Individual freedom is what I want, I want people to be able to succeed because of their ability to invest and work, I want them to succeed to their maximum potential, I want them to become as wealthy doing it as they humanly can.
I want the people who do not engage in business themselves to be able to access the majority of goods and services at lowest prices that a free economy can provide.
That's all I am talking about, nothing else. I don't want anything at all from a collective that uses violence against an individual to force him into something he is not interested in doing, I want everything from a collective that promotes individual freedom.
- the only legitimate 'general interest' is the interest that arises spontaneously and voluntarily in the market. You are bringing up concept of 'collective good', which is exactly the concept used by all dictatorial powers, regardless what precise ideology they subscribe to, they are collectivist in the message, they are anti-individualist, anti-humanist, anti-capitalist, anti-free market (which means they are against sound economics and rule of law).
Your goals cannot be noble if your means are not noble, that's an important point. If you have goals that you cannot achieve without using power of the collective, so this means violence as the means, then your goals are wrong, immoral and are not productive in the long run anyway.
For instance, you are not allowed to dump your garbage wherever you want because this is an annoyance to other people. When free market means a nuisance for 99% of the population, then regulation is legitimate.
Negotiation between companies and many workers is asymetrical, you know that very well.
- I am only interested in the cheapest prices, highest quality and most choices in the market, I WANT low prices and I particularly do not care how a company does it as long as it is not enjoying some form of gov't protection.
Employees sell their labour, their time, their skills, their experience to employers. It's a market like all others, like a bread market, like a car market, doesn't matter. I want employers and employees to find their own price points that are most profitable for the entire economy, which means for me, and this means I want prices to fall, not to rise, including labour prices. Of-course this requires gov't to get out of money business and to stop inflation via money printing.
Minimum wage is a regulation on free market for rebalancing powers between companies and workers.
- again, I do not find it useful in any way shape or form that a gov't forces MY prices to go up because of any laws, including minimum wage laws. I do not find it useful that gov't causes unemployment by preventing willing market participants (employers and employees) coming together at mutually beneficial agreements and finding ways to satisfy my customer demand for low prices, quality and choices.
I want prices to go as low as possible, this is what 'trickle down economics' is all about - the CUSTOMER gaining purchasing power by having to pay less and less for products he or she buys. That's all I care about, I don't care about specifics of how it is done again, as long as it is done without any artificial power being used to create higher prices than otherwise would spontaneously arise in the market.
All manipulation of prices removes efficiencies, raises prices, lowers quality and destroys my well being.
This defends workers
- nonsense, it hurts workers by preventing them from having employment in many cases, especially low skilled workers who have to compete in a market of reduced choices, because many employers have their price points and just like a person doesn't buy another car because it is too expensive, an employer doesn't hire another employee, because gov't makes it prohibitively expensive to do so.
but it also benefits the whole economy
- nonsense, the entire economy suffers higher prices, lower quality, less efficient distribution of resources, more intrusion of ever growing gov't power. The entire economy suffers f
Game changing technology? You mean like nuclear, which government controls very tightly as well?
No, the only way to fix a problem is not to attack the symptoms, it's to go for the root cause and the root cause is the government power that it is not allowed to have actually. The real problem is the implicit and explicit support for all that the government does by the mob. There will be no 'game changing technology' coming out of government.
A private sector can take some results of some research done by whoever (irrelevant if it was gov't or anybody) and turn it into a product. Of-course gov't is not authorised to be involved in any research either and it shouldn't be, it becomes a pressure point, a way to extract more money and create more political influence.
The reality is that the gov't enjoys the status quo because while the mob cheers for the populist message, the actual actions that are taking place are very specific to profits of very few certain, very well connected individuals, and until you change that nothing will change.
The real problem is that people find it profitable to enter the gov't, to buy its power for their profit. That's what the real problem with "socialising costs and privatising gains" are, but you see, the mob realises it when it looks at things like BP but it doesn't connect the dots when it looks at things like the postal office and other utility monopolies granted by gov't.
