Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Heart of Capitalism

s-anthony
Posts: 3,462
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2018 3:34:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Without the regulatory aspect of socialism, capitalism would pit business owners not only against each other but also against consumers. The objective of capitalism is to make a profit; increasing one's profit margin becomes the end in and of itself. Consequently, morality is sacrificed for the needs of the market.

However, the business owner faces a dilemma. Does he value quality at a great expense to himself, reducing his profit margin or does he sacrifice quality for affordability?

If he puts quality above affordability, he will have to demand a high price for his product diminishing its marketability. If he puts affordability above quality, the aesthetic and utilitarian values of the product will suffer. In the former situation, most consumers will be excluded from the market; in the latter situation, even though most consumers find the product affordable, they may opt to spend a little more money on a competitor's higher priced product which is relatively higher in quality than the more affordable product.

Therefore, not unlike most politicians, many business owners resolve the issue by not being transparent about the problem. In politics, the standard dilemma is honesty versus popularity. The successful politician gives the impression of both; even though being honest with all political factions may please some, it will not please all of them; consequently, to win the approval of the majority, the politician must not be completely transparent about his intentions. Likewise, in order to be successful, in business, the business owner must meet two requirements, quality and affordability. However, the higher something is in quality, the less affordable it is. Yet, the successful business owner must deliver both to succeed in business. Just as honesty counters popularity, quality counters affordability. The successful politician compromises his ideals; if he is too honest, he will not be very popular; and, if he is too agreeable, he will not be very effective. Likewise in business, the business owner must balance quality with affordability. If his product is too high in quality, his market is too exclusive; and, if his product is too low in quality, it will not be appealing. Therefore, the shrewd business man moderates one with the other.... This is the ideal.

However, we do not live in an ideal world. For the most part, we have politicians who disproportionately favor popularity over honesty; and, we have business owners who would rather lie about the quality of their products than do the difficult task of balancing quality with affordability. Marketing has become more about hype than anything.

Once consumers realize the product does not live up to its image, they will be in the market for a comparable product which is higher in quality, but still affordable. If the profitability of the industry which sells the inferior product by using hype is not subsidized or it does not by rent-seeking monopolize the market, the business will fail.

Monopolizing the market is made possible either by taxpayers subsidizing profitability or excluding competition by creating unfair restrictions. By taxpayers subsidizing profitability, favored industry has an advantage over competition in two primary ways, first of all, society insures against loss, secondly, it allows industry to sell a more affordable product; and, by implementing regulations which make the market too restrictive discouraging competition, consumers are forced to buy inferior products at unreasonable prices. Taxpayers pay for inferior goods and services by subsidizing industry, and, then, they are forced to pay artificially inflated prices for those same goods and services due to restrictive markets.

With socialism, society owns the means of production; with American capitalism, society is responsible for the costs of production, but does not own it. Large multinational corporations have ownership without responsibility while American taxpayers shoulder the responsibility without the benefits of ownership.
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,636
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2018 4:35:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Your description of capitalism is pretty accurate

Capitalism- an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit rather than by the state.

however I must disagree with how you defined Socialism. Per Karl Marx, the original presenter of this economic and political theory what you defined as Socialism, "society owns the means of production", is actually Communism.

Socialism is when the means of production is owned by the state.

Before I start posing questions as to potential points of conflict, i think it's imperative we establish common ground with defining some terms and agree to them, no?
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
Greyparrot
Posts: 21,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2018 6:05:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2018 4:35:23 AM, Buddamoose wrote:
Your description of capitalism is pretty accurate

Lol no it wasn't. As soon as he said Capitalism pits producers against consumers, you should have just stopped reading.
The extinction of the species is worse than the extinction of the nation, which is worse than the extinction of the tribe, which is worse than the extinction of the family, which is worse than the extinction of the individual. The second he reverses that list of priorities, he becomes a coward, and would be summarily disposed of by any civilized society that values its own survival.
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,636
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2018 6:14:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2018 6:05:42 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/1/2018 4:35:23 AM, Buddamoose wrote:
Your description of capitalism is pretty accurate

Lol no it wasn't. As soon as he said Capitalism pits producers against consumers, you should have just stopped reading.

