buy with the "Made in the USA" label help you to delude yourself then more power to you.
Be sure to buy your next computer from a good American brand like Dell, made in China.
Yes…and Muirgeo is a saint: he works for free, cures the little ones and doesn't ask for anything in return, he drives around using exclusively oil made in good old USA in fact he only likes Californian oil, and by the way you will never catch him buying anything that had anything to do with workers living in dictatorial regimes. Ladies and gentlemen, this is who we should aspire to be: if only we could all be like Muirgeo, dictators would be a thing of the past….Please continue to make us laugh.
GregW, I do not agree with Muriego. True libertarians are horrified by such practices, but think that free markets are the best way to correct those practices (whether rightly or wrongly). Indeed, proper labeling is one such way to help markets function so that consumers can elect to pay more for products that were not made by child labor, for example.
I am well aware that labels are often fraudulent. I am in favor of more accurate labeling, such as you see on cars that attempt to identify the percentage of parts and assembly from various countries.
Yes, I read the post, you should read what I quoted and said. There indeed is informational content in labels that people are entitled to rely upon. As even the main post admits, the information is accurate about location of assembly. There are many who factor that into their purchasing decisions. Your argument that the label does not provide additional information is the result of our existing regulatory regime, not the concept of labeling, and does not have anything to do with my comment.
You also read more into my post than I suggest. I have no problem buying Apple computers, much of which are assembled in China based on IP created in this country. I am not against foreign trade nor do I always avoid products because they are made in China. I believe in the free market and as much information as I and others can possibly get (including through labeling) so that we can maximize our free choice.
I would however gladly pay more for toys for my kids if I could find ones that were labelled as having been manufactured and assembled in America. Why? Because I want to, I don't have to explain it to you. Why are you not in favor of my having this choice in a free market? Manufacturers are terrified of accurate labeling because they will lose sales as a result or lose margin.
Regards.
Ed: The fact that companies are required to say where their products are assembled makes it very difficult to know whether people value the information enough to warrant a label. If labeling requirements were dropped, companies would recognize the value you (and presumably, many others) get from knowing where products are assembled (or manufactured, or designed, or whatever) and would label their products voluntarily in an attempt to steal your business from competitors. And in anticipation of your next objection, the US has laws against misleading advertising that competitors would love to exploit.
Pedro Bento:
First of all, your point has nothing to do with what Mr. Roberts said on one key point raised by anti-labeling forces. They argue such labels have no informational value. They do. Even his post later admits this. You do not challenge it. He should retract his ridiculous statement.
If he wants to argue that it is a violation of the free market to require companies to add labels to their products without market forces warranting them to do so, that is a totally different issue that is debatable for different reasons entirely. Why does everyone have to avoid the point he actually made to defend his silly statement?
As to your post, in fact, private groups have gotten together to develop private anti-sweatshop labels. I have seen manufactured and assembled in USA labels in many places.
More support. Growth hormone using milk companies are trying to get the FDA to prevent no growth hormone labels. Why? Because consumers rely upon them.
Non-organic manufacturers are trying to loosen the meaning of organic because they are losing sales.
What is the incentive for a massive corporation to add a label that they know will hurt their business? Big milk companies sure are not going to label "we add growth hormone!!"
Moreover, the lack of required and standardized information on labels makes the labels that are used difficult to use and thus many are forced to ignore them.
Case in point the other way. Many studies have shown that the standardized nutrition labels are read and relied upon by shoppers in high numbers far more than prior labels that were not as clear or as standardized. Businesses had no incentive to add those detailed nutritional labels (and fought them tooth and nail), but consumers now heavily rely upon them and they are affecting the content of processed foods.
Regards.
Dang! Unit beat me to the M.o.E. quip!