What I mean to say is that any government involvement means power involvement, it means power over individuals, power to steal freedoms and sell them to somebody who is right there and understands the value of power and is absolutely interested in buying it.
You can't stop it without closing the fountain of power. You can't stop any of it without putting the boot down on the throat of gov't, like the snake that it is and forcing it into a constitutional cage. Gov't is useful in a way a snake can be useful, in exactly that very way.
Gov't is useful by providing the antidote to the snake bites by other powers, other oppressive gov'ts. But that's the extent of it. Let the snake out of its cage and it will bite you.
No question about it, the wars are illegal, I mean to say unconstitutional, undeclared, offensive and should have never happened. All the wars since 1945 that is.
- there is a reason private investors are not putting their money into any of this shit. This story and all those other stories show why the private investors are not doing it.
Ever heard of California and their 'high speed rail', 'high speed' being now the same old rail just maybe 10 minutes faster than 12 billion dollars ago? There were no private investors into that either.
There are also people here who think that having government dictate how an economy should run is the preferred way, not allowing the private ownership and operation of property (capitalism) and free market (equality before the law, rule of law that does not discriminate against people and thus create inequality of treatment and inefficiencies of economy) to do what it does best - savings, investment, production.
So this is yet another failed example of government "investing". You can't invest somebody else's money if they are forced to give it to you under the threat of violence, so that money is not coming out of your pocket, you are forcing it out of other people's pockets to run your own technocrat goals, and mostly really those are corrupt goals.
Note that this was one of the ways that Al Gore's profited from his gov't ties.
A company can reinvest its profits, but once it is given to shareholders, nothing forces the investor to reinvest within the same company
- why should something force somebody to do anything?
Besides, if a company provides a good return on investment compared to other businesses, why wouldn't an investor prefer that company (except for being diligent of-course and not putting all eggs into one basket, haven't you learnt to do that yet?)
And most of the time this involves decreasing salaries or making employees working more to produce the same wealth.
- IF a company can manage to do this in the free market then it is a GOOD thing.
All goods, services, input costs, land, capital, labour, all of these have their price.
Price of capital is the relation of time preferences to the capital holder and to the borrower (interest on a loan).
Price of labour is not dictated by a company, it's a negotiation process between company and labourers. If a company can reduce its costs by shifting labour requirements to some other region and still remain viable in the market it absolutely should do that.
The purpose of a company is not to provide anybody with employment opportunities, the purpose of a company is to create a meaningful return on investment. Buying labour is just a side effect of that goal, if a company can use capital to automate every procedure and lower costs of input that way it absolutely should do it.
Let me give you an example:
I used to work as a contractor for a long time, back in 2001-2004 I worked for a check processing company that belonged to a number of banks. A couple of my projects there was to reduce the cost of finding a record of a check or of a statement. The records were stored on microfiche and microfilm tapes. These were placed into boxes and onto shelves. At first we optimised the search algorithm to reduce amount of time that it took for a person to find the records. We even introduced better scanners at some point to do the job faster (so a person would put a fiche or a film into a scanner and search for the record).
Eventually we shifted away from keeping records that way entirely and moved to full computer storage with large data banks of harddrives and specialty robots that would move harddrives from readers into storage, etc. This became possible once an investment was also made into very quick scanners, that scanned up to 1000 checks per second (on both sides), they are like conveyor belt with fast cameras.
Do you see where I am going? Over years between 4500 and 8000 people lost their jobs. It was a GOOD THING.
It was a good thing for the society and economy to free that labour to do something else, more productive than this, and this became automated and now banks are using this architecture to show you pictures of checks and statements online very quickly.
So that just freed the labour with labour saving devices and allowed the people to be employed by somebody else likely at a LOWER PRICE (unless they managed to find a better paying position, probably some of the people who worked there saw a salary cut when they found other employment.) That's because they added to the supply of labour in the labour market.
