Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#21
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 19:52:37 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote: On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 16:10:26 -0800, wrote: Corporations have a fiduciary responsiblity to their stock holders to try and achieve profits. That is why they are in business. To suggest that government should force corporations to develop and produce a product without a profit motive is totally unrealistic. PS, this discussion should be taken offline before it turns political. Huh? You never heard of the gov't requiring car manufacturers to produce things like tanks, bombers, etc? No. http://www.allpar.com/history/military/preparing.html http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3428500013.html You think this was done without gov't incentive? Again, why should a profit motive drive what's needed for people's health and welfare? You don't need to explain basic business concepts to me, as I probably have a better education on the subject than most here. If you want a corporation involved, there has to be a profit motive. Why? There are lots of non-profits in the US. PS, stop being the newsgroup policeman. Greg and I are having a pleasant conversation that will only get mishandled by those who have that motivation. I don't view myself in that role at all but I do have a long history here, and have a very good idea how these discussions get out of control and attract a lot of overheated emotional content. Out of consideration for others, please find another venue where this discussion would be more appropriate. Yet you keep insisting that we shut up when there's no "emotional" content expressed or implied. Perhaps you're reading in more than is there. I don't see anyone else (except maybe spoofers) complaining. |
#23
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 01:16:14 -0500, wrote:
On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 21:25:39 -0800, wrote: On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 19:52:37 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 16:10:26 -0800, wrote: Corporations have a fiduciary responsiblity to their stock holders to try and achieve profits. That is why they are in business. To suggest that government should force corporations to develop and produce a product without a profit motive is totally unrealistic. PS, this discussion should be taken offline before it turns political. Huh? You never heard of the gov't requiring car manufacturers to produce things like tanks, bombers, etc? No. http://www.allpar.com/history/military/preparing.html http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3428500013.html You think this was done without gov't incentive? Do you think there was no profit motive? "Chrysler would get a 4% commission for building the factory and another 4% for building tanks." Do you think they could have done better if the economy was better? As I said, the gov't gave them financial incentives. Again, why should a profit motive drive what's needed for people's health and welfare? You don't need to explain basic business concepts to me, as I probably have a better education on the subject than most here. If you want a corporation involved, there has to be a profit motive. Why? There are lots of non-profits in the US. None of them are producing much innovation. Producing much innovation? You mean innovating. See the Drucker Institute for how non-profits innovate. If you're talking about product innovation, I don't think you want to use a US car company as an example. ![]() |
#24
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 01:19:53 -0500, wrote:
On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 21:27:00 -0800, wrote: On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 20:34:06 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 16:10:26 -0800, wrote: Huh? You never heard of the gov't requiring car manufacturers to produce things like tanks, bombers, etc? That has not happened for 65 years. When it did it was a government contract that put idle factories back to work. For the last 50 years tanks, bombers and missiles have been a profit center. The manufacturers develop a system, bribe enough congressmen to get it adopted and then try to convince the military it is really what they need. That is not unlike how the drug companies work. So, with such a great economy, I guess it doesn't make much sense to put people to work... ? I don't think people were being bribed to produce armaments in WWII.. at least not most. They were certainly making a lot of money tho. Depends on your definition of "a lot of money." The primary motivation was survival both financially and physically (the result of losing the war). WWII was an instant end of the depression for the US. And, your point? I don't think we can actually compare the buying of the congress in the 40s like we do now. There were certainly the earmark bribes but you did not have billion dollar ad campaign costs (even adjusted for inflation) I agree. You can't compare the two, however earmarks are not the terrible thing you make them out to be. Some are wasteful, but many actually do good at the local level. |
#25
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 23:44:21 -0500, wrote:
On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 11:13:19 -0800, wrote: I don't think we can actually compare the buying of the congress in the 40s like we do now. There were certainly the earmark bribes but you did not have billion dollar ad campaign costs (even adjusted for inflation) I agree. You can't compare the two, however earmarks are not the terrible thing you make them out to be. Some are wasteful, but many actually do good at the local level. The problem is not the earmark itself, it is what the receiving congressman sold his vote for on another bill to get it. (I will vote for your bridge if you will vote for the war) There are always going to be abuses. In any case, most earmarks are for worthy projects as far as I can tell. |
#26
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Drugs and Ferries | ASA | |||
Descrition drugs, more info... | General | |||
This woman is on drugs. | General | |||
OT Get your cheap drugs here... | General |