mattel apologizes to chinese people

[alocispepraluger102]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/99b42156-683a-11...00779fd2ac.html

[mikeweil]

This was on German TV news yesterday. I can't help but think they made some deal.

I believe Mattel knew about this, or even consented.

[porcy62]

This was on German TV news yesterday. I can't help but think they made some deal.

I believe Mattel knew about this, or even consented.

Every big corporates, and small U.S. and E.U. brands too, know how the things are going in the factories in China. That's the exactly reason because they produce there. Low wages, no unions, no eviromental issues, ecc. C'mon. I'd believe in Santa Claus that in the innocence of Mattel and the others.

[MoGrubb]

Translation: We're sorry we hired a bunch of dumbasses to make our toys?

Anyhow, Mattel has to take ultimate responsibility [surely it didn't think it could skirt the health laws, e.g. lead paint, by manufacturing outside the US?].

[Guy Berger]

Anyhow, Mattel has to take ultimate responsibility [surely it didn't think it could skirt the health laws, e.g. lead paint, by manufacturing outside the US?].

No, they didn't do it to skirt the health laws, they did it for the cheap labor costs. However, I'd be very surprised if the thought didn't cross their minds that something like this could happen.

Guy

[Guy Berger]

By the way, I thought this WSJ blog item offers some historical perspective:

August 26, 2007, 6:34 pm

U.S. in 1887=China in 2007?

China’s sometimes fast-and-loose business style doesn’t necessarily reflect a distinct Chinese approach to capitalism. The U.S. itself once shocked the world with piracy, counterfeiting and food scandals, writes Stephen Mihm, an assistant professor of American history at the University of Georgia, in the Boston Globe.

Just as pirated DVDs and Harry Potter books abound in China, U.S. printers published British authors’ books without permission or payment, provoking Charles Dickens to repeatedly condemn the U.S. in his lectures. Hats, gin, beer, and paper made in the U.S. would be labeled as fine imports from Paris and London. An investigation into Boston food in 1859 found pickles containing copper sulphate, sugar blended with plaster of Paris, and watered-down milk bulked up with chalk.

When the U.S. became a major exporter, such practices scandalized Europe. In the mid-1880s, U.S. butter exports to Europe plummeted following the revelation that a lot of it was “oleo-margarine,” made from beef fat, cattle stomach, and ewe udders. In 1879, Germany accused the U.S. of exporting pork contaminated with cholera, leading several countries to boycott the U.S.

Prof. Mihm concedes there are many differences between present-day China and 19th-century America. China isn’t a democracy, for one. But the many similarities suggest that what is happening in China today happens in most newly capitalist countries, as new technologies, expanding markets, and wily entrepreneurs overwhelm systems of control designed for rural areas.

If the U.S. in the 20th-century is any guide, China’s business-practices will eventually improve under stiff international pressure, says Prof. Mihm. The landmark Food and Drug Act of 1906 was in part aimed at improving the reputation of U.S. food abroad. Also, just as U.S. copyright laws tightened as U.S. authors became popular overseas, Prof. Mihm predicts China will crack down on counterfeit DVDs if and when it has a significant movie industry of its own. — Robin Moroney

[alocispepraluger102]

By the way, I thought this WSJ blog item offers some historical perspective:

August 26, 2007, 6:34 pm

U.S. in 1887=China in 2007?

China’s sometimes fast-and-loose business style doesn’t necessarily reflect a distinct Chinese approach to capitalism. The U.S. itself once shocked the world with piracy, counterfeiting and food scandals, writes Stephen Mihm, an assistant professor of American history at the University of Georgia, in the Boston Globe.

Just as pirated DVDs and Harry Potter books abound in China, U.S. printers published British authors’ books without permission or payment, provoking Charles Dickens to repeatedly condemn the U.S. in his lectures. Hats, gin, beer, and paper made in the U.S. would be labeled as fine imports from Paris and London. An investigation into Boston food in 1859 found pickles containing copper sulphate, sugar blended with plaster of Paris, and watered-down milk bulked up with chalk.

When the U.S. became a major exporter, such practices scandalized Europe. In the mid-1880s, U.S. butter exports to Europe plummeted following the revelation that a lot of it was “oleo-margarine,” made from beef fat, cattle stomach, and ewe udders. In 1879, Germany accused the U.S. of exporting pork contaminated with cholera, leading several countries to boycott the U.S.

Prof. Mihm concedes there are many differences between present-day China and 19th-century America. China isn’t a democracy, for one. But the many similarities suggest that what is happening in China today happens in most newly capitalist countries, as new technologies, expanding markets, and wily entrepreneurs overwhelm systems of control designed for rural areas.

If the U.S. in the 20th-century is any guide, China’s business-practices will eventually improve under stiff international pressure, says Prof. Mihm. The landmark Food and Drug Act of 1906 was in part aimed at improving the reputation of U.S. food abroad. Also, just as U.S. copyright laws tightened as U.S. authors became popular overseas, Prof. Mihm predicts China will crack down on counterfeit DVDs if and when it has a significant movie industry of its own. — Robin Moroney

thanks for the perspective

[JSngry]

By the way, I thought this WSJ blog item offers some historical perspective:

August 26, 2007, 6:34 pm

U.S. in 1887=China in 2007?

