|
Horseshoe theory posted:If everyone was a professional gun juggler like 
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2018 17:57
|
|
, it would probably be pretty cool.
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 08:45 |
|
|
Dylan16807 posted:The part where he's saying the mere possibility of concealed carry makes people tense and frightened, the way aggressive open-carrying can. Motronic posted:That's exactly the part of his post I was responding to. I didn't think it was all that confusing, and several of you seemed to figure it out just fine but..... I guess it makes me a sociopath because I'm not constantly in fear of the people around me because one of them might be concealing a weapon? I don't live in "constant fear"  of people being strapped, but maybe you're just lucky enough to live in an area with a low gun ownership rate.A block away from my mom's house, one dude shot and killed another guy because he took his parking space. Then he shot himself. This is a seniors-only living community that I thought was nice and peaceful. Do I live my life in fear? No of course not, but I'm not gonna lie, the thought creeps up in the back of my mind now and then. But since two goons say they never worry about it, I guess it can't really affect anything ever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2018 18:02
|
|
|
Malcolm XML posted:Companies do not have an obligation to maximize shareholder value. At the expense of the sustainability of the business as well, all too often. Which, you know, the C-levels have a fiduciary obligation to look out for, but they generally write themselves golden parachutes instead. WampaLord posted:I don't live in "constant fear" You are, in most of the country, vastly more likely statistically speaking to be shot by a cop than a private citizen carrying a concealed weapon. Hell, look at NYPD's rate of hitting bystanders alone. Do you have the same anxiety about seeing them armed? Liquid Communism fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Jun 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2018 18:35
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:
ACAB, so uh, kinda yeah.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2018 18:42
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:You are, in most of the country, vastly more likely statistically speaking to be shot by a cop than a private citizen carrying a concealed weapon. Hell, look at NYPD's rate of hitting bystanders alone. Do you have the same anxiety about seeing them armed? gently caress yes I do. Do you not feel anxious around cops?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2018 18:44
|
|
|
Yeah if you’re not nervous around the militarized police forces we have now you’re either super privileged and don’t realize it or you’re tremendously stupid OR BOTH.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2018 18:51
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:You are, in most of the country, vastly more likely statistically speaking to be shot by a cop than a private citizen carrying a concealed weapon. Hell, look at NYPD's rate of hitting bystanders alone. Do you have the same anxiety about seeing them armed? Well, yeah. I don't like being around cops period, least of all if they've got a pistol right there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2018 18:55
|
|
|
I can not see why random degenerate is allowed to wear gun hidden anyway. Surely it is, that they should have to show in full view to be aware of what kind of danger they are.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2018 19:01
|
|
|
HEY NONG MAN posted:Yeah if you’re not nervous around the militarized police forces we have now you’re either super privileged and don’t realize it or you’re tremendously stupid OR BOTH. I'm super privileged and I DO realize it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2018 19:12
|
|
|
Just with my local pd, there's at least one officer who openly smokes crack. We've seen it time and time again in this country, cops can kill practically anybody and get away with it. Doesn't matter if you're black or white, rich or poor, if a cop decides he can shoot you dead and come up with a reason afterwards. If there's one of them standing behind me when I'm in line at the gas station, why shouldn't I be nervous?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2018 19:26
|
|
|
Mozi posted:Yes as we all know the Wild West was a very polite place where people would show each other their guns and then tip their caps to each other and shake hands. Reality and fact do not compare to what their hearts and best intentions tell them is true.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2018 19:39
|
|
|
Crossposting from the CSPAM chud thread:BrutalistMcDonalds posted:A bizarre scene in Portland. When chudding goes wrong? Vincent Van Goatse posted:It's like a brain-damaged version of that old Johnny Cash song: Carrying a gun does not give you the ability to deescalate bad situations, and actually makes it harder for the folks who are (supposed to be) trained to do so. Might does not make right, and you wouldn't want to live in a society where it does, you soft apes of modernity. Now knock it off, please.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2018 20:17
|
|
|