This allowed other companies to choose employees from a larger supply pool, and that means that many companies could hire more people where they couldn't before at lower prices.
IF the government didn't inflate money supply, the society would be gaining in many ways here that are even more obvious: the price for retrieving images of paper records was crushed basically, so these costs went down.
Cheaper labour became available, allowing other companies to hire at lower prices and thus allowing more efficiencies across the entire economy. So while some people had to change jobs, the entire economy had a boost because it became so much cheaper to do that specific task and the people became available to companies with less
I happen not to like genocidal collectivists of all types, communist, socialist, fascist, religious, etc. I just do not discriminate against them that way.
NO, I do not miss your point. The salaries are based on their original investment, which they had to provide in order to have that business. You are saying they are the equal shareholders, so they put together the company.
No company survives if it does not make profit, that's the simple answer. A company that does not make profit and just covers its costs and is always kept at 0 is a company that will be outcompeted by some other company.
What do you think a business owner does with the return on his investment? The more substantial is the return, the less of it he consumes and the more of it he reinvests. In fact your proposition means that the company is completely static.
How can a company be static? People move, some people want their money out, some new people want to come in. Then there are others, who see that a company that like exists and it's not even attempting to reduce costs but it's not going out of business, so obviously there is space for improvement. There is always a way to reduce costs (that's why the sequester nonsense is so stupid, if in the private sector revenues are cut because of an economic slow down, the company finds ways to keep working, but gov't can't even imagine a situation like that).
A profit is also a buffer that allows a company to survive in the bad years, it creates a rainy day fund. A company that ends a year in an exactly same position that it started a year with is faced with all these problems: higher costs due to inflation, and so it will have less capacity next year, it has new competition that enters the market because it sees an inefficient company.
That company cannot expand its scale, so it can't in fact lower the prices. A company can lower prices to getting better deals on supplies when it buys more of them in bulk. That's why WM can outcompete other smaller chains, it buys in bulk. It can only buy in bulk because it's big. It only grew to become big (and it's still growing) because it invested every year.
You can only invest what you saved (or borrowed of-course, but borrowing also implies you will have to turn up profits to pay the loan back and obviously the interest rate).
A company that does not do anything to lower its costs and to scale up is a company that will be removed from business, there will be a take over one way or another, a restructuring company will come up with money and will force a sale one way or another.
One way to force a business to fail is to invest in a much more efficient competitor and then to beat the failing business in the market and then the failing business will have to sell or it will grind down, go bankrupt.
Basically there is no way to run an unprofitable business for too long, it will be removed from the market as something inefficient. Only a government can run an unprofitable business, that's what governments do when they create monopoly laws that prevent competition, fix prices, fix costs, all this nonsense, but then the market suffers. The customers suffer, the clients suffer. They become a captive audience and the gov't monopoly introduces inefficiencies that force people to pay higher prices for something that could be done much cheaper, so this is part of the economic destruction all governments are culpable of.
zero profit means zero development, zero re-investment and no return at all.
If you are going to build a business, invest in it (as for example you imply equal share employees would in this case), why would you want your money to be stuck in a zero profit place, which clearly means you are losing money due to government created inflation? Why wouldn't you rather invest in a business that actually made profits? If you are vested in a business you want it to grow, to become more efficient.
If you can't make profit one, two, three years, that's one thing. If can't make profit by your year five, you are doing it wrong. You are not looking for any efficiencies, you are not looking for ways to reduce costs. Why aren't you? Why are you not changing your technology, why aren't you changing the way you are doing things to lower the costs to allow for profits? You are going to be outcompeted by somebody else, who will have profits, grow, improve quality because of profits and will kick you out of your niche and you will lose your original investment and you will have gained nothing.
What do you have by the end? A few years of work without profits, a lost investment and lost opportunity? Would you really want that?