P.S. you can be cruel muirgeo. >:)
The recent scares aside, I don't care about the origin of the parts, I want to know the country of final assembly. That way I know the final standards applied. If it's from a third world country and not sold under a first world brand name, even though it's a bargain now, it may not be in a year when it breaks down. It's been hard for a bargain hunter like me to learn that, but it's been well worth it.
Ian Random,
You are right on and remind me of a circumstance that again blows Mr. Roberts out of the water.
In the early 1990s, VW had switched their Jettas to be built in Mexico instead of Germany. The quality got so bad, and was so well known to consumers, that VW came out with the VW Jetta Wolfsburg Edition. The only substantive difference was that it was a Jetta built in Wolfsburg Germany, the traditional home of VW production.
I and many others bought it because the quality in Wolfsburg had never gone down. In later years VW ramped up the quality of their Mexican plants, but this made in information proved quite important.
Sorry, Mr. Roberts, if you are intellectually honest you will retract your post that labels on country of original provide no information.
And another thing that really irks me, this Made on Earth quip is idiotic.
Why not put "Milk Chocolate" labels only on Hershey, Nestle, Ghirardelli, etc. milk chocolate bars. What's the difference? They are all milk chocolate using the same ingredients, right? Indeed, many see no difference between milk chocolate vendors. But many value knowing that one is from PA, one is from Europe, and one is from San Francisco. I bet many in SanFran buy Ghirardelli with great pride because they know it arose in their back yard and has a great history. Same too with Hershey and people from PA. While you or I might think that is not a good basis to pick chocolate or pay more, people get information from labels that they care about and are entitled to make decisions on that basis in a free market.
So too, the information about where a product is assembled. Certainly that provides valuable information to people. Made in Myanmar is not going to be as good a brand as Made in Sweden.
People need to think beyond quips and slogans and think rationally and make legitimate arguments. Otherwise, you undercut otherwise important libertarian principles, many of which I and others would otherwise accept and promote.
Jingoism in any guise (including irrational support for economic concepts as much as for country) is still jingoism.
I don't believe the point of the post is that made-in labeling could be removed as a means for helping the Chinese sneak lead-covered toys into the U.S. Take it as ceteris parabus — isolating the issue to a strict matter of country of origin and nothing else — and it becomes an interesting point. You're on an economics blog, and that is how economists isolate factors for individual consideration in their "laboratories."
Assume we control for lead content in paint, quality of ingredients, and honesty in all other labeling aspects. When it comes down solely to port-of-origin, the original post asks "why?"
Ed, I call your attention to this:
I would however gladly pay more for toys for my kids if I could find ones that were labelled as having been manufactured and assembled in America. Why? Because I want to, I don't have to explain it to you.
After we control for everything else, it's this part here — the one that you don't feel you have to explain — that is what the post is really all about.
Perhaps when you get done setting up and knocking down all those scarecrows, perhaps then you could entertain us by revisiting this desire that you don't want to explain.
"After we control for everything else, it's this part here — the one that you don't feel you have to explain — that is what the post is really all about.
Perhaps when you get done setting up and knocking down all those scarecrows, perhaps then you could entertain us by revisiting this desire that you don't want to explain."
Of course, he does explain it, as in his VW example. The "Made in" label tells you about the quality of the product. The Made-in-Mexico VW Jetta was horrible, while the Made-in-Germany VW Jetta was fine. The Made-in label makes a huge difference.
Ed,
you say too many things, and they don't make much sense to me. You seem to think that the cost of mandated labels is born by businesses only and that consumers don't share the burden, when in fact they do. So you are trying to impose your wishes on the larger population when in fact if people really were interested in knowing every single country (and every single person, why not?, name, address, hair color, etc…) that was involved in the production process, then market forces of competition would provide that information by other means (Consumer Report?).
Don't forget about the one of how Made in USA means Made in Usa, Japan! I believe the proper American version is Made in U.S.A.
Brian, assume we had a label that said, "Made in a three star factory" on the Mexican Jetta, and "Made in a five star factory" on the Wolfsburg model.
