Posted by Stealth on Thursday May 6, 2010 @ 01:33pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

2. Big companies are obsolete; they need help from the government to stay afloat - gvt. feels obliged due to the huge number of employees.

I'm finding it hard to think of a company that doesn't expect/need a hand out/tax exception/benefit in order to stay where they are or lay people off.

There are something like 25 million corporations in the US. I'm sure one or two do OK without lobbying a senator for some of that cheese.

Sure.. I should have said 'I'm finding it hard to think of a large company'..

It was a good article.. and I liked it, but I wasn't understanding the last paragraph. Giving more power to shareholders seems to be counter intuitive to helping stakeholders/employees. Shareholders want more profit. Shouldn't the managers manage the company and still have a desire to provide a profit increase, not as big as the ones they have now, but also without hurting the stakeholders? What's the difference between 'shareholder value' and 'shareholder capitalism'?

Everybody wants more profit. If you're an employee in an employee-driven firm then bonuses come from what? Profit. If you're an investor in baseball cards you want the cards to appreciate so you can what? Profit. You're an unwashed hippie working at a local co-op so you want the farmers to what? Profit. Only the customers don't have a piece of the profit equation; their preference is for lower price. But everyone on the selling side: management, shareholders, employees, all want profit. You really treat that word like an evil unto itself and that's a wholly distorted point of view, in my opinion.

That's the point of view of this paper. "Profit" isn't the problem, but allocating it is the problem. To whom does it really belong?

Profit is fine, if it's not done at the expense of others/morals/standards/laws. Profit of %3 is ok.. it doesn't always have to be big numbers all the time or else we fire everyone. It doesn't have to be charging 5X the cost for everything because we can and people will pay. Profit has to not be the only thing that's looked at. The customer doesn't always look at lower price (or at least shouldn't , but then again, we have WalMart). They should also be looking at values, how the company does the work ( child labor? bad chemicals, etc), reliability.. lots of factors. Just like a company should say, if I don't charge and extra $15 for a carry on bag, then people might like my company more and be more apt to fly my planes. If I don't give myself a $10M bonus, and instead return that money to the employees, as a bonus or a raise, then maybe they might be happier and work harder.

I also found it interesting that (according to the article), the drive to "obsession with shareholder value" started in the mid 70's. Which makes sense - 80's - Greed is good.When you look back at the good/happy times, you think of post WW2, late 40's, 50's and early 60's. Then you start having the Korean war/Vietnam era (also civil rights issues) and then no-holds barred capitalism.

There were many other factors driving it but yeah that did seem to fit the American idiom of that era.

If you have a large company (which this mostly applies too) shouldn't managers and shareholders be different people with different goals? Personally, i think shareholders should stay away from the companies more.. they hire CXO people to do the job, let them do it without pressure to perform to new higher numbers every quarter/week/etc.

That's a better defined point of view and I agree. I also believe that long-term value should drive decision making, not short-term share price. This gets into a discussion of what is the best way to incentivize management: on the one hand, you want them to have a vested interest in the company's performance but on the other hand you want it to be a balanced interest over a long-term time horizon. Stock options were an early attempt to codify this but they've been so grossly distorted that they really aren't cutting the mustard any more.

But all people look at is short term. that's what everyone wants, now now now. stock markets, micro-transaction sales, 30 no financing. That's all from greed and more profit. You can't take a long view without looking at trying at the get rich quick and changing the values of a company.

Posted by voltaic on Thursday May 6, 2010 @ 02:03pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Sure.. I should have said 'I'm finding it hard to think of a large company'..

How many have you examined? The 500 firms that make up the S&P500 index represent about 80-85% of the market cap of the US stock market, so that should be a good representative sample. I can help you with their 10-K filings if you like.

Note: this is a mildly passive aggressive way of saying you don't really know, nor do I, nor do the fucking protesters at the G8 meetings. We should base our opinions on facts rather than sentiment. The firm I work for, for all of my griping, doesn't take any handouts or benefits aside from those allowed by US and international accounting rules (which are not from "governments" anyway). So there's one.

Profit is fine, if it's not done at the expense of others/morals/standards/laws. Profit of %3 is ok.. it doesn't always have to be big numbers all the time or else we fire everyone. It doesn't have to be charging 5X the cost for everything because we can and people will pay. Profit has to not be the only thing that's looked at. The customer doesn't always look at lower price (or at least shouldn't , but then again, we have WalMart). They should also be looking at values, how the company does the work ( child labor? bad chemicals, etc), reliability.. lots of factors. Just like a company should say, if I don't charge and extra $15 for a carry on bag, then people might like my company more and be more apt to fly my planes. If I don't give myself a $10M bonus, and instead return that money to the employees, as a bonus or a raise, then maybe they might be happier and work harder.