So there you go, you are part of the problem, part of the system that sucks blood out of the private sector, private individuals. When you work for government you are a parasite, not a productive member of society regardless of what you do there. Whatever you do, you are stealing resources from the people and you are being subsidised. You think you have clients, what you have is captive audience that can't escape you under the fear of State induced violence.
... while I as a middle rank public servant paid...
- your words, not mine. I don't care what you do, I don't know what you do.
If you are working as a 'public servant', you are sucking blood out of the public you pretend you 'serve'. What is a 'publicly owned company', is it a publicly listed corporation or is it a state owned company?
If you are yourself confused where you work and can't explain it, why do you expect others to understand?
AFAIK FB 'friends' in most cases are not exactly what one would consider to be a friend IRL. I mean if you have 1000 friends, what does that mean?
An old tale:
A young man decided to get married, he was busy and asked his father to call 50 people on a list. He said "these are my friends, can you call them and invite them for the wedding ceremony?" The father agreed. On his wedding day the son confronted his father "I asked you to call all of my friends", "and so I did", "but there were 50 people on my list and I only see 15". "Son, I called all 50 people and told each one of them that you have a problem and you need help and they should meet with you in this exact location at this exact time, so don't worry, all your friends are here now".
Back to the story: of-course government wants to know everything about you, don't you understand, it's for the collective good.
Some are so scared of this idea that they are hell bent ensuring that they go with a huge bang, so that they take as many people with them as possible...
Yeah, I know, Elizabeth Warren, a complete nincompoop, an ideologue of immense proportions. She may even believe the stinking garbage that pours out of her mouth.
There is no social contract. Yugoslavia, by the way, was an internal conflict that outside forces decided to intervene in and bombed the shit out of that country; animal fuckers like that POS Clinton...
I don't know what WM pays in corporate/income taxes in Mexico, I hope it's 0, that's the only acceptable tax on somebody's work.
What destroys the economy is not some company that starts its business, becomes successful at it and finds ways to minimise taxes, what destroys the economy is desire for more government and the entire gov't apparatus that exists just to exercise violence against people. After all, all that government is, it is violence. Violence committed against individuals on a daily basis.
AFAIC people that work for government in any capacity shouldn't even be allowed to be among the rest of the population. You think you pay taxes? You are saying you are a 'public servant'. You are not paying taxes, it's an accounting trick, you are getting paid the amount that excludes taxes. For somebody to pay taxes they actually have to create wealth, from which taxes are extracted by the thieves that are the government. The fewer people are 'serving the public' in any government roles, the better off the public is. You are the disease, nothing else, virus, a bacterial infection. The host is the society, the economy that you are feeding on.
It's pure nonsense, inflation is not caused by prices going up on anything, inflation is caused by expansion of money supply, so it's pushing the cart before the horse, this idea that rising prices cause inflation.
No, there shouldn't be any gov't subsidies to anybody at all.
BTW, I looked at the notices, they include a large number of links that start with vk.com, which is a Russian version of FB, the way FB should have been designed.
It has a much better, more intuitive user interface from stories I read on comparing FB vs VK (vk means "v kontakte", which may be translated as "in touch" for "staying in touch") and on that site anybody can host any image, song, video and text they like and it's very easy to search through them and find whatever you want.
It is actually a good advert for VK and they offer a large number of languages that you can access the site in.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh and by the way, this:
There are too many points in your message
- there is only one message: individual freedom.
Your message is slavery by the collective.
Individual freedom is what I want, I want people to be able to succeed because of their ability to invest and work, I want them to succeed to their maximum potential, I want them to become as wealthy doing it as they humanly can.
I want the people who do not engage in business themselves to be able to access the majority of goods and services at lowest prices that a free economy can provide.
That's all I am talking about, nothing else. I don't want anything at all from a collective that uses violence against an individual to force him into something he is not interested in doing, I want everything from a collective that promotes individual freedom.
