"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...




Perhaps we have a language problem here. I don't have the slightest
problem with a for-profit company making a profit. For me, the
question
is, what is the percentage of profit and what is being done to
maximize
that profit? If workers are being exploited and forced to work in
dangerous conditions, then the maximization of profit is based upon
greed. If the workers are paid a decent wage and can work in relative
safety, then greed may not be a factor.

-----------------------------------------

Thank you. That's a far cry from your normal, all inclusive
definition of corporate greed.
I believe that the vast majority of businesses .... at least in the US
..... fit your re-defined description.

On 5/14/2013 7:43 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 5/14/13 7:19 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...

On 5/14/13 5:32 AM, Wayne B wrote:
On Mon, 13 May 2013 19:51:26 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

You can depend upon a bankster not giving a **** about the greed that
cost more than 1000 lives. No one said the factory shouldn't make a
profit, by the way.

===

It's good to see you once again searching for the moral high ground.
Hopefully you'll find it some day but I'm not holding my breath.

Just as an FYI, I'd argue that incompetence was probably a bigger
culprit than greed in the case of the building collapse. When things
are designed and built correctly, they don't fall down.


What a wonderfully self-delusional way to look at corporate excess. The
guy who expanded the building illegally in Bangladesh was simply
incompetent and didn't know what he was doing would lead to disaster.
The companies who contract for the lowest price manufacturing facility
didn't know the companies they retained had their workers laboring for
**** wages in such a facility. It's never greed, because the free market
system, why, it demands that structures and systems are designed, built,
and operated correctly. Yup, so anything horrific that happens, why it
is never the fault of cost-cutting or greed.

---------------------------------------

Wow. Harry, you really have become cynical to an excess over the
years. Starting to think GOM syndrome is setting in.

http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2013/02/28/1226587/474989-statler-and-waldorf.jpg




Productive HONEST work is the force that makes the economy successful.
Socialism and corruption drain the economy.
We know where you fit in the equassion.

On 5/14/13 8:42 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...




Perhaps we have a language problem here. I don't have the slightest
problem with a for-profit company making a profit. For me, the question
is, what is the percentage of profit and what is being done to maximize
that profit? If workers are being exploited and forced to work in
dangerous conditions, then the maximization of profit is based upon
greed. If the workers are paid a decent wage and can work in relative
safety, then greed may not be a factor.

-----------------------------------------

Thank you. That's a far cry from your normal, all inclusive definition
of corporate greed.
I believe that the vast majority of businesses .... at least in the US
.... fit your re-defined description.



Well, I don't want to start another of Greg's endless threads, but...a
large number of American businesses that "do business" abroad engage in
greed. Recall that the pope's statement was related to the awful
incident in Bangladesh, and the factory that collapsed was a major
supplier of clothing to American corporations, and there is no doubt the
corporations were aware of what the conditions were in that factory.

There also is no shortage of American corporations whose businesses are
mainly based in the states who engage in shady, exploitative labor
practices. In fact, such is the connecting element these days, it seems.

On 5/14/2013 8:40 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 5/14/13 8:34 AM, Tim wrote:
On May 14, 7:29 am, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 5/14/13 8:28 AM, Tim wrote:









On May 14, 6:55 am, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 5/14/13 7:46 AM, Tim wrote:

On May 14, 6:43 am, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 5/14/13 7:19 AM, Eisboch wrote:

"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...

On 5/14/13 5:32 AM, Wayne B wrote:
On Mon, 13 May 2013 19:51:26 -0400, "F.O.A.D."
wrote:

You can depend upon a bankster not giving a **** about the
greed that
cost more than 1000 lives. No one said the factory shouldn't
make a
profit, by the way.

===

It's good to see you once again searching for the moral high
ground.
Hopefully you'll find it some day but I'm not holding my breath.

Just as an FYI, I'd argue that incompetence was probably a bigger
culprit than greed in the case of the building collapse. When
things
are designed and built correctly, they don't fall down.

What a wonderfully self-delusional way to look at corporate
excess. The
guy who expanded the building illegally in Bangladesh was simply
incompetent and didn't know what he was doing would lead to
disaster.
The companies who contract for the lowest price manufacturing
facility
didn't know the companies they retained had their workers
laboring for
**** wages in such a facility. It's never greed, because the
free market
system, why, it demands that structures and systems are
designed, built,
and operated correctly. Yup, so anything horrific that happens,
why it
is never the fault of cost-cutting or greed.

---------------------------------------

Wow. Harry, you really have become cynical to an excess over the
years. Starting to think GOM syndrome is setting in.

http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2013/02/28/1226587/474989-statle...


Greed is the driving force in the economy.

It's the driving force of any economy. ie to gain more

So, you are an acolyte of Gordon Gekko, and believe that unrestrained
greed is good? Mighty shaky ground for a devout and believing
Christian,
eh?

No Harry, you are. I was agreeing with your statement.

There's a difference between making a profit, which a business has to do
to survive and grow, and greed. Profit and greed are not synonyms.

