|
down with slavery posted:
It sounds like that would be "essentially all firms" if you include the latter condition.
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 20:38 |
|
|
Profits are not why Verizon uses commercial paper though, as I have pointed out more than a few times. They take them out because their cash flow doesn't match up with their payment schedule and they need to smooth the difference out.computer parts posted:It sounds like that would be "essentially all firms" if you include the latter condition. A good point. Small businesses pretty much universally use short term loans to finance operations because most people don't have a months worth of costs in their pocket when they start their business up. And of course if you want to get bigger, better save up more money to prefund your next month of operations instead of taking advantage of chances to grow right now. Kalman fucked around with this message at 23:43 on Jun 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 23:39
|
|
computer parts posted:It sounds like that would be "essentially all firms" if you include the latter condition. I find it amusing that it's become an accepted fact that large companies will require short term financing because ??? and not simply the result of more and more aggressive/risky methods in the name of increasing profits (which is what they are). Kalman posted:Profits are not why Verizon uses commercial paper though, as I have pointed out more than a few times. They take them out because their cash flow doesn't match up with their payment schedule and they need to smooth the difference out. Again, "cash flow" and "payment schedule" don't even matter once you start thinking "hey, maybe this firm that makes billions in profit can afford to keep a bit of cash on hand to cover their short-term expenses instead of exploring exotic financial instruments in an effort to make the numbers look as good as possible"
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
They would not be suffering the consequences alone. Every person and business to whom they owed money would suffer as well. Every person and business who was owed money by those persons and businesses would suffer in turn. Has everyone in the economy, big and small, made a poor decision in assuming they will be paid on time?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
Kalman posted:2012. 90% had 10 mb or greater downlink available. 28% had bought it. I'd like to bring this back in the vain hope of dragging this train wreck back on track. I do agree that the problem with funding network infrastructure development via the profit motive is that companies will only do so when and where it's deemed profitable to do so (so "demand justifies buildout expenses" and "high end-user prices"). Given some of the challenges inherent to North American geography and history, the cost-benefit analyses may be a little different than in Western Europe or Southeast Asia, but frankly the first few pages of this thread have beaten that horse to death anyway. But the flipside of that argument is that nationalizing it and funding it via any vaguely democratic government process means that that development will be done when, ideally, enough of the public deems it necessary. In a country with an entrenched pre-existing telecom infrastructure where where only a minority of people think even they need more than the 10Mbit/s download they largely have access to, let alone gigabit fiber to the home, would a public telecom monopoly be any faster at replacing it than the private one? We can even pretend this fantasy US has a functional political process that accurately reflects the will of the people. wateroverfire posted:You know how in other threads people rage about companies banking a ton of cash and sitting on it instead of investing or hiring people? Not just in other threads. In this thread, people are raging about companies not spending more money on replacing the legacy telecom infrastructure with something modern, and simultaneously raging about the perfectly routine financial facility that exists so they can pay the suppliers and contractors and employees that enable this on their timeframes, rather than whenever the telecom has piled up enough ill-gotten cash to do so. Dallan Invictus fucked around with this message at 23:44 on Jun 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 23:41
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:They would not be suffering the consequences alone. Every person and business to whom they owed money would suffer as well. Every person and business who was owed money by those persons and businesses would suffer in turn. Has everyone in the economy, big and small, made a poor decision in assuming they will be paid on time? No, but the government made a poor decision in ensuring that everyone was paid on time and didn't reform the structural issues that got us there in the first place. TARP should have gone to the people, not the banks. If half the money that went to saving business had gone to saving people during the financial crisis we wouldn't even be talking about suffering. I understand it's a cascading effect downward when credit dries up. That's why I'm trying to convince you and others that we should not allow the largest firms in the country to rely on that short term credit. Dallan Invictus posted:
Feel free to read my posts but I don't rail against private industry not investing in infrastrucutre. I know why they don't, it's because they don't have to and the shareholders would be much happier with a huge dividend. So please save your little "check out this hypocrisy LOL" posts. I'm well aware that private industry won't do a goddamn thing to improve infrastructure unless they have to. That's why they shouldn't be given the responsibility of improving infrastructure.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Then we should have let them suffer the consequences of their poor decision making, simple as that. Congrats on not understanding anything about modern finance. Cash flow is a problem for businesses everywhere, and smart people figured out the solution centuries ago http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lender_of_last_resort That's exactly what VZ did during the crisis.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:If half the money that went to saving business had gone to saving people during the financial crisis we wouldn't even be talking about suffering. That would be around $500 per person, and it wouldn't be 97% paid back like the real TARP. What do you think that would alleviate?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 23:45
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Congrats on not understanding anything about modern finance. Cash flow is a problem for businesses everywhere, and smart people figured out the solution centuries ago http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lender_of_last_resort Congrats on not even reading what I posted. I know what a lender of last resort is and I'm quite fine with the government being it. What I'm not ok with is companies like Verizon taking on excessive risk to smooth over accounting numbers when they could just finance the company with their excessive profits. Beyond that, when they do eventually take the money from the lender of last resort there should be conditions attached to that loan which ensure that it doesn't happen again, like say, requiring them to keep a certain amount of cash on hand. Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:That would be around $500 per person, and it wouldn't be 97% paid back like the real TARP. What do you think that would alleviate? TARP is not the only thing that happened in 2008. Try again
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Congrats on not even reading what I posted. I know what a lender of last resort is and I'm quite fine with the government being it. What I'm not ok with is companies like Verizon taking on excessive risk to smooth over accounting numbers when they could just finance the company with their excessive profits. Beyond that, when they do eventually take the money from the lender of last resort there should be conditions attached to that loan which ensure that it doesn't happen again, like say, requiring them to keep a certain amount of cash on hand.  Verizon loaned money from the government and paid it back. The government profited off of the interest rate differential. There's no problems with that unless you're Ron Paul. quote:TARP is not the only thing that happened in 2008. Try again which other things
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:No, but the government made a poor decision in ensuring that everyone was paid on time and didn't reform the structural issues that got us there in the first place. TARP should have gone to the people, not the banks. If half the money that went to saving business had gone to saving people during the financial crisis we wouldn't even be talking about suffering. You're continuing to confuse the structural issues that caused the financial crisis with the consequences of the financial crisis. Short term loans did not cause the financial crisis. Short term loans were temporarily unavailable because of the financial crisis. TARP was a flawed response which did not correct many of the underlying causes of the financial crisis. The program through which Verizon got a loan, CPFP, enacted less than a month after TARP by the Fed, was a short term response to the credit shortage that resulted from, but did not cause, the financial crisis.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:AGAIN THE REAL SOLUTION IS TO DISSOLVE INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE TBTF OR THAT REQUIRE THIS TYPE OF RISKY SHORT TERM FINANCING I agree, all companies that rely on the risky short term financiang you made up should be dissolved. Fortunately there are 0 of them. Your wish came true! Dallan Invictus posted:I'd like to bring this back in the vain hope of dragging this train wreck back on track. Part of the issue, if you want to call it that, is that many providers do upgrade people's existing connections "for free" over time, which can easily convince people who don't care that much about the topic that they shouldn't bother pushing. If you started getting 6 megabit cable service 10 years ago, you might easily have been slowly bumped up to 30 megabit by now due to incidental things your cable isp happened to be doing. So if you're a normal person, it could be hard to convince you that paying a bit more in tax money to build a much faster network is worth it. But a lot of jurisdictions, ranging in size from whole states down to sections of cities will go and build public funded networks anyway and run them. And a lot more would do it without higher level entities blocking or restricting their ability. down with slavery posted:What I'm not ok with is companies like Verizon taking on excessive risk They didn't. Verizon has a corporate history of being rather risk-averse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 00:01