China’s sometimes fast-and-loose business style doesn’t necessarily reflect a distinct Chinese approach to capitalism. The U.S. itself once shocked the world with piracy, counterfeiting and food scandals, writes Stephen Mihm, an assistant professor of American history at the University of Georgia, in the Boston Globe.

Just as pirated DVDs and Harry Potter books abound in China, U.S. printers published British authors’ books without permission or payment, provoking Charles Dickens to repeatedly condemn the U.S. in his lectures. Hats, gin, beer, and paper made in the U.S. would be labeled as fine imports from Paris and London. An investigation into Boston food in 1859 found pickles containing copper sulphate, sugar blended with plaster of Paris, and watered-down milk bulked up with chalk.

When the U.S. became a major exporter, such practices scandalized Europe. In the mid-1880s, U.S. butter exports to Europe plummeted following the revelation that a lot of it was “oleo-margarine,” made from beef fat, cattle stomach, and ewe udders. In 1879, Germany accused the U.S. of exporting pork contaminated with cholera, leading several countries to boycott the U.S.

Prof. Mihm concedes there are many differences between present-day China and 19th-century America. China isn’t a democracy, for one. But the many similarities suggest that what is happening in China today happens in most newly capitalist countries, as new technologies, expanding markets, and wily entrepreneurs overwhelm systems of control designed for rural areas.

If the U.S. in the 20th-century is any guide, China’s business-practices will eventually improve under stiff international pressure, says Prof. Mihm. The landmark Food and Drug Act of 1906 was in part aimed at improving the reputation of U.S. food abroad. Also, just as U.S. copyright laws tightened as U.S. authors became popular overseas, Prof. Mihm predicts China will crack down on counterfeit DVDs if and when it has a significant movie industry of its own. — Robin Moroney

What this says to me is that American business is coming full circle, only they've now gotten slick enough to build in a buffer of plausible deniability, even for themselves.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

What this says to me is that American business is coming full circle, only they've now gotten slick enough to build in a buffer of plausible deniability, even for themselves.

Yes, but not just the US businesses - as Porcy noted, EU businesses are in it up to their necks, too.

And after China? There's a pretty good string of other countries where the same scams can (and will) be tried, and work for a while. No end in sight.

MG

[porcy62]

What this says to me is that American business is coming full circle, only they've now gotten slick enough to build in a buffer of plausible deniability, even for themselves.

Yes, but not just the US businesses - as Porcy noted, EU businesses are in it up to their necks, too.

And after China? There's a pretty good string of other countries where the same scams can (and will) be tried, and work for a while. No end in sight.

MG

Theorically you're right, but, in the long term, the demographic weight of China, and India, mades the forecast pretty interesting, or scaring, your choice.

[Guy Berger]

And after China? There's a pretty good string of other countries where the same scams can (and will) be tried, and work for a while. No end in sight.

MG

Reminds me of the old joke about how the only thing worse than being exploited by capitalists is not being exploited by capitalists.

Guy

[Brownian Motion]

Where is the apology to the customers who bought these toys?

[MoGrubb]

Where is the apology to the customers who bought these toys?

Ah ching keng woo I sorrie.

[Tim McG]

Where is the apology to the customers who bought these toys?

Exactly.

How so horribly typical of coporate America: Make all you can when you can....apologize to the customer through a blame game with the Chinese....or anyone else they can find: Consumer demmand vs lack of supply.

US toy manufacturers forced this on the American people by demanding far too many items be made at a cheap, cheaper, cheapest Chinese labor rate to make untold of millions of dollars off of the unaware buyer and their innocent children.

Bastards.

[Guy Berger]

US toy manufacturers forced this on the American people by demanding far too many items be made at a cheap, cheaper, cheapest Chinese labor rate to make untold of millions of dollars off of the unaware buyer and their innocent children.

You are being sarcastic?

Guy

[Tim McG]

US toy manufacturers forced this on the American people by demanding far too many items be made at a cheap, cheaper, cheapest Chinese labor rate to make untold of millions of dollars off of the unaware buyer and their innocent children.

You are being sarcastic?

Guy

Uh.

No.

I am being obvious.

Edited September 30, 2007 by GoodSpeak

[Guy Berger]

US toy manufacturers forced this on the American people by demanding far too many items be made at a cheap, cheaper, cheapest Chinese labor rate to make untold of millions of dollars off of the unaware buyer and their innocent children.

You are being sarcastic?

Guy

Uh.

No.

I am being obvious.

The American people were the ones who demanded inexpensive toys (and other goods)... the manufacturers complied.

Guy

[MoGrubb]

US toy manufacturers forced this on the American people by demanding far too many items be made at a cheap, cheaper, cheapest Chinese labor rate to make untold of millions of dollars off of the unaware buyer and their innocent children.

You are being sarcastic?

Guy

Uh.