I was going to get to that man lol, let me have some fun
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,636
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2018 6:15:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Besides, im not gonna start out listing all the places I disagree, gotta set terms and establish the common ground xD
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
Greyparrot
Posts: 21,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2018 6:18:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2018 6:15:35 AM, Buddamoose wrote:
Besides, im not gonna start out listing all the places I disagree, gotta set terms and establish the common ground xD

fine :p
The extinction of the species is worse than the extinction of the nation, which is worse than the extinction of the tribe, which is worse than the extinction of the family, which is worse than the extinction of the individual. The second he reverses that list of priorities, he becomes a coward, and would be summarily disposed of by any civilized society that values its own survival.
Greyparrot
Posts: 21,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2018 6:22:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2018 6:15:35 AM, Buddamoose wrote:
Besides, im not gonna start out listing all the places I disagree, gotta set terms and establish the common ground xD

How about this one...if the phone was designed, built and distributed by the government, it would look something like this...

https://i.pinimg.com...
The extinction of the species is worse than the extinction of the nation, which is worse than the extinction of the tribe, which is worse than the extinction of the family, which is worse than the extinction of the individual. The second he reverses that list of priorities, he becomes a coward, and would be summarily disposed of by any civilized society that values its own survival.
Greyparrot
Posts: 21,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2018 7:34:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Let's also be very clear about one thing as well. When they say with socialism that production is owned by the workers, what they mean is that it's actually managed by the government representing the workers, because if a worker had the skills to competently manage the production, they wouldn't be a simple worker in the first place.
The extinction of the species is worse than the extinction of the nation, which is worse than the extinction of the tribe, which is worse than the extinction of the family, which is worse than the extinction of the individual. The second he reverses that list of priorities, he becomes a coward, and would be summarily disposed of by any civilized society that values its own survival.
Greyparrot
Posts: 21,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2018 7:37:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
And also to be clear about another thing, a government that bails out and subsidizes select industries is a socialist economy managed by the government, not a capitalist economy.
The extinction of the species is worse than the extinction of the nation, which is worse than the extinction of the tribe, which is worse than the extinction of the family, which is worse than the extinction of the individual. The second he reverses that list of priorities, he becomes a coward, and would be summarily disposed of by any civilized society that values its own survival.
s-anthony
Posts: 3,462
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2018 2:50:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2018 4:35:23 AM, Buddamoose wrote:
Your description of capitalism is pretty accurate

Capitalism- an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit rather than by the state.

however I must disagree with how you defined Socialism. Per Karl Marx, the original presenter of this economic and political theory what you defined as Socialism, "society owns the means of production", is actually Communism.


Socialism is when the means of production is owned by the state.

Who owns the State?


Before I start posing questions as to potential points of conflict, i think it's imperative we establish common ground with defining some terms and agree to them, no?
s-anthony
Posts: 3,462
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2018 2:59:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2018 7:37:32 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
And also to be clear about another thing, a government that bails out and subsidizes select industries is a socialist economy managed by the government, not a capitalist economy.

Give me one instance in which our Government took ownership of any corporation which it bailed out or subsidizes.
Greyparrot
Posts: 21,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2018 3:13:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2018 2:59:02 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/1/2018 7:37:32 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
And also to be clear about another thing, a government that bails out and subsidizes select industries is a socialist economy managed by the government, not a capitalist economy.

Give me one instance in which our Government took ownership of any corporation which it bailed out or subsidizes.