For the sake of the general interest
- the only legitimate 'general interest' is the interest that arises spontaneously and voluntarily in the market. You are bringing up concept of 'collective good', which is exactly the concept used by all dictatorial powers, regardless what precise ideology they subscribe to, they are collectivist in the message, they are anti-individualist, anti-humanist, anti-capitalist, anti-free market (which means they are against sound economics and rule of law).
Your goals cannot be noble if your means are not noble, that's an important point. If you have goals that you cannot achieve without using power of the collective, so this means violence as the means, then your goals are wrong, immoral and are not productive in the long run anyway.
For instance, you are not allowed to dump your garbage wherever you want because this is an annoyance to other people. When free market means a nuisance for 99% of the population, then regulation is legitimate.
- this is a common misconception, which I addressed enough times (in enough detail if you go even only through one thread) not to have to repeat myself here. Private property rights prevent this and 'common ownership', which means no ownership at all but abuse of property without an owner is what causes it.
Negotiation between companies and many workers is asymetrical, you know that very well.
- I am only interested in the cheapest prices, highest quality and most choices in the market, I WANT low prices and I particularly do not care how a company does it as long as it is not enjoying some form of gov't protection.
Employees sell their labour, their time, their skills, their experience to employers. It's a market like all others, like a bread market, like a car market, doesn't matter. I want employers and employees to find their own price points that are most profitable for the entire economy, which means for me, and this means I want prices to fall, not to rise, including labour prices. Of-course this requires gov't to get out of money business and to stop inflation via money printing.
Minimum wage is a regulation on free market for rebalancing powers between companies and workers.
- again, I do not find it useful in any way shape or form that a gov't forces MY prices to go up because of any laws, including minimum wage laws. I do not find it useful that gov't causes unemployment by preventing willing market participants (employers and employees) coming together at mutually beneficial agreements and finding ways to satisfy my customer demand for low prices, quality and choices.
I want prices to go as low as possible, this is what 'trickle down economics' is all about - the CUSTOMER gaining purchasing power by having to pay less and less for products he or she buys. That's all I care about, I don't care about specifics of how it is done again, as long as it is done without any artificial power being used to create higher prices than otherwise would spontaneously arise in the market.
All manipulation of prices removes efficiencies, raises prices, lowers quality and destroys my well being.
This defends workers
- nonsense, it hurts workers by preventing them from having employment in many cases, especially low skilled workers who have to compete in a market of reduced choices, because many employers have their price points and just like a person doesn't buy another car because it is too expensive, an employer doesn't hire another employee, because gov't makes it prohibitively expensive to do so.
but it also benefits the whole economy
- nonsense, the entire economy suffers higher prices, lower quality, less efficient distribution of resources, more intrusion of ever growing gov't power. The entire economy suffers f
public owned power company - it's exactly what is written.
Game changing technology? You mean like nuclear, which government controls very tightly as well?
No, the only way to fix a problem is not to attack the symptoms, it's to go for the root cause and the root cause is the government power that it is not allowed to have actually. The real problem is the implicit and explicit support for all that the government does by the mob. There will be no 'game changing technology' coming out of government.
A private sector can take some results of some research done by whoever (irrelevant if it was gov't or anybody) and turn it into a product. Of-course gov't is not authorised to be involved in any research either and it shouldn't be, it becomes a pressure point, a way to extract more money and create more political influence.
The reality is that the gov't enjoys the status quo because while the mob cheers for the populist message, the actual actions that are taking place are very specific to profits of very few certain, very well connected individuals, and until you change that nothing will change.
The real problem is that people find it profitable to enter the gov't, to buy its power for their profit. That's what the real problem with "socialising costs and privatising gains" are, but you see, the mob realises it when it looks at things like BP but it doesn't connect the dots when it looks at things like the postal office and other utility monopolies granted by gov't.
What I mean to say is that any government involvement means power involvement, it means power over individuals, power to steal freedoms and sell them to somebody who is right there and understands the value of power and is absolutely interested in buying it.
