|
This thread went nowhere and the other two guys weren't as entertaining as jrodefeld, but what always gets me is the fallacy that long-term repeat business is going to be preferable to short-term cash grabs, when the last several decades have shown that shareholders only give a poo poo about the next quarter's profits. And really, why shouldn't they? If I can gut a company and sell it off to make huge amounts of money versus not doing that and hoping to eventually turn a profit over a number of years, why wouldn't I? Rationally I should only be interested in what helps myself accrue power more quickly, and the more money I have immediately the more likely I stay on top, especially in Libertopia. It's also weird that so much of it goes back to assuming that a company's thought process is "we need to keep customers happy" and not "we need to make sure our customers have no other choice." Wolfsheim fucked around with this message at 02:37 on Aug 17, 2014 |
#
¿
Aug 17, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 09:35 |
|
|
Berk Berkly posted:There IS a compelling argument to be made for having a glut of money RIGHT NOW is better in the long term than slightly more money at a significantly later time due to opportunity costs which should be all the more reason to more closely regulate owner/invest/etc's ability to just loving ravage all the value out of a business and leave nothing but a dry husk and dust for the people left behind. Reminder that the last Republican presidential candidate literally made his fortune working for a company that does this and one of the only good things people had to say about him was that he was 'a good businessman.'
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2014 02:47
|
|