First, Nike is not an it. They are people who make decisions and should be accountable for them. But, that's a minor point.
Yes, you're right; Nike is a Greek Goddess. But if you are suggesting I call a multinational corporation "him, "her", or "they", I will refuse. Nike is a group of individuals, however the entity itself is an "it"; it has a corporate veil and referring to it as "they" is incorrect English. Your 7th grade teacher would be ashamed.
Under your explaination, how does a broken window raise the price of a shoe?
Basic formula for profit: revenues minus costs... if costs go up, profits will go down... that will make investors pissy, so therefore revenues will have to go up, meaning prices will go up. Of course, I would guess the whole discussion is moot because I'm sure Nike is insured...
Most companies in the world find that they don't need to spend billions on advertising and they still make a fine profit.
Are you a Nike shareholder? Do you have any right to tell them what they don't need to do? Do you work there, in management? Seems to me that Nike should do what it needs to do, and if you want to stop them, you should make your own sneaker company to undercut them on price, while keeping the fashion up. You could make billions, which you could give away to sweatshop workers.
Exploiting ones workers does happen to make one exploitive. I am sorry, this is just how it is. A large corporation affects a large number of lives. With this power, there must be some responsibility.
A corporation affects only those who purchase its products and work for it.. and they do so willingly. Corporations may also affect those not involved with production or consumption through what is known as "tragedy of the commons": pollution of a property with no property rights, like air and water. Such properties are owned by all and therefore get polluted by all. The obvious solution is to privatise wherever possible. And let's not forget people who work in "sweatshops" get higher wages than they otherwise would...
Does it cost them three times as much to make a $160 shoe as a $50 shoe? Why does there have to be a $160 shoe. Converse does not have a $160 shoe. They only have a bunch of different $33 shoes.
I would guess the costs are about the same. I would also guess that Nike sells very few of its $160 shoes; generally companies put one very high-priced item in their list of goods, because on average people don't like to buy the cheapest product, nor do they like to buy the most expensive product. By simply creating a high priced product that doesn't sell, Nike may well increase its profits of its other shoes.
In any case, as to why there has to be a $160 shoe... there doesn't, of course. You could go make your own shoe company and put Nike out of business... no more $160 shoes. You could also use your free speech rights to create an anti-$160 shoe campaign. You could also encourage Converse to spend more on advertising and try to capture some market share from Nike.
hmmmm... let's see, on this site I see some Nike shoes that go for $25... $39... $17 for sandals... not exactly killing consumers on price there!
Now let's look at Converse... here we have a list of Converse shoes at the same price.
So Nike has a line of shoes that are higher priced, but have plenty that compete with Converse, yet have the Nike logo and name. What's the problem here? On the face of it, this whole argument is patently ridiculous.
Anarchists are supposed to be about freedom, but they seem to be for only the freedoms they want -- if I want the freedom to pay Way Too Much for a sneaker, then Thank You, Capitalism (this freedom is also known as freedom of choice). I can already see that under Anarchy, I have less freedom than I currently do.
[ Parent ]