You're cherry picking problems and applying them way too generally, and your understanding of basic economics is way too low. Here's an anecdote for you that Tele can back me up on: independent game developers found that if they charged too little for their games, people wouldn't buy them. They were viewed as "cheap". So indies raised prices to where people viewed the price/value was good, which happens to hover around $20 per title. How does that fit into the mantra of what people should or shouldn't charge consumers?

I agree that consumers should examine companies they patronize. Absolutely. That's a true free market driver. But it doesn't have one smidgeon, one iota, one picobyte to do with "profits".

Your final point, again, I can also agree with which was the point of the article: not the evil of "profits" but to whom are they best allocated. The article itself talks about how distributing more to employees resulted in better workers which in turn resulted in... gasp... better profits! The humanity! How does this evil company sleep well at night! So yes, I agree that profits could be better allocated; I do not agree with your continual use of the word as some kind of negative unto itself.

But all people look at is short term. that's what everyone wants, now now now. stock markets, micro-transaction sales, 30 no financing. That's all from greed and more profit. You can't take a long view without looking at trying at the get rich quick and changing the values of a company.

You're over generalizing. At least now you're starting to acknowledge that the problem of greed rests with everyone though, presumably including consumer, workers, employees, managers, and evil profit making people. So let's start from another beginning point: if everyone focuses on greed and we can't wave a magic wand and force everyone to become moral and have a long-term view, then: what is the best way to operate?

Posted by Stealth on Thursday May 6, 2010 @ 02:11pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Sure.. I should have said 'I'm finding it hard to think of a large company'..

How many have you examined? The 500 firms that make up the S&P500 index represent about 80-85% of the market cap of the US stock market, so that should be a good representative sample. I can help you with their 10-K filings if you like.

Note: this is a mildly passive aggressive way of saying you don't really know, nor do I, nor do the fucking protesters at the G8 meetings. We should base our opinions on facts rather than sentiment. The firm I work for, for all of my griping, doesn't take any handouts or benefits aside from those allowed by US and international accounting rules (which are not from "governments" anyway). So there's one.

I get your point, and i LOL'd, but do they (your firm, it's partners/managers/CXO's) contribute to lobbyists, political parties or campaigns with the vague hope that maybe some law will get changes, written or some little line item added that might help them out? I don't know either..

But lets just take a quick peek at airlines, car makers, banks, software companies, industrial firms.. how many have used tax breaks from states/fed in order to 'be able to stay open/not close jobs' or not move to a new location. How many have used government money in order to 'grow' or get back on black only to reduce customer service, make a crappier product and at the same time, lower wages and yet still pay huge money to bosses as they leave for failing to do a job. We don't have true capitalism. Let the companies sink or swim on their own merit, let them do it honestly. Then people might respect them and the profits they make.

Profit is fine, if it's not done at the expense of others/morals/standards/laws. Profit of %3 is ok.. it doesn't always have to be big numbers all the time or else we fire everyone. It doesn't have to be charging 5X the cost for everything because we can and people will pay. Profit has to not be the only thing that's looked at. The customer doesn't always look at lower price (or at least shouldn't , but then again, we have WalMart). They should also be looking at values, how the company does the work ( child labor? bad chemicals, etc), reliability.. lots of factors. Just like a company should say, if I don't charge and extra $15 for a carry on bag, then people might like my company more and be more apt to fly my planes. If I don't give myself a $10M bonus, and instead return that money to the employees, as a bonus or a raise, then maybe they might be happier and work harder.

You're cherry picking problems and applying them way too generally, and your understanding of basic economics is way too low. Here's an anecdote for you that Tele can back me up on: independent game developers found that if they charged too little for their games, people wouldn't buy them. They were viewed as "cheap". So indies raised prices to where people viewed the price/value was good, which happens to hover around $20 per title. How does that fit into the mantra of what people should or shouldn't charge consumers?

I'm not sure how I should chose examples to make my point.. And yes, I'll totally admin my economics skills are n00b level No questions there. But, I am a Joe Six-pack who buys things, shops around and wants to see his USD go as far as it can. Hell, look at CD's.. I still buy them and they are still $13 or $15 or something like that. I don't mind 1 or 2 dollars on things that are optional. I'm talking big money and pretty much required crap. And again.. it's just an example that fit You don't have to buy games, but since the USA is a might big place and the train system isn't all that, you pretty much have to fly. SO for an example about charging $25 per carry on bag per person for every flight, that makes a bit of a difference. that's just another example.