No.

I am being obvious.

The American people were the ones who demanded inexpensive toys (and other goods)... the manufacturers complied.

Guy

Yeah, but not to get poisoned.

[Brownian Motion]

The American people were the ones who demanded inexpensive toys (and other goods)... the manufacturers complied.

Guy

To prefer low prices is not the same as demanding low prices, especially when the long-term consequences of that preference are both enormous and not at all readily apparent.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

The American people were the ones who demanded inexpensive toys (and other goods)... the manufacturers complied.

Guy

To prefer low prices is not the same as demanding low prices, especially when the long-term consequences of that preference are both enormous and not at all readily apparent.

If the long term consequences aren't readily apparent, there doen't seem to be much difference between prefer and demand. Demand is mass preference.

MG

[Brownian Motion]

The American people were the ones who demanded inexpensive toys (and other goods)... the manufacturers complied.

Guy

To prefer low prices is not the same as demanding low prices, especially when the long-term consequences of that preference are both enormous and not at all readily apparent.

If the long term consequences aren't readily apparent, there doen't seem to be much difference between prefer and demand. Demand is mass preference.

MG

I forgot that "demand" in economics has a more specific meaning than the sense in which I was using it. I guess my point is that there would have been a much smaller demand for Chinese-produced goods at Wal-Mart if the Wal-Mart consumers had been able to see the logical long-term consequences of their Wal-Mart purchases.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

The American people were the ones who demanded inexpensive toys (and other goods)... the manufacturers complied.

Guy

To prefer low prices is not the same as demanding low prices, especially when the long-term consequences of that preference are both enormous and not at all readily apparent.

If the long term consequences aren't readily apparent, there doen't seem to be much difference between prefer and demand. Demand is mass preference.

MG

I forgot that "demand" in economics has a more specific meaning than the sense in which I was using it. I guess my point is that there would have been a much smaller demand for Chinese-produced goods at Wal-Mart if the Wal-Mart consumers had been able to see the logical long-term consequences of their Wal-Mart purchases.

Maybe. And maybe nobody would have bought Model T Fords, had they been able to see what the consequences of a motor car society would be. But I rather suspect they wouldn't have cared any more than Mattel's customers would have cared.

MG

[Guy Berger]

US toy manufacturers forced this on the American people by demanding far too many items be made at a cheap, cheaper, cheapest Chinese labor rate to make untold of millions of dollars off of the unaware buyer and their innocent children.

You are being sarcastic?

Guy

Uh.

No.

I am being obvious.

The American people were the ones who demanded inexpensive toys (and other goods)... the manufacturers complied.

Guy

Yeah, but not to get poisoned.

Of course not. I was only objecting to GoodSpeak's specific claim that Americans had inexpensive Chinese products somehow "forced upon them".

Guy

[Tim McG]

US toy manufacturers forced this on the American people by demanding far too many items be made at a cheap, cheaper, cheapest Chinese labor rate to make untold of millions of dollars off of the unaware buyer and their innocent children.

You are being sarcastic?

Guy

Uh.

No.

I am being obvious.

The American people were the ones who demanded inexpensive toys (and other goods)... the manufacturers complied.

Guy

Yeah, but not to get poisoned.

Of course not. I was only objecting to GoodSpeak's specific claim that Americans had inexpensive Chinese products somehow "forced upon them".

Guy

You're not a father of small children are you...figures.

Tell me, Guy....where the hell else do you go to buy children's toys but from a trusted manufacturer. One who you expect to take precautions in making sure kids aren't hurt or poisoned. Mattel [and others] wantonly abused that trust and forced upon us lead tainted Chinese toys. And all in the name of money. Filthy profit in favor of protecting kids. Force the Chinese to make toys beyond their production capabilities and reap the profit from the low wages. And your problem what that is, uh...what again?

The Chinese used lead paint because they had no time to check for errors or misuse. The ability to make a huge profit was at stake, or worse, Mattel [and others] would pull the business and give it to somebody else [Are there other Asian countries who could take the business? C'mom, Guy....open your eyes]. Why would a profit making Chinese company want to destroy their own business, Guy?

I fail to see the objection here.

Mattel was more interested in making money than protecting children.

And that disgusts me to the very bottom of my Soul.

Edited October 1, 2007 by GoodSpeak

[vibes]

The American people were the ones who demanded inexpensive toys (and other goods)... the manufacturers complied.

Guy

To prefer low prices is not the same as demanding low prices, especially when the long-term consequences of that preference are both enormous and not at all readily apparent.

If the long term consequences aren't readily apparent, there doen't seem to be much difference between prefer and demand. Demand is mass preference.

MG

I forgot that "demand" in economics has a more specific meaning than the sense in which I was using it. I guess my point is that there would have been a much smaller demand for Chinese-produced goods at Wal-Mart if the Wal-Mart consumers had been able to see the logical long-term consequences of their Wal-Mart purchases.

This assumes that people care about long-term consequences. There's enough going on in this and other countries in the world today to prove that most people couldn't care less about the long-term consequences of anything they do.