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:
Yes, there is. They did not attach appropriate conditions to the bailout. Gramm–Leach–Bliley should have reappeared AT THE LEAST. The aggressive financial practices being taken by large american multinationals should have been curtailed. They were not. This is a problem. Stronger capital requirements IS STANDARD. Maybe 30 days of funding is excessive, but it's not unreasonable to ask these companies that are highly profitable and rely on short term funding to stop doing so in the name of stability. quote:which other things Go read for yourself you dense moron: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis#Responses And while you're at it, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis_solutions_debate You know drat well the effort that was put in to stabilizing corporate America while thousands of American homeowners were foreclosed on. Don't try to pretend like the Government couldn't have stopped it if they had simply punished those responsible and used it to bail out the home owners and citizens, the only true victims in this story. JeffersonClay posted:You're continuing to confuse the structural issues that caused the financial crisis with the consequences of the financial crisis. Short term loans did not cause the financial crisis. Short term loans were temporarily unavailable because of the financial crisis. TARP was a flawed response which did not correct many of the underlying causes of the financial crisis. The program through which Verizon got a loan, CPFP, enacted less than a month after TARP by the Fed, was a short term response to the credit shortage that resulted from, but did not cause, the financial crisis. I never said they did. I said that aggressive risky behavior did. And yes, these sorts of large firms requiring short term financing (to the point where they would miss payments if it wasn't available for 24 hours) is symptomatic of that behavior. Raising capital requirements is just one of the many things the government could have attached to these programs. edit. Again, all of this is irrelevant to the thread itself, and you have successfully derailed the only real point I was trying to make (which nobody has disputed) which is that the communications infrastructure should be nationalized and treated as a common good. I'm happy to defend myself in a thread about the financial crisis if you want to make one. down with slavery fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Jun 4, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
The fact that every single CPFP loan was repaid with interest implies that these were not risky loans, purchased by aggressively risky firms. These firms were not the cause of the financial crisis--they were victims. Capital requirements for Verizon would do nothing to influence the risk of future banking crises because Verizon is not a bank.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
Yes, monopolistic national telecommunications providers have a GREAT record of providing advanced services at a low cost. See: Ma Bell, BT, pre-privatization Telstra, Bell Canada, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Part of the issue, if you want to call it that, is that many providers do upgrade people's existing connections "for free" over time, which can easily convince people who don't care that much about the topic that they shouldn't bother pushing. If you started getting 6 megabit cable service 10 years ago, you might easily have been slowly bumped up to 30 megabit by now due to incidental things your cable isp happened to be doing. So if you're a normal person, it could be hard to convince you that paying a bit more in tax money to build a much faster network is worth it. I don't dispute that muni ISPs and the like can be a huge help in improving the access situation (there are fewer obstacles to them where I am so you do see them happen, but mainly in areas that the major telcos judge as unprofitable to serve or upgrade for whatever reason.) My point is more that if you're a person for whom the current access situation is genuinely good enough (leaving the cost aside for the moment, I'm talking about "what is available"), how do we convince you to pay more taxes to fund a massive infrastructure program you don't think we need when there are so many other massive government programs that are more universally needed? And these people exist! In surprisingly large numbers! It's the same debate I have about cord-cutting: we live in a cohort for whom Internet is on the level of a basic need and we universalize that conception to a populace that isn't quite there yet. I think I'm mostly reacting to the mess that was Australia's NBN deployment, from conception to the election partly fought over it, to the current situation actually rolling it out. Not that I'm Australian, it's just a decent example of an attempted transition to an open access telecom infrastructure going on right now (though without guillotines, which I accept may be considered a critical flaw in some quarters).