You can't stop it without closing the fountain of power. You can't stop any of it without putting the boot down on the throat of gov't, like the snake that it is and forcing it into a constitutional cage. Gov't is useful in a way a snake can be useful, in exactly that very way.
Gov't is useful by providing the antidote to the snake bites by other powers, other oppressive gov'ts. But that's the extent of it. Let the snake out of its cage and it will bite you.
You mean why 1000000 wrongs don't make a right, don't you?
Well, the gov't shouldn't be involved in any illegal matters, be it unconstitutional wars or unconstitutional behaviour regarding money.
No question about it, the wars are illegal, I mean to say unconstitutional, undeclared, offensive and should have never happened. All the wars since 1945 that is.
Private investors don't want to take risks
- there is a reason private investors are not putting their money into any of this shit. This story and all those other stories show why the private investors are not doing it.
Ever heard of California and their 'high speed rail', 'high speed' being now the same old rail just maybe 10 minutes faster than 12 billion dollars ago? There were no private investors into that either.
This was to be expected.
There are people on /. who wouldn't understand such a thing for example. There are people here who do not understand that a company must turn up profit and if it doesn't it has no reason to exist, it's employing land, capital and labour inefficiently.
There are also people here who think that having government dictate how an economy should run is the preferred way, not allowing the private ownership and operation of property (capitalism) and free market (equality before the law, rule of law that does not discriminate against people and thus create inequality of treatment and inefficiencies of economy) to do what it does best - savings, investment, production.
There are is the answer and that "borrowing" from yourself to "pay" your debts is actually a meaningful act.
So this is yet another failed example of government "investing". You can't invest somebody else's money if they are forced to give it to you under the threat of violence, so that money is not coming out of your pocket, you are forcing it out of other people's pockets to run your own technocrat goals, and mostly really those are corrupt goals.
Note that this was one of the ways that Al Gore's profited from his gov't ties.
It appears that you too do not know what a 'public company' means. It means a publicly traded company, not a State ran operation.
I think someone in the French military got their panties in a wad about nothing...
- careful, it's France. You don't insult the panties that the French military is brandishing without suffering a severe ... retreat.
A company can reinvest its profits, but once it is given to shareholders, nothing forces the investor to reinvest within the same company
- why should something force somebody to do anything?
Besides, if a company provides a good return on investment compared to other businesses, why wouldn't an investor prefer that company (except for being diligent of-course and not putting all eggs into one basket, haven't you learnt to do that yet?)
And most of the time this involves decreasing salaries or making employees working more to produce the same wealth.
- IF a company can manage to do this in the free market then it is a GOOD thing.
All goods, services, input costs, land, capital, labour, all of these have their price.
Price of capital is the relation of time preferences to the capital holder and to the borrower (interest on a loan).
Price of labour is not dictated by a company, it's a negotiation process between company and labourers. If a company can reduce its costs by shifting labour requirements to some other region and still remain viable in the market it absolutely should do that.
The purpose of a company is not to provide anybody with employment opportunities, the purpose of a company is to create a meaningful return on investment. Buying labour is just a side effect of that goal, if a company can use capital to automate every procedure and lower costs of input that way it absolutely should do it.
Let me give you an example:
I used to work as a contractor for a long time, back in 2001-2004 I worked for a check processing company that belonged to a number of banks. A couple of my projects there was to reduce the cost of finding a record of a check or of a statement. The records were stored on microfiche and microfilm tapes. These were placed into boxes and onto shelves. At first we optimised the search algorithm to reduce amount of time that it took for a person to find the records. We even introduced better scanners at some point to do the job faster (so a person would put a fiche or a film into a scanner and search for the record).
Eventually we shifted away from keeping records that way entirely and moved to full computer storage with large data banks of harddrives and specialty robots that would move harddrives from readers into storage, etc. This became possible once an investment was also made into very quick scanners, that scanned up to 1000 checks per second (on both sides), they are like conveyor belt with fast cameras.
Do you see where I am going? Over years between 4500 and 8000 people lost their jobs. It was a GOOD THING.
