This is unbelievable...

mafafu replied on 06-26-2009 4:58 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

Hexpane:

This isn't high school economics for freshmen.   Sanitized theories are meaningless in the real world in terms of economics.  Supply/demand does not account for futures trading on futures, or after market trading, or conflict of interest "stock ratings".

No, this is the real world, where families try to get by with multiple jobs and children just hoping they can make their mortgage. Quite honestly they are below having to care about people like Mark Cuban or whether their cancer drug is from a "wonderful" company. All they know is that their insurance (god hope they have some) only covers a percentage of said cancer drug and the part that is not covered is still tens of thousands of dollars when all is said and done.

Because interestingly, those wonderful cancer curing companies make drugs that work just well enough to keep you healthy until you need more of that same damn drug.

So for the large section of the nation who lives paycheck to paycheck out of necessity, not choice, most of your argument is moot.

So you keep on fighting the good fight and think you are "changing" things, but you aren't. Because the guys who write your checks and the people who write those people's checks are worried about the bottom line.

And as for those sports teams - For people with that much money, that is the same thing as playing a videogame. It is not a business, just entertainment. No different for them than us "wasting money" on an xbox or a ps3.

taintedzodiac replied on 06-26-2009 5:07 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

mafafu:

Because the guys who write your checks and the people who write those people's checks are worried about the bottom line.

I think Hexpane's point is that this is exactly what the people living paycheck to paycheck are doing.

Someone we both know that makes far more than either of us still lives paycheck to paycheck.

killmak replied on 06-26-2009 5:12 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

Hexpane:

This is incorrect, and has nothing to do with "pissing".  I have already stated factually why this assumption is incorrect and given an example, my own company's mission statement.  In fact the past 3 companies I have worked for have all been for profit business.

A companies mission station means absolutely nothing.  Of course your mission statement isnt going to say that you are looking to gouge out as much money as you can from your products.  Do you think that all the big oil companies mission statement reads "I our mission is to gouge as much cash as we can with our product and limit supply to create demmand to gouge more".  No it would not be that however that is what they do so you need to take any companies mission statement with a grain of salt.

Coras replied on 06-27-2009 6:59 AM | Locked

rated by 0 users

killmak:

Hexpane:

This is incorrect, and has nothing to do with "pissing".  I have already stated factually why this assumption is incorrect and given an example, my own company's mission statement.  In fact the past 3 companies I have worked for have all been for profit business.

A companies mission station means absolutely nothing.  Of course your mission statement isnt going to say that you are looking to gouge out as much money as you can from your products.  Do you think that all the big oil companies mission statement reads "I our mission is to gouge as much cash as we can with our product and limit supply to create demmand to gouge more".  No it would not be that however that is what they do so you need to take any companies mission statement with a grain of salt.

QFT

I was going to quote Mafafu but I didn't want people to think I was paying him service like last time!

A mission statement is just PR, period. I can't go into detail about the job I do or the company I work for, but lets just say I am in Finance, and the mission statement for my current company has changed 6 times in 9 years. They all say essentially the same thing, about how we love ourselves and our customers and strive to do right by them. Doesn't make it true.

Your company had a board of directors(I am assuming) and they care about not only the profitability of the company in general but also the public image for long term sustainability, and also the ability of the stock to gain value.

As strange as it sounds, I think a quote from Fight Club is most appropriate here.....

"A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one."

mafafu replied on 06-27-2009 8:14 AM | Locked

rated by 0 users

larpi:

So true. I think this thread has probably run its course, as I find myself and others just arguing. Locking it up.