StealthArcher posted:The US has bullshit about maximising rich fucknugget's value going all the way back to 1919 Note that the same case gives wide latitude to "business judgement" And future cases basically overruled it. There is no law, case or otherwise, that compels management to benefit shareholders at all costs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2018 20:29
|
|
|
Malcolm XML posted:Note that the same case gives wide latitude to "business judgement" It lives on in the place where it matters most, though - popular notions of how the does and should work. Go to any suburban shopping center on a Saturday afternoon and poll the crowd as to whether corporations have an obligation to maximize shareholder value and whether people agree it's fair or morally right, I guarantee you most of them will agree it's just the way it is and should be.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2018 21:12
|
|
|
Mozi posted:Yes as we all know the Wild West was a very polite place where people would show each other their guns and then tip their caps to each other and shake hands. The version of the west you see in the movies just isn't the wild west of reality. Most people in the west didn't carry a gun. Very, very few carried two of them. Shootouts weren't common at all. Mostly people were subsistence farmers or involved with the cattle trade somehow.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2018 21:22
|
|
|
The arguement a very long time ago was "widows and orphans", one actually sees that line mentioned in Melville. Whole towns would get together to fund ship voyages for whaling. The payouts to shareholders were in a literal sense in these cases sometimes to the widows and orphans of crew who died in the voyage and had a share. Now the "widows and orphans" that justified shareholder primacy are just rich assholes. Edit: and one needs to understand this to get how lovely Ahab is being. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 21:59 on Jun 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2018 21:56
|
|
|
twodot posted:This is confused, spending 2 dollars to have 5 dollars a year and spending 4 dollars to have 5 dollars a year are both things that have present day value. There's nothing irrational about selling off your spend 4 dollars to have 5 dollars business for whatever you think its present day value is to have money to spend on your spend 2 dollars to have 5 dollars a year business. It's just a question of how much you value 1 dollar a year forever in present day dollars. No, it is very irrational to give up on a profit because it makes your metric go up and little else. Oh, and also the thousands of employees suffer. I mean, maybe I'm weird, but I think that rationality has to have an eye for human suffering. I could be wrong though, let's keep loving the workers over and see what the future is like, eh?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2018 22:23
|
|
|
Killer-of-Lawyers posted:No, it is very irrational to give up on a profit because it makes your metric go up and little else. Oh, and also the thousands of employees suffer. twodot fucked around with this message at 23:01 on Jun 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2018 22:55
|
|
|
You're an idiot. Lemme tell you what happened when we got sold. The company we were sold to signed a contract to keep the workers on. They decided that they could get around that by dividing the stores up and selling them individually. In the end the final buyers cut everyone's wages, removed benefits, and essentially made things lovely for a lot of people. One of the first things any business does when acquiring an asset is go through and clean house. Don't be a naive idiot. You might as well say that letting a profitable business buy another one shouldn't gently caress anyone over, as if we don't have laws in place because it's always used to gently caress people over. All of this is fucktard investors valuing a metric that a bunch of investment bankers tell them is important. It's no different than the whole 'labor is your most controllable cost' leading to companies getting cut to the bone after a decade of constantly laying people off to satisfy investors. It's self destructive behavior. It's short sighted, and as long as the market place isn't regulated to stop it we will deal with a lot of unemployed and underemployed people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2018 23:17
|
|
|
You can see it time and time again. It's why we used to have laws against people not materially in the business investing in futures contracts, to prevent the 'number must always go up' mind set from destroying our economy. That's gonna be fun to watch explode.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2018 23:52
|
|
|
I'm not going to reignite a previous derail, but one cannot reasonably expect a ghost of ethical behaviour from people whose only goal is MAKE MONEY NOW!!!. I agree completely that the zealous pursuit of short-term profit already has led to horrible results and it will keep getting worse. When everyone is out for themselves and the goal is MMN!!! with no concern for marginal utility, decency or sustainability, the wealth pie is still going to be sliced regardless and the weakest stakeholder are always going to be left hungry... and that's inevitably the workers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2018 01:34
|
|
|