It was a good thing for the society and economy to free that labour to do something else, more productive than this, and this became automated and now banks are using this architecture to show you pictures of checks and statements online very quickly.
So that just freed the labour with labour saving devices and allowed the people to be employed by somebody else likely at a LOWER PRICE (unless they managed to find a better paying position, probably some of the people who worked there saw a salary cut when they found other employment.) That's because they added to the supply of labour in the labour market.
This allowed other companies to choose employees from a larger supply pool, and that means that many companies could hire more people where they couldn't before at lower prices.
IF the government didn't inflate money supply, the society would be gaining in many ways here that are even more obvious: the price for retrieving images of paper records was crushed basically, so these costs went down.
Cheaper labour became available, allowing other companies to hire at lower prices and thus allowing more efficiencies across the entire economy. So while some people had to change jobs, the entire economy had a boost because it became so much cheaper to do that specific task and the people became available to companies with less
I happen not to like genocidal collectivists of all types, communist, socialist, fascist, religious, etc. I just do not discriminate against them that way.
You don't get it, the driver is the robot that runs on penguins.
It doesn't run Linux, that was a miscommunication. It's somewhat successfully trying to run away from Linus.
That's military intelligence for you. Nice radio station you have there, France.
NO, I do not miss your point. The salaries are based on their original investment, which they had to provide in order to have that business. You are saying they are the equal shareholders, so they put together the company.
No company survives if it does not make profit, that's the simple answer. A company that does not make profit and just covers its costs and is always kept at 0 is a company that will be outcompeted by some other company.
What do you think a business owner does with the return on his investment? The more substantial is the return, the less of it he consumes and the more of it he reinvests. In fact your proposition means that the company is completely static.
How can a company be static? People move, some people want their money out, some new people want to come in. Then there are others, who see that a company that like exists and it's not even attempting to reduce costs but it's not going out of business, so obviously there is space for improvement. There is always a way to reduce costs (that's why the sequester nonsense is so stupid, if in the private sector revenues are cut because of an economic slow down, the company finds ways to keep working, but gov't can't even imagine a situation like that).
A profit is also a buffer that allows a company to survive in the bad years, it creates a rainy day fund. A company that ends a year in an exactly same position that it started a year with is faced with all these problems: higher costs due to inflation, and so it will have less capacity next year, it has new competition that enters the market because it sees an inefficient company.
That company cannot expand its scale, so it can't in fact lower the prices. A company can lower prices to getting better deals on supplies when it buys more of them in bulk. That's why WM can outcompete other smaller chains, it buys in bulk. It can only buy in bulk because it's big. It only grew to become big (and it's still growing) because it invested every year.
You can only invest what you saved (or borrowed of-course, but borrowing also implies you will have to turn up profits to pay the loan back and obviously the interest rate).
A company that does not do anything to lower its costs and to scale up is a company that will be removed from business, there will be a take over one way or another, a restructuring company will come up with money and will force a sale one way or another.
One way to force a business to fail is to invest in a much more efficient competitor and then to beat the failing business in the market and then the failing business will have to sell or it will grind down, go bankrupt.
Basically there is no way to run an unprofitable business for too long, it will be removed from the market as something inefficient. Only a government can run an unprofitable business, that's what governments do when they create monopoly laws that prevent competition, fix prices, fix costs, all this nonsense, but then the market suffers. The customers suffer, the clients suffer. They become a captive audience and the gov't monopoly introduces inefficiencies that force people to pay higher prices for something that could be done much cheaper, so this is part of the economic destruction all governments are culpable of.
zero profit means zero development, zero re-investment and no return at all.
If you are going to build a business, invest in it (as for example you imply equal share employees would in this case), why would you want your money to be stuck in a zero profit place, which clearly means you are losing money due to government created inflation? Why wouldn't you rather invest in a business that actually made profits? If you are vested in a business you want it to grow, to become more efficient.
