Originally posted by EternalOne:
Which one do you feel is better for the American economy?
a) An overseas owned corporation builds 25+ plants in the US, and employs 250k Americans. Their products are sold worldwide.
or
b) An American owned corporation builds 25+ plants overseas, and employs 250k foreigners. Their products are sold worldwide.
I see the merit in both, and I won't post my choice until after others have made theirs, and then I will post my reasonings, as well.
E1
My answer is "yes". 
However, especially in the auto industry, and we're seeing the birth of the same concept in other industries, is the idea of global parent corporations that house various independent subsidiaries that target specific markets and often house manufacturing facilities in the countries in which they do volume business. As the global economy matures, we're of course seeing the globalization of corporations. GM owns several foreign carmakers, as does Ford and by definition DC. Other industries are slowly following suit. This minimizes difficulties from a trade standpoint and helps to maneuver around tariffs and other trade related taxes and costs, supports the local economies of the various countries, creates localized brand recognition and loyalties, and the list goes on and on. What we're seeing at least in the short term from a global economic perspective is a clearer definition of what it means to be a global corporation. In many cases it's easier to buy your way into another country's market, ala GM investing in Hyundai/Kia overseas, in addition to building their own plants in Asia. This relatively new global business strategy gives the parent corporations the inherent benefits of extremely large revenue streams and the ability to transfer monies amongst the subsidiaries when necessary to support emerging markets and new product development, but at the same time allows an extensive variety of brand marketing to localized markets. Pretty slick. 
Last edited by cjbaldw; 02/24/05 07:07 PM.