Ownership is irrelevant. the power is in the control, and the people that put up the money call the shots. You don't really own your car when you get a bank loan and buy it. Ownership is just a name on a piece of paper, but the bank really owns your car and calls the shots. Slave to a bank, slave to the government...it makes no practical difference. Government picks the winners and the losers when they subsidize their favorite industries. The consumers are the ones that actually get screwed when they don't get to purchase what they really wanted. Just some garbage doppelganger from the government.
The extinction of the species is worse than the extinction of the nation, which is worse than the extinction of the tribe, which is worse than the extinction of the family, which is worse than the extinction of the individual. The second he reverses that list of priorities, he becomes a coward, and would be summarily disposed of by any civilized society that values its own survival.
s-anthony
Posts: 3,462
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2018 3:32:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2018 3:13:04 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/2/2018 2:59:02 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/1/2018 7:37:32 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
And also to be clear about another thing, a government that bails out and subsidizes select industries is a socialist economy managed by the government, not a capitalist economy.

Give me one instance in which our Government took ownership of any corporation which it bailed out or subsidizes.

Ownership is irrelevant. the power is in the control, and the people that put up the money call the shots. You don't really own your car when you get a bank loan and buy it. Ownership is just a name on a piece of paper, but the bank really owns your car and calls the shots.

If ownership is irrelevant, then, why does the bank call all the shots?

Slave to a bank, slave to the government...it makes no practical difference. Government picks the winners and the losers when they subsidize their favorite industries.

If Government picks the winners and losers, then, why are so many politicians indebted to big donors? Why would anybody donate large sums of money to a candidate who doesn't make promises?

The consumers are the ones that actually get screwed when they don't get to purchase what they really wanted. Just some garbage doppelganger from the government.
Greyparrot
Posts: 21,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2018 3:50:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2018 3:32:29 AM, s-anthony wrote:

If Government picks the winners and losers, then, why are so many politicians indebted to big donors? Why would anybody donate large sums of money to a candidate who doesn't make promises?

Because it's a simple and efficient way to launder the taxpayer's money into their own politician pockets.
The extinction of the species is worse than the extinction of the nation, which is worse than the extinction of the tribe, which is worse than the extinction of the family, which is worse than the extinction of the individual. The second he reverses that list of priorities, he becomes a coward, and would be summarily disposed of by any civilized society that values its own survival.
s-anthony
Posts: 3,462
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2018 3:59:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2018 3:50:14 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/2/2018 3:32:29 AM, s-anthony wrote:

If Government picks the winners and losers, then, why are so many politicians indebted to big donors? Why would anybody donate large sums of money to a candidate who doesn't make promises?

Because it's a simple and efficient way to launder the taxpayer's money into their own politician pockets.

Do you honestly believe big donors are spending more to elect favored political candidates than they are reaping in tax breaks and subsidies?
Greyparrot
Posts: 21,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2018 4:06:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2018 3:59:51 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/2/2018 3:50:14 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/2/2018 3:32:29 AM, s-anthony wrote:

If Government picks the winners and losers, then, why are so many politicians indebted to big donors? Why would anybody donate large sums of money to a candidate who doesn't make promises?

Because it's a simple and efficient way to launder the taxpayer's money into their own politician pockets.

Do you honestly believe big donors are spending more to elect favored political candidates than they are reaping in tax breaks and subsidies?

They really don't have a choice. It's either cooperate with the crooked politicians and help launder the money stolen from the taxpayers, or the politician uses the force of the army to destroy their business. It's a great protection racket, being a politician in the government.
The extinction of the species is worse than the extinction of the nation, which is worse than the extinction of the tribe, which is worse than the extinction of the family, which is worse than the extinction of the individual. The second he reverses that list of priorities, he becomes a coward, and would be summarily disposed of by any civilized society that values its own survival.
Greyparrot
Posts: 21,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2018 4:09:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2018 3:59:51 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/2/2018 3:50:14 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/2/2018 3:32:29 AM, s-anthony wrote:

If Government picks the winners and losers, then, why are so many politicians indebted to big donors? Why would anybody donate large sums of money to a candidate who doesn't make promises?

Because it's a simple and efficient way to launder the taxpayer's money into their own politician pockets.