If you can't make profit one, two, three years, that's one thing. If can't make profit by your year five, you are doing it wrong. You are not looking for any efficiencies, you are not looking for ways to reduce costs. Why aren't you? Why are you not changing your technology, why aren't you changing the way you are doing things to lower the costs to allow for profits? You are going to be outcompeted by somebody else, who will have profits, grow, improve quality because of profits and will kick you out of your niche and you will lose your original investment and you will have gained nothing.
What do you have by the end? A few years of work without profits, a lost investment and lost opportunity? Would you really want that?
So there you go, you are part of the problem, part of the system that sucks blood out of the private sector, private individuals. When you work for government you are a parasite, not a productive member of society regardless of what you do there. Whatever you do, you are stealing resources from the people and you are being subsidised. You think you have clients, what you have is captive audience that can't escape you under the fear of State induced violence.
- your words, not mine. I don't care what you do, I don't know what you do.
If you are working as a 'public servant', you are sucking blood out of the public you pretend you 'serve'. What is a 'publicly owned company', is it a publicly listed corporation or is it a state owned company?
If you are yourself confused where you work and can't explain it, why do you expect others to understand?
Keep your friends close but keep ATF closer.
AFAIK FB 'friends' in most cases are not exactly what one would consider to be a friend IRL. I mean if you have 1000 friends, what does that mean?
An old tale:
A young man decided to get married, he was busy and asked his father to call 50 people on a list. He said "these are my friends, can you call them and invite them for the wedding ceremony?" The father agreed.
On his wedding day the son confronted his father "I asked you to call all of my friends", "and so I did", "but there were 50 people on my list and I only see 15". "Son, I called all 50 people and told each one of them that you have a problem and you need help and they should meet with you in this exact location at this exact time, so don't worry, all your friends are here now".
Back to the story: of-course government wants to know everything about you, don't you understand, it's for the collective good.
To parallel TFS at hand, the Dice Holdings Inc. is the black hole and /. hit a firewall?
Some are so scared of this idea that they are hell bent ensuring that they go with a huge bang, so that they take as many people with them as possible...
Yeah, I know, Elizabeth Warren, a complete nincompoop, an ideologue of immense proportions. She may even believe the stinking garbage that pours out of her mouth.
There is no social contract. Yugoslavia, by the way, was an internal conflict that outside forces decided to intervene in and bombed the shit out of that country; animal fuckers like that POS Clinton...
I don't know what WM pays in corporate/income taxes in Mexico, I hope it's 0, that's the only acceptable tax on somebody's work.
What destroys the economy is not some company that starts its business, becomes successful at it and finds ways to minimise taxes, what destroys the economy is desire for more government and the entire gov't apparatus that exists just to exercise violence against people. After all, all that government is, it is violence. Violence committed against individuals on a daily basis.
AFAIC people that work for government in any capacity shouldn't even be allowed to be among the rest of the population. You think you pay taxes? You are saying you are a 'public servant'. You are not paying taxes, it's an accounting trick, you are getting paid the amount that excludes taxes. For somebody to pay taxes they actually have to create wealth, from which taxes are extracted by the thieves that are the government. The fewer people are 'serving the public' in any government roles, the better off the public is. You are the disease, nothing else, virus, a bacterial infection. The host is the society, the economy that you are feeding on.
It's pure nonsense, inflation is not caused by prices going up on anything, inflation is caused by expansion of money supply, so it's pushing the cart before the horse, this idea that rising prices cause inflation.
No, there shouldn't be any gov't subsidies to anybody at all.
BTW, I looked at the notices, they include a large number of links that start with vk.com, which is a Russian version of FB, the way FB should have been designed.
It has a much better, more intuitive user interface from stories I read on comparing FB vs VK (vk means "v kontakte", which may be translated as "in touch" for "staying in touch") and on that site anybody can host any image, song, video and text they like and it's very easy to search through them and find whatever you want.
It is actually a good advert for VK and they offer a large number of languages that you can access the site in.