Foolish/silly/ideal situation example - Year after year gas companies make new high profits. Every year. And gas just keep going up higher and higher. I'm sure the economist agrees that's a good thing and the system is working. But, wouldn't it be nice to have the profits be not as high, have gas go down a little and have more money for other things? Doesn't that sound nice?


I agree that consumers should examine companies they patronize. Absolutely. That's a true free market driver. But it doesn't have one smidgeon, one iota, one picobyte to do with "profits".

But, consumers can help guide which companies DESERVE profits. Reward those that are good to society and give them the profit. But the fact is, the number of people that do that is probably pretty damn low. Most people will just go to the store with the cheapest price and be done with it, no matter how or why it's cheap.

Your final point, again, I can also agree with which was the point of the article: not the evil of "profits" but to whom are they best allocated. The article itself talks about how distributing more to employees resulted in better workers which in turn resulted in... gasp... better profits! The humanity! How does this evil company sleep well at night! So yes, I agree that profits could be better allocated; I do not agree with your continual use of the word as some kind of negative unto itself.

But all people look at is short term. that's what everyone wants, now now now. stock markets, micro-transaction sales, 30 no financing. That's all from greed and more profit. You can't take a long view without looking at trying at the get rich quick and changing the values of a company.

You're over generalizing. At least now you're starting to acknowledge that the problem of greed rests with everyone though, presumably including consumer, workers, employees, managers, and evil profit making people. So let's start from another beginning point: if everyone focuses on greed and we can't wave a magic wand and force everyone to become moral and have a long-term view, then: what is the best way to operate?

Start at the top by setting an example. The greed of you an me can't compare to the greed of a board who runs a business to the ground, lies, cooks books, and then gets away with it and doesn't do jail time or servers 6 months house arrest in his mansion. Start at the top and make it painful for those that can't do it right.

Posted by voltaic on Thursday May 6, 2010 @ 03:20pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

But lets just take a quick peek at airlines, car makers, banks, software companies, industrial firms.. how many have used tax breaks from states/fed in order to 'be able to stay open/not close jobs' or not move to a new location. How many have used government money in order to 'grow' or get back on black only to reduce customer service, make a crappier product and at the same time, lower wages and yet still pay huge money to bosses as they leave for failing to do a job. We don't have true capitalism. Let the companies sink or swim on their own merit, let them do it honestly. Then people might respect them and the profits they make.

I don't know: how many have done those things? You tell me. Let's not talk with our guts let's find facts.

I'm not sure how I should chose examples to make my point.. And yes, I'll totally admin my economics skills are n00b level No questions there. But, I am a Joe Six-pack who buys things, shops around and wants to see his USD go as far as it can. Hell, look at CD's.. I still buy them and they are still $13 or $15 or something like that. I don't mind 1 or 2 dollars on things that are optional. I'm talking big money and pretty much required crap. And again.. it's just an example that fit You don't have to buy games, but since the USA is a might big place and the train system isn't all that, you pretty much have to fly. SO for an example about charging $25 per carry on bag per person for every flight, that makes a bit of a difference. that's just another example.

But isn't a per-bag fee actually good? You charge more to the 9-member family with 29 fucking suitcases and less to the single guy traveling alone witn one bag. Would you rather they each paid the same amount per ticket?

Foolish/silly/ideal situation example - Year after year gas companies make new high profits. Every year. And gas just keep going up higher and higher. I'm sure the economist agrees that's a good thing and the system is working. But, wouldn't it be nice to have the profits be not as high, have gas go down a little and have more money for other things? Doesn't that sound nice?

(Note: gas companies don't make new high profits year after year, you have been lied to).

Depends. Are you a worker in another industry who has stock in gas companies as part of your retirement? Are you a solar-power start-up who benefits when gas prices go up as people look for other sources of power? Are you an oil rig worker who spends six months per year away from your wife and kids to make killer overtime on an offshore rig? Are you an environmentally minded person who cheers when gas prices go up driving people to buy more efficient cars? Are you a US citizen who wants oil prices to go up so that oil companies pay higher taxes on their earnings? Are you a good ol', down home midwestern American (with cowboy hat) who runs a paycheck-to-paycheck farm and then receives an extremely attractive offer on your grazing land from an exploration firm? Or are you a soccer mom who drives your Hummer to the shoe store three days a week?

