On 28 Jul 2004 05:46:10 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

You're putting me on here, right?

Nope.

Boeing wasn't really "going" anywhere.
The question was "where will we put together the few parts of the 7E7 that will
be built in the US"

I guess they decided it will be here, since we forgave $1.5mm in taxes for
every middle class job they restored. Woo hoo.

You would be surprised to know that a lot of the opposition to the Boeing
shakedown came from *very* conservative interests here.

That's not surprising, if you think about it. Conservatives do not
like welfare in any form. But sometimes you have to weight the
costs/benefits, and take a gamble.


Boeing: We're leaving unless you make radical improvements to the roads and
other infrastructure in the state, especially those we haul parts over. We're
leaving unless you do something to establish workable public transportation in
the Puget Sound coridor so that our employees are not spending so many hours
every day stuck in traffic. We're leaving unless you upgrade the quality of
your education system so that we can hire a greater number of literate and
qualified trainees."

"Oh, by the way, if you expect *us* to participate in paying for any of our
demands, we're leaving anyway."

Yeah? Don't let the door hit you on the stabilizer.

Well, you can't fault Boeing. They're the ones in a position to
bargain. They can pull up stakes and move, if it's in their best
interests to do so. If their current home is up to their standards
then they have some incentive to stay.

You can make the case just how "unfair" this line of reasoning is, but
it's a fact of life in the business world. My company right now is
jumping through hoops as our largest customer keeps getting larger and
larger and continues to pile on their seemingly increasing demands on
our products and schedules. Many of us question why we bend over so
much for them, but the answer is obvious to anyone who wants to stay
in business.

He who holds the most gold, makes the rules.

Dave

Dave Hall wrote:


That's not surprising, if you think about it. Conservatives do not
like welfare in any form.

They certainly like corporate welfare and fixed, "no bid" contracts,
which are nothing more than corporate welfare.



--
We have nothing to fear..
....but four more years of George W. Bush.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Dave Hall wrote:


That's not surprising, if you think about it. Conservatives do not
like welfare in any form.

They certainly like corporate welfare and fixed, "no bid" contracts,
which are nothing more than corporate welfare.


Sort of like the no bid contracts awarded to Halliburton during the Clinton
Presidency?