If we made this change then would you still need a label to tell you which country the car was made in, and if so, why?
Does anybody remember Wal-Marts label when it was a "start up".
ed: "big business wants to kill labeling that they say 'makes no difference' including made in labeling, no growth hormone, no GM modification, etc."
I'm curious. To whom are you referring when you say "big business"? Do you have any evidence to support this assertion about nation of production labeling?
I do know the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has supported uniform labeling requirements nationwide, and they have opposed giving power to states to impose unique requirements in each state. But that is not opposition to labeling, but rather opposition to chaos.
I wouldn't be surprised if some individual businesses were opposed to labeling. But your post seemed to imply that all large corporations were opposed.
CPurick,
I raised and knocked down scarecrows? Huh? I quoted the ridiculously overbroad and objectively false statement by Mr. Roberts and then knocked that down. And you do not dispute that made in labels do in fact convey important information.
You say "I don't believe the point of the post is that made-in labeling could be removed as a means for helping the Chinese sneak lead-covered toys into the U.S. Take it as ceteris parabus — isolating the issue to a strict matter of country of origin and nothing else — and it becomes an interesting point. You're on an economics blog, and that is how economists isolate factors for individual consideration in their "laboratories.""
I never said that was the point of the post as I noted above. Notwithstanding your patronizing comment that I don't know what kind of blog this is, I attacked the poor reasoning of the isolated factor Mr. Roberts attempted and utterly failed to address, that made in labels convey no information. I noted that Mr. Roberts in making his wild claim conveniently aligns with those who want to kill labeling. I can only imagine that Mr. Roberts' error, which should be transparently obvious to anyone who can think logically much less someone of his intellect, might be purposeful. I do not know this, perhaps he just wrote his post without thinking, but it seems the most logical explanation.
I was not trying to hide my reasons for preferring made in Sweden toys over Made in China toys. The point was it does not matter. It could be an irrational racist fear (it most decidedly is not). It could be that I had a bad dream (it is not). The reason does not matter in a free market. I would not presume to question your rationale for whatever you elect to buy or not. I could spend a page writing down my reasons. I think they are good. It is a waste of time to do so, that is my point. You should agree with this if you actually believe in free markets.
muirgeo: "Does anybody remember Wal-Marts label when it was a "start up".
Anyone who knows the history of Walmart knows exactly what happened, Muirgeo.
Walmart tried for years to offer only American-made products, and assumed that Americans would prefer them. Walmart discovered that its competitors were realizing significant cost advantages by importing goods. It became apparent that Americans really do not care where their shirts and shoes and tools are made. American consumers just want lower prices. So Walmart adapted to the desires of its consumers.
I was not a Walmart shopper until recently. Once I realized how much liberals hated Walmart, I had to shop there. My wife and I have discovered that we can both save money and irritate liberals at the same time. I am so happy!
John Dewey,
I referred to Big Business as shorthand. I know there is no such thing. What I meant to capture is the concept that large multi-national businesses that have access to inputs that some would consider unsavory (child labor, low cost provider countries without environmental regulation etc) are far more likely than small businesses in the United States without access to those inputs to want to avoid labelling. Isn't it logical that "Joe's Handmade Toy's" in Iowa would want to have a label saying "Handcrafted and assembled in the USA" while the big multinational would want no label rather than "Manufactured and Assembled in China". While some consumers might prefer the Chinese product or not care, one suspects that more would have a negative reaction to the Chinese product than not (especially these days of lead paint recalls from China and not from Iowa).
This in fact has been played out by the large companies fighting the no growth hormone labeling that is generally favored by the smaller organic milk producers.
This is, of course, a generalization. Perhaps there are large businesses that like labeling (are there any in the milk example, I don't think so) but that is all I meant by Big Business.