I wrote this offline and am going to cut and paste it here:

-----

OK, I think I might be coming off as an asshole and that's not my intent. So instead of going back and forth with talking points, let me present you with a real-life scenario of some peoples' favorite whipping boy and you can present your thoughts. Maybe we can stop talking past each other.

Wal-Mart. One of the largest companies in the US by market cap (stock price x shares on the market). A $200 billion company that many people love to hate.

So here's the deal. Wal-Mart is about "profit" because they are a publically traded company. They have managed to squeeze decent profit margins out of the retail sector, which normally has razor thin margins, by optimizing the supply chain; that is, they make a better percentage because they have created efficiency in getting the products from the producers to their stores. This allows them to do two things: cut prices AND AT THE SAME TIME increase profits. However, their profit margin (which let me remind you is better than most retail stores) is only about 3.5%.

WalMart is pretty much the largest retailer out there in terms of market power, which means that every decision they make has positive and negative consequences. So let's consider a brief and incomplete list of what this means.

Consumers get lower prices, which causes:
- Competition charges higher prices and many small stores shut down.
- Employees get paid less, fewer hours, or lower benefits; however, they do provide 1.5 million jobs.
- Investors get reliable margins from a retail firm and many people have this stock in their retirement portfolios.

Note that 67% of the float value of WalMart's stock is held by institutions and mutual funds, not insiders. In fact, the largest inside holder Jim Walton has ~10.5M shares of about 3.8B total outstanding, or less than one third of one percent.

So based on this and other information you have, what should Wal-Mart do to become your ethical company? They should raise wages and lower than whopping 3.5% margin and cut into millions of peoples' retirement investments? They should raise wages and prices at the same time so margins are the same but customers have to spend more at the register? Raise wages or hours and cut employees/jobs? Lower everything and stop lobbying local government for minor tax concessions?

Just curious for your thoughts. I want to show you how things aren't so simple as cutting evil profits. This doesn't even consider more complicated situations like oil companies (sure they could charge less; then investor share prices would decline and jobs would be cut, but hey gas would be cheaper at the pump for the consumer and we could all drive cheap 10mpg cars while belching smog into the air) or car companies (remember their "profits" are after paying rather large salaries and pensions to hundreds of thousands of people in the unionized labor workforce, so who's really the one making out here again?) and other scenarios. We have to consider reality, not pie in the sky idealism. This is what exists now, for real, not what should be.

-----

But, consumers can help guide which companies DESERVE profits. Reward those that are good to society and give them the profit. But the fact is, the number of people that do that is probably pretty damn low. Most people will just go to the store with the cheapest price and be done with it, no matter how or why it's cheap.

I agree totally. Which means that the profits aren't the problem. Right?

Start at the top by setting an example. The greed of you an me can't compare to the greed of a board who runs a business to the ground, lies, cooks books, and then gets away with it and doesn't do jail time or servers 6 months house arrest in his mansion. Start at the top and make it painful for those that can't do it right.

I agree. How many of those are there? Let's look at an example for some perspective: less than a half-dozen people were responsible for Enron's collapse and all of its rippling effects throughout the economy.

And why not let them make their criminal money before going to jail? That money doesn't sit idle in some evil, cackling piggy bank somewhere. It buys mansions, cars, hookers, and crank (not in that order) which means the money continues to circulate in the economy. It goes into bonds and equities of other companies, which gives them capital to do business. It goes into banks where it can be loaned to others. It buys retarded needless luxury shit (including sales tax!) that pays producers of niche products. It multiplies in the economy.

Posted by Stealth on Thursday May 13, 2010 @ 07:27am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

There is nothing I can say from my limited point of view that is going to be able to change your mind one bit. You pull stocks, facts and figures all day long and I can't compete with that. Interpretations will always be different and My POV seems to be for the normal joe vs the big business/shareholder. I don't care about them.

I guess I was wrong, Greed is Good.

Posted by voltaic on Friday May 14, 2010 @ 08:56am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

There is nothing I can say from my limited point of view that is going to be able to change your mind one bit. You pull stocks, facts and figures all day long and I can't compete with that. Interpretations will always be different and My POV seems to be for the normal joe vs the big business/shareholder. I don't care about them.

"In 2009, an estimated 87 million individual investors owned mutual funds and held 84 percent of total mutual fund assets at year-end. Altogether, 50.4 million households, or 43 percent of all U.S. households, owned funds."