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
How much metadata would the government be collecting daily if ISPs were nationalized?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The fact that every single CPFP loan was repaid with interest implies that these were not risky loans, purchased by aggressively risky firms. These firms were not the cause of the financial crisis--they were victims. Capital requirements for Verizon would do nothing to influence the risk of future banking crises because Verizon is not a bank. Also because even if all the banks had had one month of operating costs on hand, it wouldn't have prevented a crisis caused by overvalued capital assets triggering obligations far in excess of day to day operating costs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:How much metadata would the government be collecting daily if ISPs were nationalized? Exactly as much as they are now.  But yeah if the communications infrastructure was fully nationalized the government would by definition possess all that data from its creation. Dallan Invictus posted:I don't dispute that muni ISPs and the like can be a huge help in improving the access situation (there are fewer obstacles to them where I am so you do see them happen, but mainly in areas that the major telcos judge as unprofitable to serve or upgrade for whatever reason.) My point is more that if you're a person for whom the current access situation is genuinely good enough (leaving the cost aside for the moment, I'm talking about "what is available"), how do we convince you to pay more taxes to fund a massive infrastructure program you don't think we need when there are so many other massive government programs that are more universally needed? The thing is that in large part, proper infrastructure already exists everywhere except the last link to the local neighborhood and the actual consumer. Yet those two are the most expensive things to finally upgrade and spread. We wouldn't necessarily need massive infrastructure investment just to get high speeds to people using existing network providers - but would it be moral or desirable to give that free upgrade investment to Cox Cable to use for their own profits? And of course there's building a brand new network from fiber one instead for a public provider, but that does need the massive investment to build everything up from scratch, and hence it's never gotten to the point that there's public support for nationwide. Well, there's also plenty of people who do consider Internet a basic need, but also still think their 3 megabit DSL service fufils it just fine - and there's things like the case of Finland declaring internet access a right; but their definition was just that 1 megabit down service had to be available to buy and satellite links were considered acceptable for that. Dallan Invictus posted:I think I'm mostly reacting to the mess that was Australia's NBN deployment, from conception to the election partly fought over it, to the current situation actually rolling it out. Not that I'm Australian, it's just a decent example of an attempted transition to an open access telecom infrastructure going on right now (though without guillotines, which I accept may be considered a critical flaw in some quarters). Well Australia's NBN thing had the major problem associated with it that even were it to be in place a lot of the people served couldn't benefit that much. Since Australia still has limited undersea bandwidth to the outside world and a lot of Australians access sites off the continent, many people wouldn't experience as great a gain in their usage. So this made it easier to essentially kill it off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:How much metadata would the government be collecting daily if ISPs were nationalized? Why collect meta data when the raw data is passing through the network you manage yourself?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:
Why should the govt intervene in this when people already have at the very least the minimum required to use the internet? You really think your "common good" should be a 10+ mb connection? Most people won't even use that bandwidth anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
supersnowman posted:Why should the govt intervene in this when people already have at the very least the minimum required to use the internet? You really think your "common good" should be a 10+ mb connection? Most people won't even use that bandwidth anyway. I don't see why building out a new network infrastructure wouldn't be a good government project that would mean long-term hiring of jobs in multiple sectors, from plain labor to highly technical fields, to be honest.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 02:22
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:I find it amusing that it's become an accepted fact that large companies will require short term financing because ??? and not simply the result of more and more aggressive/risky methods in the name of increasing profits (which is what they are). Because most people pay their bills once a month and payroll is due 2-3 times a month.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 02:22
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I don't see why building out a new network infrastructure wouldn't be a good government project that would mean long-term hiring of jobs in multiple sectors, from plain labor to highly technical fields, to be honest. I'd argue the money could be spent on something better than pushing the average broadband access. That's mostly why I think the govt should stay out of it at least for now. The current system for providing access, while not perfect, still work. Anybody who consider broadband access a need for society can't say that healthcare for example isn't a bigger need and I'm pretty sure we could bet money there are more holes in that system than the broadband service.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 02:30