The funny thing is that by using the Big Business "label" many on this blog probably think that identifies me as a screaming hippie socialist. See, you all think "labels" work, admit it. Turns out that this was an incorrect reliance on that "label" (and I never said labels were perfect) but it shows that everyone relies on "labels" in the generic sense.
Regards.
John Dewey.
Good lord, first you correct point out my overbroad reference to Big Business and then you make a far bigger error of the same type — but at least you prove my labeling point, so thanks for that!!
You say "Walmart tried for years to offer only American-made products, and assumed that Americans would prefer them. Walmart discovered that its competitors were realizing significant cost advantages by importing goods. It became apparent that Americans really do not care where their shirts and shoes and tools are made. American consumers just want lower prices. So Walmart adapted to the desires of its consumers.
I was not a Walmart shopper until recently. Once I realized how much liberals hated Walmart, I had to shop there. My wife and I have discovered that we can both save money and irritate liberals at the same time. I am so happy!"
Wrong. Many Americans do care about country of origin. Many wal-mart shoppers do not have the luxury of acting on it. If I were making $25,000 per year and could save $5 on something at Wal-mart by buying Chinese, you can be darn sure I would. I might be very upset in doing so, but I need the $5 more. Now, I happen to make much more and I generally choose to buy elsewhere than Wal-mart because I think I can afford and get better quality. I also can afford to factor in country of origin if I want to. It just turned out for Wal-mart that a large portion of those they cater to value country of origin less than baseline pricing. Certainly that is far from your overbroad reference to "Americans". The market in general and at Wal-mart is far more segmented.
Even better, I love your comment about shopping at Wal-mart because you think it irritates liberals. To me, this is a highly irrational basis to choose to buy something. I look for quality, price, etc., not some metaphysical annoyance of some hypothetical group. But hey, it is a free country. If buying the Wal-mart "LABEL" makes you feel good, have at it. Think how upset you would be if you could not look for the Wal-mart "LABEL" because their products were mixed in at some liberal store like Costco!
Glad to see you are pro-labeling.
Ed wrote: Isn't it logical that "Joe's Handmade Toy's" in Iowa would want to have a label saying "Handcrafted and assembled in the USA"
What would be stopping them from putting such a label on their product?
Ed wrote: This in fact has been played out by the large companies fighting the no growth hormone labeling that is generally favored by the smaller organic milk producers.
Again, what's stopping these produces from labeling their products this way?
Ed wrote: Isn't it logical that "Joe's Handmade Toy's" in Iowa would want to have a label saying "Handcrafted and assembled in the USA"
What would be stopping them from putting such a label on their product?
Ed wrote: This in fact has been played out by the large companies fighting the no growth hormone labeling that is generally favored by the smaller organic milk producers.
Again, what's stopping these produces from labeling their products this way?
Marcus,
Nothing right now is stopping the little guy in Iowa from labeling. But the question is whether the big toy company has to label or whether I and others have to guess.
You ask what is stopping the small milk producer? Large agribusinesses are trying hard.
Here is part of an article from the Chicago Tribune. Read the rest, it is informative.
http://www.topix.net/content/trb/3323829319309649315208605318942402972305
"Monsanto having a cow in milk label dispute
By Stephen J. Hedges
Chicago Tribune
April 14, 2007
Original Chicago Tribune article: Monsanto having a cow in milk label dispute
Read 1 comment »
Agribusiness giant Monsanto Co. is challenging a growing trend among dairies to label their milk 'hormone free,' saying those claims mislead consumers into believing that the cow growth hormone Monsanto makes is unsafe.
In an action that could send ripples through the food industry, St. Louis-based Monsanto is moving aggressively against a group of dairies to halt the use of 'hormone free.' It said that such labels suggest that there is something unhealthy about its synthetic hormone drug.
In letters filed recently with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Trade Commission, Monsanto protests that milk labels touting the fact that cows did not receive the hormone – known as rGBH, rBST or Posilac – have unfairly damaged its business, as well as that of dairy farmers who use the drug on their cows.
