"Shareholders are the owners of the company. Companies borrow money from Shareholders"
Only at the IPO. After that, shareholders play among themselves and generate no investment, no value whatsoever. And as they sell and buy shares (influenced by media and analysts whoe serve their own interests), shareholders make and break companies in ways that are in no way related to the companies' actual viability, financial standing, product quality and so on.
I have only one thing to say about shareholders: fuck them. If they want profits, they should try some real work - exactly what you're advocating for us lazy Europeans. This is what capitlaism is all about, no?
"I've noticed that there is a general lethargy, or laid-back attitude while doing business in Europe."
Laid-back attitude is NOT lethargy. I don't live to work, I only work as much as I need to in order to live as comfortably and securely as I need. I don't work to make YOU rich, and I certainly have no loyalty to you (my dear corporatist employer, not you the poster) since you're showing no loyalty to me.
Laid-back attitude is healthy for human beings, you know? Maybe Europeans get fewer ulcers - I don't know if it's the case, but it certainly is the idea.
Were you prepared to pay them for coming in earlier or staying late? If not, why should they put in any extra effort for no extra profit? Corporatists are always saying how profit motive drives the economy, right? So what were YOU prepared to give to your workforce in exchange for increased effort? Or did you expect to get their effort for free?
You mean you enjoy having to work more for less money and with less security and less ability to plan for the future? Congratulations, corporations need more serfs like this.
I thought 5 weeks vacation was this thing called progress, you know? Because people in Europe have worked hard for generations to be able to afford it.
"And it may be that capitalism loses popular support in certain places, but so what? Countries that can't or won't compete will see stagnant growth and high unemployment while the capitalist countries will grow"
Please define "grow". Since when growth is less work for fewer people at lower wages?
It was called feudalism, and we're getting there fast. Then the tide is going to turn again, the question is how many generations it'll take.
Poeple keep repeating this "investment" mantra like they never had a thought of their own. Pushing money (stocks) around is not investment, it's speculation and it generates as much value as betting on horse races, which is zero.
"Fact is companies are under enormous stress (from shareholders) to increase profits year by year."
Well fuck shareholders. It's not their livelihood that's at stake. You know, if you're running a small shop and employ local workers, you'll at least have to look them in the face when you fire them. You will realize exactly how your business decisions impact the society you live in. Shareholders don't care, don't know and don't see the results of their wants. They share profits but they do not share responsibility. There's this huge disconnect between owners (shareholders) and their property. Shareholders don't give a fuck about any particular company, they just push money as it suits them. They do none of the work and have no involvement in the reality of the companies they own.
Whoever came up with the idea of publicly-traded companies was seriously fucked up.
" don't want business to make the decisions about what is moral or immoral."
No? So if you ran, say, Lockheed Martin, you'd be selling weapons to, say, North Korea? Or you'd have provided banking services to the Third Reich, as Bush's family did?
A corporation is a fictitious concept. People make decisions, and people's decisions are inherently moral.
Who gives a fuck what it's called if it produces widespread unemployment and poverty, while rewarding a minuscule bunch at the top? We've been there before, and it was called feudalism back then.
Capitalism does not have to be like this, and wasn't all like this between the 50s and 70s.
You know, workers in Europe weren't given the 5 week vacation out of the goodness of governments' or corporations' hearts. They (we) have worked like hell since WW2 to get to the point where some societies in Europe can afford it. Isn't that the point of progress? Do _you_ want to give up benefits of your work?
CEO's salaries have never been as high as they are now, and workers' pay is going down. This is not normal, this is not progress, and if this is what US is all about, then I'm glad the French and the Dutch have voted the way they did.
"Moral arguments don't play in. Capitalism is amoral by nature and the people involved are, for the most part, nothing more than components of the system."
Bullshit. Doing or not doing trade with a dictatorship IS a moral issue. Whichever way a company goes, they are making a moral choice.
But the hypocrisy is astounding. Why the embargo on Cuba, but not on China? Why not trade with North Korea?
Bravo! Scary and funny rolled into one. You know, this is exactly the kind of humor that kept people going here in Poland through all the dark years of comminust rule. The only difference is our humor had to be more indirect, to pass under the censor's radar. Very close, though.