That's from the ICI, a mutual fund industry group. Nearly half of all Americans own mutual funds (primarily for funding retirment or education), and mutual funds are made up largely of stock. So if you don't care about shareholders, you are leaving half of America on the table (this isn't counting people who invest only in stocks). Therefore, who are these Normal Joes? You have a demonstrably false perception that stock owners are either fat cats sitting in their corporate offices counting "profits" or Wall Street traders making a buck or something.

I guess I was wrong, Greed is Good.

That's a totally false equivalence with my position. My position is that economics is far more complicated than hating on big companies and defending Joe Sixpack. That's the kind of reductionism that politicians use to get votes. You're right that I use facts and figures to make up my mind on this stuff, because appeals to emotion, editorials, politics, and activism have all made people ignorant of the world around them and their part in it. That you would take all that I have said concerning hwo money filters around and what taxes really do and all this and changed it to "Greed is Good" rings of exactly that: institutionally sponsored ignorance.

I mean think of how you bemoan stupid ignorant computer users every day because they don't know basic things like how to secure their PC, and yet here it's OK to be as ignorant about basic economics because you only care about Normal Joe's good fight against evil profits?

Posted by Stealth on Friday May 14, 2010 @ 03:38pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

There is nothing I can say from my limited point of view that is going to be able to change your mind one bit. You pull stocks, facts and figures all day long and I can't compete with that. Interpretations will always be different and My POV seems to be for the normal joe vs the big business/shareholder. I don't care about them.

"In 2009, an estimated 87 million individual investors owned mutual funds and held 84 percent of total mutual fund assets at year-end. Altogether, 50.4 million households, or 43 percent of all U.S. households, owned funds."

That's from the ICI, a mutual fund industry group. Nearly half of all Americans own mutual funds (primarily for funding retirment or education), and mutual funds are made up largely of stock. So if you don't care about shareholders, you are leaving half of America on the table (this isn't counting people who invest only in stocks). Therefore, who are these Normal Joes? You have a demonstrably false perception that stock owners are either fat cats sitting in their corporate offices counting "profits" or Wall Street traders making a buck or something.

Numbers can be used in all sorts of ways, but while you say 40% percent own stock or funds, how many know how much they hold and in whom? How many just put money into some fund that doesn't say who they invest in, they just want a profit, so they could care less. How many have any amount of stock that makes the amount they hold able to have any say in a shareholders board. People, in general, aren't picking this company or that company.. they pick funds that generate income, so they don't know.. which means they probably could care less if the company lied, cheated or whatever, as long as stocks go up and they make a profit.

And lets be honest.. dropping 5K into some fund or directly to a company has no effect on you or the company.. it isn't going to chance anything.

that's the problem with just numbers.. they can be used in all sorts of ways and can still be taken out of context to make a point that might not apply.

I guess I was wrong, Greed is Good.

That's a totally false equivalence with my position. My position is that economics is far more complicated than hating on big companies and defending Joe Sixpack. That's the kind of reductionism that politicians use to get votes. You're right that I use facts and figures to make up my mind on this stuff, because appeals to emotion, editorials, politics, and activism have all made people ignorant of the world around them and their part in it. That you would take all that I have said concerning hwo money filters around and what taxes really do and all this and changed it to "Greed is Good" rings of exactly that: institutionally sponsored ignorance.

I could also find facts and figures to back up my points, but I would have to look three times as hard as you, since you, working with this information daily, know where to look. I would be reading various papers, search results and all that jazz, and I just don't have the time.

BTW - the line "institutionally sponsored ignorance"... that's funny stuff. hehehe Good thing I didn't go to any institutions.

I've honestly enjoyed reading what you've said.. it's interesting and I'm it's way more grounded in truth, but not everyone goes to collage, gets to learn these things and works with the information all day. Some people just have to read whats around, look at the news and try to work it out themselves. There are so many layers put into place to prevent people that are not in the field from understanding that it's only fare to say I'm confused. Hell, look at the tax law.. there is no reason it should be that confusing, except to find ways to hide money from taxation.

I mean think of how you bemoan stupid ignorant computer users every day because they don't know basic things like how to secure their PC, and yet here it's OK to be as ignorant about basic economics because you only care about Normal Joe's good fight against evil profits?

You do recall I've said it's not profits that are evil, but the extent at which companies will go to make them.

People bemoan stupidity in all sorts of places, but sadly, stupidity doesn't make the world go round.. money does.