The FDA has found no difference in the milk produced by cows that received rBST and those that did not, Monsanto says. The hormone increases milk production by about 10 percent.
Monsanto's action reflects a shift in the food industry in recent years, as consumers demand more natural and organic foods and seek labeling that explains just what went into their production. Cartons of eggs, for example, increasingly boast that the chickens that produced them were 'cage-free.' Beef is marketed as 'grass-fed.' Dairies began tagging milk as 'hormone free' soon after Monsanto won FDA approval for its growth hormone in 1993.
The food producers who use such labels say consumers have the right to know what is in their food and that they are responding to buyers' desires.
'Our customers tell us this is what they want,' said Stanley Bennett, president of Oakhurst Dairy in Portland, Maine, which sells no-hormone milk. 'They ask us for this.'"
Ed, your post, it seems to me, would be a better argument against government intervention in labeling. Monsanto is lobbying the FDA because we have given the the FDA the power to interfere in the market.
Liberals should have learned their lesson on government imposed labeling when the USDA defined 'Organic' with less strict criteria than what much of the organic industry already used. Thus allowing many more products to be labeled 'USDA Organic' than was ever allowed under private certification.
Government intervention in labeling is unnecessary and doesn't actually provide any additional useful information.
"I would not presume to question your rationale for whatever you elect to buy or not. I could spend a page writing down my reasons. I think they are good. It is a waste of time to do so, that is my point. You should agree with this if you actually believe in free markets." –Ed
"I love your comment about shopping at Wal-mart because you think it irritates liberals. To me, this is a highly irrational basis to choose to buy something. I look for quality, price, etc., not some metaphysical annoyance of some hypothetical group"– Ed
Presumption noted
Ed,
John said:
"My wife and I have discovered that we can both save money and irritate liberals at the same time. I am so happy!
Posted by: John Dewey | Nov 8, 2007 9:07:35 AM"
Ed replied:
"Even better, I love your comment about shopping at Wal-mart because you think it irritates liberals. To me, this is a highly irrational basis to choose to buy something.
Posted by: Ed | Nov 8, 2007 9:22:58 AM"
Can we agree, Ed, that John said he and his wife saved money at Walmart as their first priority, and the irritating liberals was clearly a by product, an extra delight so to speak.
Which you selectively edited to attempt to denigrate John.
Tsk Tsk, and a shame on you, that is a muirduck tactic, not the tactic of an objective man.
What puzzles me, and is what probably prompted so much resistance to your post, is your vehement attacking rebuttal of the original blog. Your response led me to believe that everything said by Russell was a personal and direct attack on you.
Which brings up a topic I'll address in another post.
Socialist/liberal/democrat/communist/progressive……oh no not me, uh-uh, no way, never happen!
Surely I am not the only one who has noticed the regularity with which we are treated to posts contrary to the positions taken by Don and Russ in the original blog from people whose rebuttal can be objectively reduced to statements such as the following samples:
I am not a liberal, but I don't see the problem with universal single payer government sponsored health care.
I am not a communist, but I can't understand why so many people are allowed to have private property.
I am not a democrat, but I can't understnd why anyone can vote republican.
I am not a socialist, but I think there should be redistribution of the wealth in America.
I am not a liberal, but I think the government could do a better and more thorough job of regulating the markets.
Etc.
I sit agog (love that word) at the audacitiy of their posts, to think that intelligent people don't see the hypocrisy they spew.
Ed,
On the other side, I couldn't agree more that Monsanto needs to be slapped upside its corporate head for the actions they are taking in suing people who label their milk as "growth harmone" free.
""Monsanto having a cow in milk label dispute
By Stephen J. Hedges
Chicago Tribune
April 14, 2007
Original Chicago Tribune article: Monsanto having a cow in milk label dispute
Read 1 comment »
Agribusiness giant Monsanto Co. is challenging a growing trend among dairies to label their milk 'hormone free,' saying those claims mislead consumers into believing that the cow growth hormone Monsanto makes is unsafe.""
