Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/10/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]From: Marc James Small <msmall@roanoke.infi.net> Sent: Saturday, October 09, 1999 20:05 Subject: Re: [Leica] The Chinese Leitz lens factory > This is the sort of loosely thought-out socialist > twaddle which boils down to, "a system which allows an > owner to make a living is evil". You are confusing > two or three totally separate things. Companies can already make a living by building things domestically. Furthermore, in doing so they support the local economy and help the trade balance. There's nothing socialist about that. Moving production overseas is generally motivated by greed, not by a desire to help the consumer. > Companies have to MAKE a profit or, at the least, have > to break even to survive. Sure, but many are not satisfied with a profit. It has to be a HUGE profit, not just any profit. The greater the gap they can create between their costs and their revenue, the happier they are. Consumers suffer in consequence. > Leica is LOSING money, guys: Leica has LOST money for all > but ten or so of the past forty years. They cannot go on > losing money forever. How did they manage to survive for the thirty years that they lost money? > If shifting production of components to a third-world > country WHILE MAINTAINING QUALITY will save > them, then go forth and do it! Except that this increases trade deficits and ultimately damages the domestic economy. However, overall, I agree. The problem is that there is no way to force a company to maintain quality, and very often they just don't bother. > Second, a company simply can no longer afford to make mechanical > components any more. What does that mean? Just about everything made today contains mechanical components; how does this manufacturing continue if nobody can afford to engage in it? > Hence, Leica MUST move with the times and MUST modernize > its production facilities to allow the maximum mechanization > of assembly. I have no quarrel with that. Indeed, by doing that, they can avoid moving production overseas. > Third, such redesigns are not necessarily indicative of > a lessening in quality. True, but in practice, that's how it often turns out. Cheaper and cheaper. -- Anthony