Do you honestly believe big donors are spending more to elect favored political candidates than they are reaping in tax breaks and subsidies?

It's really funny too...Microsoft had zero lobbyists until the government sent their jackbooted thugs to break their legs in 1998. Now Microsoft makes annual payments to the politicians as protection money to protect themselves from the government.
The extinction of the species is worse than the extinction of the nation, which is worse than the extinction of the tribe, which is worse than the extinction of the family, which is worse than the extinction of the individual. The second he reverses that list of priorities, he becomes a coward, and would be summarily disposed of by any civilized society that values its own survival.
Leaning
Posts: 2,783
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2018 4:48:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Eh, business owners and consumers may be against one another. But that's not so bad. Business owner and consumer would both be less without each other. No nice products and no money for making the nice products if the other wasn't around.

I'm not sure responsible and intelligent people need government meddling and telling them what to do. If they're worth their place in life they can solve it themselves. Business owner makes a cra* overpriced product, consumers boycott and at worst burn his store down.

And it works out well enough since if they are in competition with each other. Works out like the pirate dilemma and fair wages to all. And if the business owner gets too powerful and uppity like some boots too big noble, the people revolt. Blood of the tyrants and all that.

There's already too much legality in countries for my liking. I couldn't tell you even a tenth of the laws in my state I would imagine.
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,636
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2018 5:23:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2018 2:50:30 AM, s-anthony wrote:

Who owns the State?

This is probably gonna lead right into, "in democratic governments the people are the state" isnt it?

I'll consider government and the people one and the same as soon as government stops becoming tyrannical :)
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
s-anthony
Posts: 3,462
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2018 3:35:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2018 4:06:36 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/2/2018 3:59:51 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/2/2018 3:50:14 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/2/2018 3:32:29 AM, s-anthony wrote:

If Government picks the winners and losers, then, why are so many politicians indebted to big donors? Why would anybody donate large sums of money to a candidate who doesn't make promises?

Because it's a simple and efficient way to launder the taxpayer's money into their own politician pockets.

Do you honestly believe big donors are spending more to elect favored political candidates than they are reaping in tax breaks and subsidies?

They really don't have a choice. It's either cooperate with the crooked politicians and help launder the money stolen from the taxpayers, or the politician uses the force of the army to destroy their business. It's a great protection racket, being a politician in the government.

OK. I get it. Either they support political candidacies and receive millions, if not billions, of dollars in tax breaks and corporate welfare or they don't and lose their businesses; that's a real moral dilemma.
Greyparrot
Posts: 21,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2018 4:34:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2018 3:35:51 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/2/2018 4:06:36 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/2/2018 3:59:51 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/2/2018 3:50:14 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/2/2018 3:32:29 AM, s-anthony wrote:

If Government picks the winners and losers, then, why are so many politicians indebted to big donors? Why would anybody donate large sums of money to a candidate who doesn't make promises?

Because it's a simple and efficient way to launder the taxpayer's money into their own politician pockets.

Do you honestly believe big donors are spending more to elect favored political candidates than they are reaping in tax breaks and subsidies?

They really don't have a choice. It's either cooperate with the crooked politicians and help launder the money stolen from the taxpayers, or the politician uses the force of the army to destroy their business. It's a great protection racket, being a politician in the government.

OK. I get it. Either they support political candidacies and receive millions, if not billions, of dollars in tax breaks and corporate welfare or they don't and lose their businesses; that's a real moral dilemma.

It is, because all those so called "breaks" are expected to go back to the politicians that started the mess in the first place. Scam city. That's why you can't trust a person that hods a gun to your back like the government does.
The extinction of the species is worse than the extinction of the nation, which is worse than the extinction of the tribe, which is worse than the extinction of the family, which is worse than the extinction of the individual. The second he reverses that list of priorities, he becomes a coward, and would be summarily disposed of by any civilized society that values its own survival.
Greyparrot
Posts: 21,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2018 4:40:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2018 3:35:51 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/2/2018 4:06:36 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/2/2018 3:59:51 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/2/2018 3:50:14 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/2/2018 3:32:29 AM, s-anthony wrote:

If Government picks the winners and losers, then, why are so many politicians indebted to big donors? Why would anybody donate large sums of money to a candidate who doesn't make promises?