—-
I have been casually keeping up with this story and I see it as a blatant abuse of justice and of our laws. That our court system even admits the filings by Monsanto and puts it on a docket is an abuse of justice.
But, then I see such crap every single day of my work life.
Money will buy a lot of congresscritter, and BIG money will buy a LOT of congresscritters. Never doubt for one moment that that is what is happening in this case.
Factually the right of those who wish to label their milk as "growth harmone" free is guaranteed by the first amendment, and Monsanto's attempt to prevent it is unconstitutional, and since all the involved parties are corporations the constitution rules in that case.
No where in the Documents that founded our nation can be found a "guarantee" of success in an individual's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. And, there is no guarantee to any corporation that success naturally follows…..that guarantee has to be purchased from congresscritters.
Ed and Muriego's line of reasoning is boring and tiresome. A products origin of creation is absolutely irrelevant in terms of forming a meaningful perception of quality. I repeat a products origin is ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT in terms of perceived quality. What is absolutely meaningful is who is selling the product. I dont give a damn if blueberries come from South America, Zimbabwe, or California. All I care about is that when I go to Publix or Whole Foods, I trust that they will sell me products that will not kill me. Government regulation is not what protects you. It is the middle man whose lively hood is based upon selling quality products to consumers who will fight the hardest to make sure that his or her customers are protected.
Andy Kessler made the same (excellent) point as the article in one of his books, it may have been Running Money. The example he used was either software or PC manufacture, I'll see if I can dig up a link.
Where a product is made can be informational, but only if you have the context. Five years ago, I wouldn't have bought a guitar made in China; now I have three. Twelve years ago, I wouldn't have bought one made in Korea; now I have five. The reason? They were bad then, but they're good now.
"I was not a Walmart shopper until recently. Once I realized how much liberals hated Walmart, I had to shop there. My wife and I have discovered that we can both save money and irritate liberals at the same time. I am so happy!"
If irritating a liberal is the reason you shop anywhere then you're an idiot. Secondly, by your postings here you prove it regularly.
Re; "But the question is whether the big toy company has to label or whether I and others have to guess."
You have to guess. If there is a demand for goods that are "Made in America" then the market will respond to that demand, just as it has responded to the demand for organic produce. If you don't see the label, don't buy it. I see no reason for a government mandate.
John Dewey,
Aside from the low prices and range of products, that's the best reason I've heard for shopping at Walmart. Good one
Now Now nunya, you're irritated! Hmmm, what does that tell us?
You know what, Nunya? I could care less if you think I'm an idiot. But consider that:
- it's really poor manners to directly call any one person an idiot;
- if you're a liberal and you find me irritating, well, you've made my day!
Ed: "Wrong. Many Americans do care about country of origin. Many wal-mart shoppers do not have the luxury of acting on it."
Perhaps they do not now. But consumers did for at least 25 years. They listened to Bob Hope and a host of other Americans proclaim how important it was to buy American. And they still shopped based on price and quality, ignoring the "Made in" labels. Consumers rightfully determined that quality of American-made goods was just not any better.
If American consumers did not approve of the quality of goods at Walmart, they would shop elsewhere. Every Walmart I've ever seen had dozens and often hundreds of cars in the parking lot during shopping hours. Americans are voting with their wallets. Walmart and imported goods continue to win the vote.
John Dewey,
I would say that Americans still do have a choice to buy American groceries. A few years ago people said consumers had no choice about buying organic, but now stores like Whole Foods Market are opening up to meet a consumer demand for organic goods. If consumers wanted American goods, American goods stores would open up.
simon clark: "If consumers wanted American goods, American goods stores would open up."
Cerainly that is correct. Ed probably does not realize that the reason he cannot buy American goods easily is simple: enough Americans just do not care where their goods are produced or assembled,