Posted by voltaic on Sunday May 16, 2010 @ 11:39am
>> [ reply ][ rating +2  

 

 

]

Numbers can be used in all sorts of ways, but while you say 40% percent own stock or funds, how many know how much they hold and in whom? How many just put money into some fund that doesn't say who they invest in, they just want a profit, so they could care less. How many have any amount of stock that makes the amount they hold able to have any say in a shareholders board. People, in general, aren't picking this company or that company.. they pick funds that generate income, so they don't know.. which means they probably could care less if the company lied, cheated or whatever, as long as stocks go up and they make a profit.

I'm just trying to figure out who "normal Joe" is, this guy you are so valiantly defending. This excludes the millions of people who have stock in their own company's retirements plans, buy stocks instead of funds, etc. So I'm just trying to figure out who this person is. If you mean to talk about the working poor or some other class of people who almost certainly don't own stock, fine. Use the honest term "working poor". Sarah Palin uses "Joe Sixpack" when she's trying to identify her retardiocy* with the average, hard working, red blooded American.

* I just made this up.

And lets be honest.. dropping 5K into some fund or directly to a company has no effect on you or the company.. it isn't going to chance anything.

Who cares about changing a company? That has nothing to do with what we were talking about.

that's the problem with just numbers.. they can be used in all sorts of ways and can still be taken out of context to make a point that might not apply.

Tell me about it. I'm trying to tell you that at least 43% of the public is a shareholder and not only some elite group of upper-crust blue bloods (the people you don't care about) and you go off about totally unrelated stuff.

I've honestly enjoyed reading what you've said.. it's interesting and I'm it's way more grounded in truth, but not everyone goes to collage, gets to learn these things and works with the information all day. Some people just have to read whats around, look at the news and try to work it out themselves. There are so many layers put into place to prevent people that are not in the field from understanding that it's only fare to say I'm confused. Hell, look at the tax law.. there is no reason it should be that confusing, except to find ways to hide money from taxation.

I'm only trying to disabuse you of false notions. I actually agree with many of your value statements, but for reasons based on economic realities rather than talking points ("Greed is good" yawn).

You do recall I've said it's not profits that are evil, but the extent at which companies will go to make them.

I don't agree that you've made that clear at all. Many times in these posts across multiple threads you've talked about profits that are too large (whatever that means) and wouldn't it just be nice if XYZ and other things. You have also talked about companies doing ugly things to make money and I've agreed with you on those points, but that has not been the key point that I've inferred from your posts.

People bemoan stupidity in all sorts of places, but sadly, stupidity doesn't make the world go round.. money does.

Right but isn't it ironic* how we always bemoan people who are ignorant in our own areas of expertise, and then try to excuse our own ignorance in other areas?

* not really

Posted by MadArab on Monday May 17, 2010 @ 06:55am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Right but isn't it ironic* how we always bemoan people who are ignorant in our own areas of expertise, and then try to excuse our own ignorance in other areas?

* not really

+1 for funniness. I remember when you went on a tirade about that song once... heheh

Posted by voltaic on Tuesday May 18, 2010 @ 07:17am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Right but isn't it ironic* how we always bemoan people who are ignorant in our own areas of expertise, and then try to excuse our own ignorance in other areas?

* not really

+1 for funniness. I remember when you went on a tirade about that song once... heheh

Hate that song so much. And not just because of its cultural effect, that is to say making people stupid about yet another English word, but the song itself is idiotic.

Posted by unicron on Tuesday May 18, 2010 @ 03:01pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Right but isn't it ironic* how we always bemoan people who are ignorant in our own areas of expertise, and then try to excuse our own ignorance in other areas?

* not really

+1 for funniness. I remember when you went on a tirade about that song once... heheh

Hate that song so much. And not just because of its cultural effect, that is to say making people stupid about yet another English word, but the song itself is idiotic.

Agreed. None of her examples are "ironic", they're just shitty circumstances. Once, when called on this, she replied "that's what makes the whole song ironic!".

Posted by voltaic on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @ 07:12am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Hate that song so much. And not just because of its cultural effect, that is to say making people stupid about yet another English word, but the song itself is idiotic.

Agreed. None of her examples are "ironic", they're just shitty circumstances. Once, when called on this, she replied "that's what makes the whole song ironic!".

Oh man. Worst Canadian evar.