|
|
supersnowman posted:I'd argue the money could be spent on something better than pushing the average broadband access. That's mostly why I think the govt should stay out of it at least for now. The current system for providing access, while not perfect, still work. Anybody who consider broadband access a need for society can't say that healthcare for example isn't a bigger need and I'm pretty sure we could bet money there are more holes in that system than the broadband service. Why should the fact that there are other issues in our country stop us from addressing this one? This is a way for us to get better service for better prices. Competition has no place in this part of the market any more, it's time to kick it out. The cost is in no way prohibitive.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
supersnowman posted:I'd argue the money could be spent on something better than pushing the average broadband access. That's mostly why I think the govt should stay out of it at least for now. The current system for providing access, while not perfect, still work. Anybody who consider broadband access a need for society can't say that healthcare for example isn't a bigger need and I'm pretty sure we could bet money there are more holes in that system than the broadband service. It will definitely be worthwhile at some point, and actually building it all out will take a long time anyway. Plus, it's already being done in bits and patches.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Why should the fact that there are other issues in our country stop us from addressing this one? This is a way for us to get better service for better prices. Competition has no place in this part of the market any more, it's time to kick it out. The cost is in no way prohibitive. Because for most people the current level of service is "good enough". You can't realistically say the same about healthcare (or at least you couldn't until recently). Nintendo Kid posted:It will definitely be worthwhile at some point, and actually building it all out will take a long time anyway. Plus, it's already being done in bits and patches. This is true but you could probably get better utility off of rebuilding other infrastructure instead.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 02:41
|
|
computer parts posted:Because for most people the current level of service is "good enough". Yeah that's probably why big Telco companies have tons of happy customers and aren't some of the most hated corporations in the country quote:You can't realistically say the same about healthcare (or at least you couldn't until recently). What makes you think we somehow can't do both at once?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Why should the fact that there are other issues in our country stop us from addressing this one? This is a way for us to get better service for better prices. Competition has no place in this part of the market any more, it's time to kick it out. The cost is in no way prohibitive. I'm standing from a point where we don't have unlimited money and need to amke choice. If we actaully can do it while also covering for things that are much higher on the need aldder, then by all mean do it all at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Yeah that's probably why big Telco companies have tons of happy customers and aren't some of the most hated corporations in the country You can hate a corporation for lots of reasons. The thing most people bitch about regarding ISPs is reliability of service, not the quality of the service itself (in other words, how often the internet goes out, not how fast the internet is).
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 02:53
|
|
|
computer parts posted:This is true but you could probably get better utility off of rebuilding other infrastructure instead. The thing is we're already doing it, so it'd be more of someone having to come up with reasons to stop doing it. down with slavery posted:Yeah that's probably why big Telco companies have tons of happy customers and aren't some of the most hated corporations in the country According to consumers EA is a worse company than the company that poisoned all of West Virginia or Blackwater, because they made a bad video game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
christ down with slavery i feel like the last 3 pages have been caused by you being unwilling to admit you were mistaken with regards to verizon getting a bailout. its not a big deal, there are still plenty of reasons to hate megacorporations because of capitalism regardless e: i mean come on, i get that its pretty lovely that the agents of the last collapse got off scot-free but saying that verizon shouldnt get short term credit loans is like advocating burning down the factories to spite the owners A big flaming stink fucked around with this message at 03:13 on Jun 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:christ down with slavery i feel like the last 3 pages have been caused by you being unwilling to admit you were mistaken with regards to verizon getting a bailout. Pretty sure that down with slavery would unironically argue for the latter also.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Then we should have let them suffer the consequences of their poor decision making, simple as that. You're mad about both corporate finance and broadband, yet refuse to learn how either works? Weird...
