Quote:
Originally Posted by Arminius
You are shifting the topic. The topic was that CEO's are "SQUEEZING" money out of consumers. That if false. It's not possible. This is not only the case due to competition (i.e., the consumer votes with his/her wallet), but also because the CEO's don't (usually) own the companies they work for. If the company (the Board of Directors and stockholders) don't like him/her, then they don't have a job.
|
You're reading too deeply and missing the point. The overall topic here (which is apparently is being debated- but doesn't matter) is
fuel prices squeezing - not CEOs. CEO's were pulled into it, but that's fine, topics meander.
CEO and company are hand in hand. CEO is ultimately responsible. If a company is sucessful - awesome CEO. If the company tanks - blame is first put on the person/people on top. I'm not changing the subject matter by talking about a company as a whole...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arminius
2. There is no such thing as too much, unless the industry of which we speak is has no competition because of artificial barriers created by the government, or if they have engaged in illegal practices.
|
Again, I don't care about the too much thing - I agree there's no such thing as too much in this matter. But, I can't say that government is completely to blame for the actions of private companies. The government didn't setup any barrier that made Walmart take down Rubbermaid - costs went up (for rubbermaid) due to natural supply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arminius
It's not bad business. The purpose of business is to make money. Buggy whips would also still be in use if we didn't allow them to become obsolete.
|
Fair enough - poor word choice... It's bad ethics
Quote:
|
It's not a matter of "like" or "dislike." It's not personal. The consumer votes with his or her wallet. Walmart merely listens. In fact, the little store owner does the same, or they are an idiot and should go out of business. Who goes into business to sell what people would rather not buy?
|
It's not that they don't want to buy it... It's that one supplier brought it to you by employing your neighbor with an ethical business versus another supplier that brought you a product by employing another country while dismantling the local manufacturers. I
wish that was hypothetical.
Quote:
|
Me neither, but it's their money, just as the money you ear is your money. I probably don't like the way you spend your money, but it's not my business.
|
You might not, or you might... That's not a concern though. Their money came from my money - and if I'm supporting, say a cocaine ring by shopping at one particular store - why would I do that? If your company will support something I feel is "wrong" (probably not the right word choice) - I'm not going to trade my money for your stuff.
Quote:
|
My initial comment about the government had nothing to do with that. My initial comment is that the government is the only one that can squeeze you, because you MUST do what it requires of you.
|
Yes, but I go back to basic needs/services as I originally posted. If you don't have an option - you can't bring your money elsewhere. Using Walmart (again, sorry - it's just too easy
) as an example - they move in, force others out. The price of stuff at Walmart may be slightly cheaper - but the
cost/impact is much higher due to less business. Walmart has low prices and low wages.
Quote:
|
I enjoy talking to you. However, you said you disagreed with me and attributed my words to an entirely different topic.
|
I enjoy speaking with you too
But, I feel I haven't applied it differently - the topic is the same, it's just a big topic