Posted by Stealth on Monday May 17, 2010 @ 04:33am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Numbers can be used in all sorts of ways, but while you say 40% percent own stock or funds, how many know how much they hold and in whom? How many just put money into some fund that doesn't say who they invest in, they just want a profit, so they could care less. How many have any amount of stock that makes the amount they hold able to have any say in a shareholders board. People, in general, aren't picking this company or that company.. they pick funds that generate income, so they don't know.. which means they probably could care less if the company lied, cheated or whatever, as long as stocks go up and they make a profit.

I'm just trying to figure out who "normal Joe" is, this guy you are so valiantly defending. This excludes the millions of people who have stock in their own company's retirements plans, buy stocks instead of funds, etc. So I'm just trying to figure out who this person is. If you mean to talk about the working poor or some other class of people who almost certainly don't own stock, fine. Use the honest term "working poor". Sarah Palin uses "Joe Sixpack" when she's trying to identify her retardiocy* with the average, hard working, red blooded American.

Me.. I'm a normal-joe-six-pack-sarah-palin-hating person I'm referring too. You, Krux, Everyone here who doesn't take home half a million a year.

* I just made this up.

Nice..

And lets be honest.. dropping 5K into some fund or directly to a company has no effect on you or the company.. it isn't going to chance anything.

Who cares about changing a company? That has nothing to do with what we were talking about.

It has to do with keeping the company honest, not letting them do dumb things, being able to change anything about the company to try and get more profit, etc. All you are is along for the ride.

that's the problem with just numbers.. they can be used in all sorts of ways and can still be taken out of context to make a point that might not apply.

Tell me about it. I'm trying to tell you that at least 43% of the public is a shareholder and not only some elite group of upper-crust blue bloods (the people you don't care about) and you go off about totally unrelated stuff.

Because I don't agree with saying someone who has fund that invest in X,Y and Z makes that person a shareholder in the company. I would say the Fund is the shareholder. And they are in it ONLY for the money, not for the company, not for the values, just for the profit. they aren't going to guide the company, protect the company or anything else.. they will be in for a while and out as soon as it starts to drop.

I've honestly enjoyed reading what you've said.. it's interesting and I'm it's way more grounded in truth, but not everyone goes to collage, gets to learn these things and works with the information all day. Some people just have to read whats around, look at the news and try to work it out themselves. There are so many layers put into place to prevent people that are not in the field from understanding that it's only fare to say I'm confused. Hell, look at the tax law.. there is no reason it should be that confusing, except to find ways to hide money from taxation.

I'm only trying to disabuse you of false notions. I actually agree with many of your value statements, but for reasons based on economic realities rather than talking points ("Greed is good" yawn).

You do recall I've said it's not profits that are evil, but the extent at which companies will go to make them.

I don't agree that you've made that clear at all. Many times in these posts across multiple threads you've talked about profits that are too large (whatever that means) and wouldn't it just be nice if XYZ and other things. You have also talked about companies doing ugly things to make money and I've agreed with you on those points, but that has not been the key point that I've inferred from your posts.

And this is why my argument skills obviously suck. I can't seem to get my points across clearly in a sentence that makes sense to someone other then myself (If it even makes sense to me).

To be fair, the third post in this part of the thread (which has moved around wildy) was:
Profit is fine, if it's not done at the expense of others/morals/standards/laws. Profit of %3 is ok.. it doesn't always have to be big numbers all the time or else we fire everyone. It doesn't have to be charging 5X the cost for everything because we can and people will pay. Profit has to not be the only thing that's looked at. The customer doesn't always look at lower price (or at least shouldn't , but then again, we have WalMart). They should also be looking at values, how the company does the work ( child labor? bad chemicals, etc), reliability.. lots of factors. Just like a company should say, if I don't charge and extra $15 for a carry on bag, then people might like my company more and be more apt to fly my planes. If I don't give myself a $10M bonus, and instead return that money to the employees, as a bonus or a raise, then maybe they might be happier and work harder.

That seems to be my starting thesis..

People bemoan stupidity in all sorts of places, but sadly, stupidity doesn't make the world go round.. money does.

Right but isn't it ironic* how we always bemoan people who are ignorant in our own areas of expertise, and then try to excuse our own ignorance in other areas?

* not really

hehhe

Posted by voltaic on Tuesday May 18, 2010 @ 07:35am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Me.. I'm a normal-joe-six-pack-sarah-palin-hating person I'm referring too. You, Krux, Everyone here who doesn't take home half a million a year.

But most of us own stocks. That makes us shareholders, along with at least 43% of America. That's why you shouldn't paint with such a broad brush when you're going off on how shareholders are evil people only looking to maximize profit by any means necessary. It's simply false.