Because it's a simple and efficient way to launder the taxpayer's money into their own politician pockets.

Do you honestly believe big donors are spending more to elect favored political candidates than they are reaping in tax breaks and subsidies?

They really don't have a choice. It's either cooperate with the crooked politicians and help launder the money stolen from the taxpayers, or the politician uses the force of the army to destroy their business. It's a great protection racket, being a politician in the government.

OK. I get it. Either they support political candidacies and receive millions, if not billions, of dollars in tax breaks and corporate welfare or they don't and lose their businesses; that's a real moral dilemma.

That's literally how the money laundering works. Politicians can get in trouble if they are caught stealing taxpayer money directly, but if they use corporate lobbies as fronts, then they can funnel as many tax dollars through the lobbyists as they want to, and never face any jail time for it. Even Bernie Sanders, one of the poorest persons in Congress has funneled millions of tax payer funds through lobbies over his career. It's a protection scam the people don't care about because most people do not pay taxes so they really don't care that the politicians are stealing using business lobbies as fronts.
The extinction of the species is worse than the extinction of the nation, which is worse than the extinction of the tribe, which is worse than the extinction of the family, which is worse than the extinction of the individual. The second he reverses that list of priorities, he becomes a coward, and would be summarily disposed of by any civilized society that values its own survival.
s-anthony
Posts: 3,462
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2018 10:57:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2018 5:23:17 AM, Buddamoose wrote:
At 8/2/2018 2:50:30 AM, s-anthony wrote:

Who owns the State?

This is probably gonna lead right into, "in democratic governments the people are the state" isnt it?

I'll consider government and the people one and the same as soon as government stops becoming tyrannical :)

Whether you're talking about an absolute monarchy or anarchy, without people, there is no government. A tyrant cannot rule without the consent of his people.
s-anthony
Posts: 3,462
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2018 11:29:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2018 4:34:44 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/3/2018 3:35:51 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/2/2018 4:06:36 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/2/2018 3:59:51 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/2/2018 3:50:14 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/2/2018 3:32:29 AM, s-anthony wrote:

If Government picks the winners and losers, then, why are so many politicians indebted to big donors? Why would anybody donate large sums of money to a candidate who doesn't make promises?

Because it's a simple and efficient way to launder the taxpayer's money into their own politician pockets.

Do you honestly believe big donors are spending more to elect favored political candidates than they are reaping in tax breaks and subsidies?

They really don't have a choice. It's either cooperate with the crooked politicians and help launder the money stolen from the taxpayers, or the politician uses the force of the army to destroy their business. It's a great protection racket, being a politician in the government.

OK. I get it. Either they support political candidacies and receive millions, if not billions, of dollars in tax breaks and corporate welfare or they don't and lose their businesses; that's a real moral dilemma.

It is, because all those so called "breaks" are expected to go back to the politicians that started the mess in the first place. Scam city. That's why you can't trust a person that hods a gun to your back like the government does.

If all the corruption in Washington were, simply, a money-laundering scheme for politicians, then, how are the multinational multi-billion dollar corporations making a profit?

If all the billions and trillions of dollars were simply being diverted back into the hands of crooked politicians, why are these corporations even supporting them? If politicians needed corporations to fund their election campaigns and, consequently, once in power, they bullied their corporate donors into making them phenomenally rich, why would they make it possible for them to be in power in the first place? Wouldn't that be like arming an unarmed bandit so he could rob you?
Smithereens
Posts: 8,358
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2018 11:41:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2018 3:34:32 AM, s-anthony wrote:
However, the business owner faces a dilemma. Does he value quality at a great expense to himself, reducing his profit margin or does he sacrifice quality for affordability?