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 03:16
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:christ down with slavery i feel like the last 3 pages have been caused by you being unwilling to admit you were mistaken with regards to verizon getting a bailout. really I feel like the last three pages were caused by someone taking issue with me saying down with slavery posted:The entire failing of the economic model that led to these megacorps existing was socialized via TARP and other bailout programs. The people who own Comcast (the big shareholders) are the same people who are big shareholders for the other huge multinationals. When their "investment" models went tits up and the banks who fund these corps failed, who stepped up to bail them out? The US Government ie the citizens. And now we're still stuck with the same poo poo sandwich. Smoothed over that "bump" that was the financial collapse of 2008 and the fat cats at the top are back to raking in billions in profits while we continue to be provided with subpar service. I'm not trying to say Verizon is a parasite, the fact that they took advantage of some federal programs during the crises is indicitive of a greater issue in my eyes. I question the need of these complex financial instruments and I haven't seen a terribly compelling argument as to why they should exist or be necessary but I'm willing to back away from that if we can get back to the greater point which is that big telco needs to go. quote:e: i mean come on, i get that its pretty lovely that the agents of the last collapse got off scot-free but saying that verizon shouldnt get short term credit loans is like advocating burning down the factories to spite the owners I guess I just don't see what the big deal is with operating the business using the income you're making as opposed to betting on the availability/interest rates of complex financial instruments that are outside of your control. As a business owner, I don't understand why I keep three months of operating cash in a bank account but somehow when you get to be a huge multibillion dollar multinational that whole idea goes out the window and suddenly you want to fund yourself in some insane week to week basis, I just don't get it. It's honestly a better discussion for another thread, but it is a question I'd love to have answered. Also, let me just remind you that the owners of Verizon are the owners of the bank. There are no factories burning here. Slanderer posted:You're mad about both corporate finance and broadband, yet refuse to learn how either works? Weird... Refuse to learn? Please, quote one post where you even tried to educate. The point is we need to get the executives who we're paying tens of millions of dollars out of the picture. Keep on trolling though 
down with slavery fucked around with this message at 03:39 on Jun 4, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:I question the need of these complex financial instruments You haven't mentioned any complex financial instruments yet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 03:40
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:You haven't mentioned any complex financial instruments yet. Setting up your accounting in such a way that you are so reliant on short-term credit that the government needs to step in to provide it in the case that it becomes unavailable for a few days. Maybe it's not *that* complex but as a business owner who has talked to lawyers and accountants a lot about potential strategies for growth and operations, I have never ever heard of anything remotely approaching that kind of system. Sounds pretty complex to me. I'm sorry if I'm not using the 100% correct terminology. You know what I'm saying, quit being obtuse. Taking me to task for misusing the words "complex financial instruments" is called pedantic bullshit, save it for another thread (ha like you've got a limited supply). down with slavery fucked around with this message at 03:44 on Jun 4, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Setting up your accounting in such a way that you are so reliant on short-term credit that the government needs to step in to provide it in the case that it becomes unavailable for a few days. Maybe it's not *that* complex but as a business owner who has talked to lawyers and accountants a lot about potential strategies for growth and operations, I have never ever heard of anything remotely approaching that kind of system. Sounds pretty complex to me. This is literally business 101. Like, I learned about commercial paper in middle school business class in a public school. Nothing about it is complex or even novel, it's been practiced for centuries. You haven't used even 10% correct anything in pages, you don't get to go calling people obtuse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 03:45
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:This is literally business 101. Like, I learned about commercial paper in middle school business class in a public school. Nothing about it is complex or even novel, it's been practiced for centuries. I know what commercial paper is. I'm asking you why it's necessary (in case is wasn't blindingly obvious when I said it multiple times) or why you should set up your business to be completely reliant on it if you don't have to.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 03:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 20:38 |
|
|
down with slavery posted:Setting up your accounting in such a way that you are so reliant on short-term credit that the government needs to step in to provide it in the case that it becomes unavailable for a few days. Maybe it's not *that* complex but as a business owner who has talked to lawyers and accountants a lot about potential strategies for growth and operations, I have never ever heard of anything remotely approaching that kind of system. Sounds pretty complex to me. Cash flow is very different between industries. Insurance companies have plenty of float invested that they can use, while airlines are constantly in trouble due to having massive capital costs and not actually having a profitable business model despite a century of effort.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 03:47
|
|