You said:

"Greed is the driving force in the economy."

I said:

"It's the driving force of any economy. ie to gain more"

I was agreeing with your statement, saying nothing of my approval.
Don't know where you got that. And questioning my faith because I
agreed with your line? Nice spin.

I'm finding more and more that there are those who will grab for any
straw when they find they have no foundation to stand on.


So, you've figured out the underpinnings of the GOP, eh?

I don't equate a business making a reasonable profit with "greed."
Apparently you do. Greed incorporates either the pursuit of or the
making of an unreasonable profit.

What's an unreasonable profit? Depends. Banks are paying about 2% on
savings these days, and, assuming your deposits are under the FDIC
insurance limites, those deposits are pretty much risk free. So, what is
a reasonable profit if you are putting your money at risk? Five times
the insured savings rate? Ten times? Fifty times?

If you made an arms length loan, what would be your expected rate of
return? You can answer your own question.

On 5/14/2013 7:58 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 5/14/13 7:55 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...

On 5/14/13 7:19 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...

On 5/14/13 5:32 AM, Wayne B wrote:
On Mon, 13 May 2013 19:51:26 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

You can depend upon a bankster not giving a **** about the greed that
cost more than 1000 lives. No one said the factory shouldn't make a
profit, by the way.

===

It's good to see you once again searching for the moral high ground.
Hopefully you'll find it some day but I'm not holding my breath.

Just as an FYI, I'd argue that incompetence was probably a bigger
culprit than greed in the case of the building collapse. When things
are designed and built correctly, they don't fall down.


What a wonderfully self-delusional way to look at corporate excess. The
guy who expanded the building illegally in Bangladesh was simply
incompetent and didn't know what he was doing would lead to disaster.
The companies who contract for the lowest price manufacturing facility
didn't know the companies they retained had their workers laboring for
**** wages in such a facility. It's never greed, because the free market
system, why, it demands that structures and systems are designed, built,
and operated correctly. Yup, so anything horrific that happens, why it
is never the fault of cost-cutting or greed.

---------------------------------------

Wow. Harry, you really have become cynical to an excess over the
years. Starting to think GOM syndrome is setting in.

http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2013/02/28/1226587/474989-statler-and-waldorf.jpg




Greed is the driving force in the economy.

-------------------------------

Bull ****

There are examples of greed for sure, but the vast majority of
businesses are competitive in nature which doesn't allow for greed to
drive them. Most businesses I know are certainly profit orientated,
either for organic growth and expansion (which generates jobs, BTW)
and/or for a return on investment for the stockholders. Excessive
costs imposed by the government for the privilege of doing business
shouldn't be confused with corporate greed.




I'm trying to think of the well-known businesses with whom we interact
every day where greed isn't the driving force. The only ones I can think
of are the small, family run contracting businesses and some family
restaurants.

Abortion mills. Greedy or not?
Eisboch's former business. Greedy or not?
Parker boats. Greedy or not?
Members of congress. Greedy or not?
Oprah Winfrey. Greedy or not?
Microsoft. Greedy or not?

On 5/14/13 9:45 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 14 May 2013 07:43:41 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


Greed is the driving force in the economy.

Management, labor and the consumer.
Nobody is innocent.



Again, I'm unsure the concept and meaning of the word "greed" is well
understood here.

On 5/14/13 10:02 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 14 May 2013 08:59:03 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

Well, I don't want to start another of Greg's endless threads

Yet most start with one of your posts ;-)


Well, someone here has to think.

I'll be the first to admit I have no great interest in endless
discussions here. There aren't enough participants to make it that
interesting to me. These usually end up with you splitting hairs with
iloogy.

On 5/14/13 9:59 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 14 May 2013 08:40:46 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


I don't equate a business making a reasonable profit with "greed."
Apparently you do. Greed incorporates either the pursuit of or the
making of an unreasonable profit.

What's an unreasonable profit? Depends. Banks are paying about 2% on
savings these days, and, assuming your deposits are under the FDIC
insurance limites, those deposits are pretty much risk free. So, what is
a reasonable profit if you are putting your money at risk? Five times
the insured savings rate? Ten times? Fifty times?

Do you think you could live on 2% of your savings? (pension plan or
whatever)
"Profit" is also return on investment. That is where your pension
comes from. Do you want to take a pay cut on that generous union
pension? I bet not, so you WANT a greedy corporate leader who is
generating big dividends to fund your lifestyle.
They not only need that money to send to you, they also have to pay
the fund manager and the union leaders who make plenty of money, just
to administer your account and recruit more union members (bribe
government officials etc).
Your pension was funded, based on a 10% return PLUS administration and
other fees. The only place you can get that kind of money is by
investing in the most greedy corporations.


1. Could I live on 2% of my savings? No. But that wasn't the question.
The question was, what multiple of the current savings interest rate,
which is paid on money not really at risk, is reasonable as a rate of
profit.