It's endemic at this point. The quick turnaround is better(In terms of making money for whoever is pushing it). Even internally, you get all sorts of dumb and short sighted projects and changes because you have to do something when you make it into a new position, and you only need to show some good metrics till you're promoted again. After that it's someone else's problem. It's too easy to plunder and move on, leaving everyone else with the smoking crater than it is to really work on something long term.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2018 02:30
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:I'm not going to reignite a previous derail, but one cannot reasonably expect a ghost of ethical behaviour from people whose only goal is MAKE MONEY NOW!!!. I agree completely that the zealous pursuit of short-term profit already has led to horrible results and it will keep getting worse. When everyone is out for themselves and the goal is MMN!!! with no concern for marginal utility, decency or sustainability, the wealth pie is still going to be sliced regardless and the weakest stakeholder are always going to be left hungry... and that's inevitably the workers. Which is when, historically, the workers would strike until the management realized that they have no profit without someone to do the work. Too bad that's outright illegal in many places these days.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2018 21:17
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Which is when, historically, the workers would strike until the management realized that they have no profit without someone to do the work. Just a further example of the goal of disempowering the powerless in favour of the powerful. The one thing corporations fear is any collective action from the people that they exploit, and they have done a great job of dividing people and dissipating any threat to their hegemony. I wish so badly that I could say that this is the beginning of human society evolving into something better, but I have no faith whatsoever in humankind's ability to collaborate and not be horrible to each other.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2018 21:55
|
|
|
Killer-of-Lawyers posted:You're an idiot. edit: In case you've forgotten you said this: Killer-of-Lawyers posted:Like if you could have 5 dollars for spending 2, and also get another 5 for spending 4, you'd want both, right? twodot fucked around with this message at 22:26 on Jul 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2018 22:21
|
|
|
Fine, there are some instances where it would be desirable to sell off a profitable business for cash in the here and now, but because it makes your stupid metrics look bad shouldn't be one of them. Furthermore, as long as sales are just a way to plunder companies, break out of labor contracts, and generally make things lovely for everyone, they should probably be heavily regulated/disallowed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2018 22:55
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:... I wish so badly that I could say that this is the beginning of human society evolving into something better, but I have no faith whatsoever in humankind's ability to collaborate and not be horrible to each other. Let's take that as a given.... So, the interesting question is what should everyone do? I think the right answer is to try to reduce long-term risks where reasonably possible e.g., discouraging pensions, social security, 'seniority-based' compensation systems, etc. in favor of cash payouts. Or, at very least, make sure everyone understands how risky those schemes really are. Companies and politicians will still try to be horrible, but they can't cause as much damage when they succeed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 19:29
|
|
|
Was not the fad 5 decades ago, for quite of while, to merge up company with no connections? Cereal company buy auto part company, add hat company, by 1981 has video game company and tape company too etc for conglomerate. Idea of it was who cares if any part work well together, each company is making some profit so you get all the profit of companies and maybe someday save extra money between. Almost seem like today's "sell off the 1$ profit of each 3$ spent division, we only want 1$ profit of each $2 spent division" fad is just of echo fad in response to that. I think I read article about how business schools start to do this contrary teaching to accepted comglomerates start in 1980 as some wall street man started making big buck splitting at same time other companies big on merge and keep. But both were ideology based on this will give me the big money profit quick, even if random conglomerate help to keep more jobs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 23:53
|
|
|
nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:Was not the fad 5 decades ago, for quite of while, to merge up company with no connections? Cereal company buy auto part company, add hat company, by 1981 has video game company and tape company too etc for conglomerate. Idea of it was who cares if any part work well together, each company is making some profit so you get all the profit of companies and maybe someday save extra money between. Almost seem like today's "sell off the 1$ profit of each 3$ spent division, we only want 1$ profit of each $2 spent division" fad is just of echo fad in response to that. what
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 03:32
|
|
|
nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:Was not the fad 5 decades ago, for quite of while, to merge up company with no connections? Cereal company buy auto part company, add hat company, by 1981 has video game company and tape company too etc for conglomerate. Idea of it was who cares if any part work well together, each company is making some profit so you get all the profit of companies and maybe someday save extra money between. Almost seem like today's "sell off the 1$ profit of each 3$ spent division, we only want 1$ profit of each $2 spent division" fad is just of echo fad in response to that. like, gizmondo?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 08:39
|
|
|
nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:Was not the fad 5 decades ago, for quite of while, to merge up company with no connections? Cereal company buy auto part company, add hat company, by 1981 has video game company and tape company too etc for conglomerate. Idea of it was who cares if any part work well together, each company is making some profit so you get all the profit of companies and maybe someday save extra money between. Almost seem like today's "sell off the 1$ profit of each 3$ spent division, we only want 1$ profit of each $2 spent division" fad is just of echo fad in response to that.  ." My reaction was that this seemed to just be a fad too, the people who promoted the idea back then were probably also obnoxiously smug about it and that making "putting all your eggs in one basket" into a business strategy seemed a bit unsafe if that particular market went bad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 09:39
|
|
|
nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:Was not the fad 5 decades ago, for quite of while, to merge up company with no connections? Cereal company buy auto part company, add hat company, by 1981 has video game company and tape company too etc for conglomerate. Idea of it was who cares if any part work well together, each company is making some profit so you get all the profit of companies and maybe someday save extra money between. Almost seem like today's "sell off the 1$ profit of each 3$ spent division, we only want 1$ profit of each $2 spent division" fad is just of echo fad in response to that. This sounds like what General Mills or Quaker Oats did back in the 70s and 80s. I believe one of them (or maybe both) had a video game division and some other non-food holdings back them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 10:38
|
|
|
Balliver Shagnasty posted:This sounds like what General Mills or Quaker Oats did back in the 70s and 80s. I believe one of them (or maybe both) had a video game division and some other non-food holdings back them. Quaker owned Fisher Price and some small video game company. GM owned Play Doh, Parker Brothers, and had a holding company for chain restaurants (Olive Garden and Red Lobster being the more notable brands).
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 13:03
|
|
|
Coach...of handbags fame...was owned by Sara Lee for a time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 13:07
|
|
|
A lot of Japanese companies own all kinds of random stuff. Konami apparently does insurance among other things, hence why they felt comfortable enough to basically burn their video game cash cow to the ground and go all on on pachinko right before the Japanese government legalised regular gambling, iirc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 13:08
|
|
|
Balliver Shagnasty posted:This sounds like what General Mills or Quaker Oats did back in the 70s and 80s. I believe one of them (or maybe both) had a video game division and some other non-food holdings back them. This definitely explains the CD ROM games that used to come with boxes of Cheerios.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 15:10
|
|
|
nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:Was not the fad 5 decades ago, for quite of while, to merge up company with no connections? Cereal company buy auto part company, add hat company, by 1981 has video game company and tape company too etc for conglomerate. Idea of it was who cares if any part work well together, each company is making some profit so you get all the profit of companies and maybe someday save extra money between. Almost seem like today's "sell off the 1$ profit of each 3$ spent division, we only want 1$ profit of each $2 spent division" fad is just of echo fad in response to that. It was and its pretty common, the logic being that diversification helps stabilize profit flow + the companies can share risks. It fell out of favor because the conglomerates tended not to be nimble and most mergers fail horribly. And b/c the companies can be hard for investors to understand and monitor. gaj70 fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Jul 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 21:06
|
|
|
Kinda like how a lot of people know Yamaha for their motorcycles, but they also make a large array of musical instruments both acoustic and electric. Or how General Electric makes home appliances and diesel locomotives.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 23:05
|
|
|
The Maroon Hawk posted:Or how General Electric makes home appliances and diesel locomotives. And airplane engines.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2018 00:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 08:45 |
|
|
And machine guns.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2018 00:49
|
|