What are those export restrictions you speak of? Sheesh! When America talks to the third world, all they talk about is trade liberalization. Get on with the global show./sarcasm off
It does, but only superficially. What about that "specially crafted" spreadsheet? Exactly how did he "craft" it? By entering a bunch of formulas or macros? They may have been complex and they may have been non-obvious and they may even have been ingenious. But unless he hand-hacked the bits of the 'sheet, it seems to me he just used existing features built into the software. Even as software patents go, this is sick. He should never have been granted a patent for this.
It's not ince at all. If software patents are wrong, they're wrong regardless of who sues whom. You know, that guy may have a similar parent for Open Office.
If it's okay for a company to monitor employees' email to pre-empt leaking trade secrets, then is it also okay for the government to monitor citizens' communications to pre-empt terrorist dealings or leaking state-security information? Or is it maybe okay for the police to strip-search everyone as they leave a mall to prevent theft? If not the police, would it be okay for the mall security to do so?
Preemptive measures, as opposed to punitive (after the fact) measures, are deeply unfair and humuliating, because using them implies everyone is under suspicion. It's like the difference bertween preventive censorhip and suiing someone for defamation after the publication has been out.
Ah, so price discrimination *can* be illegal, depending on what gets factored in when setting the price. But when you shop online, you have no idea how they determine what to charge you. This is a part of what makes it sleazy. You don't even know that it's happening, and it is happening, and they just might be straying to the illegal side, too.
In a B&M store, at least you can see when you're payig more for teh bag of chips than the guy before you did. The playing level is more equal. To rephrase an old adage, on the internet nobody knows they're getting screwed.
Slashdot Mirror
"Shareholders are the owners of the company. Companies borrow money from Shareholders"
Only at the IPO. After that, shareholders play among themselves and generate no investment, no value whatsoever. And as they sell and buy shares (influenced by media and analysts whoe serve their own interests), shareholders make and break companies in ways that are in no way related to the companies' actual viability, financial standing, product quality and so on.
I have only one thing to say about shareholders: fuck them. If they want profits, they should try some real work - exactly what you're advocating for us lazy Europeans. This is what capitlaism is all about, no?
One more thing:
"I've noticed that there is a general lethargy, or laid-back attitude while doing business in Europe."
Laid-back attitude is NOT lethargy. I don't live to work, I only work as much as I need to in order to live as comfortably and securely as I need. I don't work to make YOU rich, and I certainly have no loyalty to you (my dear corporatist employer, not you the poster) since you're showing no loyalty to me.
Laid-back attitude is healthy for human beings, you know? Maybe Europeans get fewer ulcers - I don't know if it's the case, but it certainly is the idea.
Were you prepared to pay them for coming in earlier or staying late? If not, why should they put in any extra effort for no extra profit? Corporatists are always saying how profit motive drives the economy, right? So what were YOU prepared to give to your workforce in exchange for increased effort? Or did you expect to get their effort for free?
You mean you enjoy having to work more for less money and with less security and less ability to plan for the future? Congratulations, corporations need more serfs like this.
I thought 5 weeks vacation was this thing called progress, you know? Because people in Europe have worked hard for generations to be able to afford it.
"And it may be that capitalism loses popular support in certain places, but so what? Countries that can't or won't compete will see stagnant growth and high unemployment while the capitalist countries will grow"
Please define "grow". Since when growth is less work for fewer people at lower wages?
It was called feudalism, and we're getting there fast. Then the tide is going to turn again, the question is how many generations it'll take.
Poeple keep repeating this "investment" mantra like they never had a thought of their own. Pushing money (stocks) around is not investment, it's speculation and it generates as much value as betting on horse races, which is zero.
"They just don't get it. The winners are the consumer who gets to pay lower prices for the products and services."
Yeah, and these consumers get their purchasing power where exactly? From sitting around being unemployed?
"Fact is companies are under enormous stress (from shareholders) to increase profits year by year."