2. Two of the many funds my pension fund invests in average between 8
and 10% a year return to their investors, after expenses, and did so
during the recent recession. These are not huge funds, and they run
their ships pretty tight. I follow both of these funds for reasons other
than my pension. I don't pay attention to my pension fund's other
investments.

3. I don't personally know any international union leaders who "make
plenty of money." I do know some whose salaries are in the $150,000 to
$300,000 range, and a couple of retired international union presidents
who did a little better. Again, these are people who I know personally.
I don't consider salaries in that range for highly responsible jobs as
paying "plenty."

4. If a corporation based in the United States and employing mostly U.S.
workers is earning a 10 to 12% profit, and isn't exploiting its
workforce, then that seems reasonable to me. I would, of course, exclude
the monopolistic companies from that, and the book-cooking companies, too.

On 5/14/13 11:39 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 14 May 2013 10:35:11 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 5/14/13 9:59 AM, wrote:


Do you think you could live on 2% of your savings? (pension plan or
whatever)
"Profit" is also return on investment. That is where your pension
comes from. Do you want to take a pay cut on that generous union
pension? I bet not, so you WANT a greedy corporate leader who is
generating big dividends to fund your lifestyle.
They not only need that money to send to you, they also have to pay
the fund manager and the union leaders who make plenty of money, just
to administer your account and recruit more union members (bribe
government officials etc).
Your pension was funded, based on a 10% return PLUS administration and
other fees. The only place you can get that kind of money is by
investing in the most greedy corporations.


1. Could I live on 2% of my savings? No. But that wasn't the question.
The question was, what multiple of the current savings interest rate,
which is paid on money not really at risk, is reasonable as a rate of
profit.
many funds my pension fund invests in average between 8
and 10% a year return to their investors, after expenses, and did so
during the recent recession. These are not huge funds, and they run
their ships pretty tight. I follow both of these funds for reasons other
than my pension. I don't pay attention to my pension fund's other
investments.

So you very well could be living off the profits of companies that
have unfair labor practices and predatory business models


3. I don't personally know any international union leaders who "make
plenty of money." I do know some whose salaries are in the $150,000 to
$300,000 range, and a couple of retired international union presidents
who did a little better. Again, these are people who I know personally.
I don't consider salaries in that range for highly responsible jobs as
paying "plenty."


Randi Weingarten makes more like a half million with her perks.

4. If a corporation based in the United States and employing mostly U.S.
workers is earning a 10 to 12% profit, and isn't exploiting its
workforce, then that seems reasonable to me. I would, of course, exclude
the monopolistic companies from that, and the book-cooking companies, too.

Most US corporations would love to be making 10% profit, even those
evil oil companies but the reality is they make less.
The gross numbers are high because of the size of the company.
For example, Walmart turns from 3-5% historically.
With the exception of a couple spikes over 10%, Exxon swings around
the 7-8% profit margin.
I am OK with the idea of breaking up some of the virtual monopolies
but our government seems to be moving in the opposite direction.
They embrace companies like Comcast and Viacom, perhaps because they
are afraid of them.


I know Randi, and I knew her two predecessors, and I've known a number
of presidents of the NEA, too, and some state NEA and AFT affiliate
presidents. If Randi has a comp package of a half million dollars, it
certainly is reasonable for a union with more than a million members.
This is an example of your endless hairsplitting. All I said was that I
know some international union leaders (presidents) who are in the
$150,000 to $300,000 range. I never said all union presidents were in
that salary range.

Hell, starting in 1977 and for a number of years, I worked for a couple
of postal unions and on the postal labor negotiating committee, and
helped negotiate the largest union contract in the history of the United
States, and made a couple of hundred thou a year from those efforts, and
other activities on behalf of these unions, and this was more than 35
years ago.

Corporate profit reporting is a function of shenanigans between the
corporation and its CPAs and investment and corporate banksters. I saw
some pretty interesting discussions when I was doing financial PR for
publicly held corporations in Michigan. In DC, I handled PR for a big
league entertainment corporation and was amused when it offered some of
its contract performers a percentage of the net in lieu of higher
salaries. Far better to take a smaller percentage of the gross, because
the net, well, there wasn't anything that couldn't shrink it down to
practically nothing.

On 5/14/13 4:47 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 14 May 2013 16:10:25 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


You're not reading carefully. I don't oppose corporations making a
profit. Also, I haven't owned shares for some time and, when I did, it
wasn't because I expected to live off the dividends: I was a speculator,
and it was easier to speculate on shares than to go to a race track or
Las Vegas. Once in a while, speculative profits had something to do with
whether the corporation was making a significant profit, but mostly it
had to do with what I call "market madness," the ability of shares to
rise or fall on whims, frequently whims that had little to do with the
company's business decisions.

You still own plenty of stock, they are just held by your pension plan
or other investment vehicles you have..



Which has nothing to do with my point that I haven't owned shares for
some time. Your efforts to spin everything into meaninglessness moral
nihilism used to be amusing.