Quote:
Originally Posted by trebuchet03
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...
|
The previous points still stands. No one was crying when, just a few years ago, the oil companies were having a hard time making a profit. Now profit is bad? Yet the little store owner you identify with is good for wanting the same thing? Remember, in BOTH cases the MARKET determines what their goods are sold for.
The fact is that there are innumerable goods and services that are more profitable than oil. It's silly to demonize the industry, even if all the "cool kids" are doin' it.
Quote:
|
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.
|
I wasn't blaming the government for their profits. I was blaming the government for taking YOUR money. I wouldn't bother me if they or you made more money.
Quote:
Fair enough - poor word choice... It's bad ethics 
|
It's not bad ethics. It's a noble endevor.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Neither is unethical.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Your example involves illegal activity, so it's not a good parallel.
Quote:
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.
|
Of course it forces others out. That is the the history of the world. No one wants to pay more for less. This has been going on since the beginning of time, resulting in better prices and superior goods and services for the consumer. When I was a kid they were complaining about Kmart. So what!
In fact, no one would be complaining if there were a oil war between the leading oil producers and the price dropped 90%. When the OPEC countries were feuding and dumping oil onto the market a few years ago, no one complained. Not one person said that it was unfair to offer better prices. NOT ONE.
Quote:
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 
|
True that.