Unfortunately for your overly simplistic reduction, it's not that black and white in reality. Increasing quality at an additional cost to the manufacturer does not reduce profit margins. For example, Rolex watches, Mercedes Benz, Steinway pianos, Jewelry, wines etc all produce incredible profits based on the quality that is being sold.

You've based your argument on a false dichotomy.
"Your signature should not have the name of other players in the game, nor should it have the words VTL, Vote, or Unvote."
~Yraelz, 2017

Debate challenge 'Solipsism is false:' http://www.debate.org...
If God were real... http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 21,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2018 3:53:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2018 11:29:24 AM, s-anthony wrote:

If all the corruption in Washington were, simply, a money-laundering scheme for politicians, then, how are the multinational multi-billion dollar corporations making a profit?

Great question dude. How in the hell did Microsoft make all that money before 1998 when they gave zero dollars to the crooked politicians?
The extinction of the species is worse than the extinction of the nation, which is worse than the extinction of the tribe, which is worse than the extinction of the family, which is worse than the extinction of the individual. The second he reverses that list of priorities, he becomes a coward, and would be summarily disposed of by any civilized society that values its own survival.
s-anthony
Posts: 3,462
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2018 6:38:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2018 11:41:37 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 8/1/2018 3:34:32 AM, s-anthony wrote:
However, the business owner faces a dilemma. Does he value quality at a great expense to himself, reducing his profit margin or does he sacrifice quality for affordability?

Unfortunately for your overly simplistic reduction, it's not that black and white in reality. Increasing quality at an additional cost to the manufacturer does not reduce profit margins. For example, Rolex watches, Mercedes Benz, Steinway pianos, Jewelry, wines etc all produce incredible profits based on the quality that is being sold.

You've based your argument on a false dichotomy.

What is the ratio of Rolex watches sold to Timex watches? What is the ratio of Mercedes Benzes sold to Toyotas? What is the ratio of Steinways sold to Yamahas? Do you honestly think higher prices make up for phenomenally smaller markets?
s-anthony
Posts: 3,462
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2018 6:43:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2018 3:53:10 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/3/2018 11:29:24 AM, s-anthony wrote:

If all the corruption in Washington were, simply, a money-laundering scheme for politicians, then, how are the multinational multi-billion dollar corporations making a profit?

Great question dude. How in the hell did Microsoft make all that money before 1998 when they gave zero dollars to the crooked politicians?

What was Microsoft's net worth in 1998 compared to Microsoft's net worth now?
Greyparrot
Posts: 21,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2018 7:09:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2018 6:43:18 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/3/2018 3:53:10 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/3/2018 11:29:24 AM, s-anthony wrote:

If all the corruption in Washington were, simply, a money-laundering scheme for politicians, then, how are the multinational multi-billion dollar corporations making a profit?

Great question dude. How in the hell did Microsoft make all that money before 1998 when they gave zero dollars to the crooked politicians?

What was Microsoft's net worth in 1998 compared to Microsoft's net worth now?

Why does that even matter? answer the question.
The extinction of the species is worse than the extinction of the nation, which is worse than the extinction of the tribe, which is worse than the extinction of the family, which is worse than the extinction of the individual. The second he reverses that list of priorities, he becomes a coward, and would be summarily disposed of by any civilized society that values its own survival.
s-anthony
Posts: 3,462
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2018 7:35:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2018 7:09:10 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/4/2018 6:43:18 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/3/2018 3:53:10 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/3/2018 11:29:24 AM, s-anthony wrote:

If all the corruption in Washington were, simply, a money-laundering scheme for politicians, then, how are the multinational multi-billion dollar corporations making a profit?

Great question dude. How in the hell did Microsoft make all that money before 1998 when they gave zero dollars to the crooked politicians?

What was Microsoft's net worth in 1998 compared to Microsoft's net worth now?

Why does that even matter? answer the question.

I guess it made money the same way any other business does; it had a profitable product.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.