You need to get your terms for class warfare correct. ;)

It has to do with keeping the company honest, not letting them do dumb things, being able to change anything about the company to try and get more profit, etc. All you are is along for the ride.

That's all that most shareholders are. See above.

Because I don't agree with saying someone who has fund that invest in X,Y and Z makes that person a shareholder in the company. I would say the Fund is the shareholder. And they are in it ONLY for the money, not for the company, not for the values, just for the profit. they aren't going to guide the company, protect the company or anything else.. they will be in for a while and out as soon as it starts to drop.

Well your definition is wrong and since you've based your opinion on that, I don't know what to tell you. This excludes the many examples of funds that are active in pressing company values and even socially conscious or have various other value-based objectives.

And this is why my argument skills obviously suck. I can't seem to get my points across clearly in a sentence that makes sense to someone other then myself (If it even makes sense to me).
...
That seems to be my starting thesis..

I didn't view that as your starting thesis since it was in the middle of the discussion plus the fact that we've had this topic before. ;) My mistake.

Posted by Krux on Sunday May 16, 2010 @ 03:17pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Sarah Palin uses "Joe Sixpack" when she's trying to identify her retardiocy* with the average, hard working, red blooded American.

* I just made this up.

+1 for greatness.

Posted by rub on Thursday May 13, 2010 @ 04:28pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

There is nothing I can say from my limited point of view that is going to be able to change your mind one bit. You pull stocks, facts and figures all day long and I can't compete with that. Interpretations will always be different and My POV seems to be for the normal joe vs the big business/shareholder. I don't care about them.

I guess I was wrong, Greed is Good.

Your POV is perfectly valid. The problem is that you are arguing personal value, personal value, whereas volt is arguing the perception of values given to us by institutions. Apples and oranges. It's like when you are fucking an 18 year old with a ziploc bag full of ricewine and razorblades - nothing good will come from it.

Different things hold different value to different people. Unfortunately, third parties come in and say "I don't care what you think, here is how much something is worth".It is not a good thing and that is why, for example, price fixing is illegal. However, then the same government fixes prices on a foundation level with shit like minimum wage. Then unions come in and throw their weight around driving up base costs even more. Imagine if there were no unions and no minimum wage. People who are doing unskilled jobs would probably be making a fraction of what they make. Guess what, prices would go down, Why? Supply/demand. If people couldn't afford the shit, the prices will have to come down (plus it would cost less to make the shit).

IMO, like I said you guys are arguing something you think is the same thing but is not.

Posted by voltaic on Friday May 14, 2010 @ 09:08am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Your POV is perfectly valid. The problem is that you are arguing personal value, personal value, whereas volt is arguing the perception of values given to us by institutions. Apples and oranges. It's like when you are fucking an 18 year old with a ziploc bag full of ricewine and razorblades - nothing good will come from it.

"Valid" is a junk word. Everything is valid. Ethnic hatred is, technically speaking, a "valid" point of view despite the fact that it is immoral. The conspiracy theory that we never really went to the moon or that the earth is flat are "valid" points of view even though both are factually incorrect.

Values really are the driving force behind any discussion, but it is inarguably valuable to have more than feelings and hopes behind an actionable point of view. If someone thinks that we should implement policy X for the nation, I want more than highly vetted speeches given before cheering audiences made up of those who will benefit; I want facts and figures and understanding.

Different things hold different value to different people. Unfortunately, third parties come in and say "I don't care what you think, here is how much something is worth".It is not a good thing and that is why, for example, price fixing is illegal. However, then the same government fixes prices on a foundation level with shit like minimum wage. Then unions come in and throw their weight around driving up base costs even more. Imagine if there were no unions and no minimum wage. People who are doing unskilled jobs would probably be making a fraction of what they make. Guess what, prices would go down, Why? Supply/demand. If people couldn't afford the shit, the prices will have to come down (plus it would cost less to make the shit).

Anyway, I agree with this; interference from actors (governments, unions, etc) who are all acting in the so-called best interests of their constituencies are 90% of the problem in economics. It's across the board, really, everything from the price of labor to farming subsidies to taxation to tariffs to pricing. Really most of this stuff is basic economics too, like a 101 level class, not some master's program shit. I'm pretty sure there's a reason politicians don't promote a required course in basic economics in high school the way they do most other topics.

Posted by rub on Friday May 14, 2010 @ 08:17pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

"Valid" is a junk word..

your mother has a junk snatch

Posted by voltaic on Friday February 17, 2012 @ 09:47am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

I welcome your and Laura's child into the world.