They do their production in overseas countries who do not give a darn about the environment, just to get cheap labor to bring back here and mark it up 1000% or more. They are exploiters trying to look politically correct, just like typical hypocritical left.

I have to go now and make sure that I destroy anything with a NIKE logo on it so I can sleep at night. Remember, Oregon is mostly a leftist state and any company located around Portland or Eugene, OR will more than likely be a leftist politically. They live in it daily and are steeped in leftism and their political positions are symptomatic of their leanings. Wouldn’t it be something if someone like TIger Woods would drop them as a sponsor? That is the risk a business should face when they choose to become political and not just a maker of a product or service. Apple is another I will not spend a dime on for the same reasons. They make the stuff overseas and then act American, come on!

http://www.ibuylogos.com/store/2009/09/anti-nike-campaign/

“That was my thought exactly when I read this story in the WSJ this morning. Most of their manufacturing is out of the country so C & T laws or EPA regulations will have little effect on their business model.”

But that only makes it especially unethical, as that is “suggesting” ones competition be leashed. Even if Nike is just creating an earth-friendly image, they’ve expressed an anti free-enterprise spirit, and that makes them boycott-worthy.

October 1, 2009 at 5:28 am

On my Nike shoes I see a big Made in China written on the insert, so this is just another corporation that wants to have a politically correct “green” facade in the U.S. while the real economic activity has been moved out of sight into non-politically-correct, non-green, business-friendly countries.

———–

That was my thought exactly when I read this story in the WSJ this morning. Most of their manufacturing is out of the country so C & T laws or EPA regulations will have little effect on their business model.

If the West and US hobbles themselves economically with the CO2 reduction targets being promoted in Congress, Nike possibly wins a huge cost advantage against competitors laboring under carbon restrictions. That is, as long as the developing countries say “stuff it” to Copenhagen. Then again, Nike could get clobbered, as will all of us, by “carbon tariffs” laid against imported goods from countries deemed “carbon scofflaws.”