Well fuck shareholders. It's not their livelihood that's at stake. You know, if you're running a small shop and employ local workers, you'll at least have to look them in the face when you fire them. You will realize exactly how your business decisions impact the society you live in. Shareholders don't care, don't know and don't see the results of their wants. They share profits but they do not share responsibility. There's this huge disconnect between owners (shareholders) and their property. Shareholders don't give a fuck about any particular company, they just push money as it suits them. They do none of the work and have no involvement in the reality of the companies they own.
Whoever came up with the idea of publicly-traded companies was seriously fucked up.
But it's short-sighted. Who's going to buy IBM products and services as unemployment grows and wages shrink?
" don't want business to make the decisions about what is moral or immoral."
No? So if you ran, say, Lockheed Martin, you'd be selling weapons to, say, North Korea? Or you'd have provided banking services to the Third Reich, as Bush's family did?
A corporation is a fictitious concept. People make decisions, and people's decisions are inherently moral.
Who gives a fuck what it's called if it produces widespread unemployment and poverty, while rewarding a minuscule bunch at the top? We've been there before, and it was called feudalism back then.
Capitalism does not have to be like this, and wasn't all like this between the 50s and 70s.
You know, workers in Europe weren't given the 5 week vacation out of the goodness of governments' or corporations' hearts. They (we) have worked like hell since WW2 to get to the point where some societies in Europe can afford it. Isn't that the point of progress? Do _you_ want to give up benefits of your work?
CEO's salaries have never been as high as they are now, and workers' pay is going down. This is not normal, this is not progress, and if this is what US is all about, then I'm glad the French and the Dutch have voted the way they did.
"On second thought, maybe we shouldn't get kids to read this - it'd give them nightmares for the rest of their lives."
Right, so when *they* get to decide whether to drop a nuke, it's best that they don't know the consequences, right?
"A legal obligation to greed."
And this, indeed, is exactly the problem.
"It's not like they have any choice, even if they're Microsoft."
Surely you jest. Who or what is forcing MS and Google to do business in China? Besides greed, that is?
"Seriously, how would Microsoft pulling out of the Chinese market help Chinese people?"
Riddle me this: how is the US embargo on Cuba helping Cuban people?
"Moral arguments don't play in. Capitalism is amoral by nature and the people involved are, for the most part, nothing more than components of the system."
Bullshit. Doing or not doing trade with a dictatorship IS a moral issue. Whichever way a company goes, they are making a moral choice.
But the hypocrisy is astounding. Why the embargo on Cuba, but not on China? Why not trade with North Korea?
Why not North Korea, then? Why not trade with Cuba - hello, America??
Bravo! Scary and funny rolled into one. You know, this is exactly the kind of humor that kept people going here in Poland through all the dark years of comminust rule. The only difference is our humor had to be more indirect, to pass under the censor's radar. Very close, though.
What are those export restrictions you speak of? Sheesh! When America talks to the third world, all they talk about is trade liberalization. Get on with the global show. /sarcasm off
"If this doesn't push Microsoft to patent every single thing they ever do or plan to do, I don't know what will."
Exactly. Moderators, take note of parent.
It does, but only superficially. What about that "specially crafted" spreadsheet? Exactly how did he "craft" it? By entering a bunch of formulas or macros? They may have been complex and they may have been non-obvious and they may even have been ingenious. But unless he hand-hacked the bits of the 'sheet, it seems to me he just used existing features built into the software. Even as software patents go, this is sick. He should never have been granted a patent for this.
It's not ince at all. If software patents are wrong, they're wrong regardless of who sues whom. You know, that guy may have a similar parent for Open Office.
If it's okay for a company to monitor employees' email to pre-empt leaking trade secrets, then is it also okay for the government to monitor citizens' communications to pre-empt terrorist dealings or leaking state-security information? Or is it maybe okay for the police to strip-search everyone as they leave a mall to prevent theft? If not the police, would it be okay for the mall security to do so?
Preemptive measures, as opposed to punitive (after the fact) measures, are deeply unfair and humuliating, because using them implies everyone is under suspicion. It's like the difference bertween preventive censorhip and suiing someone for defamation after the publication has been out.
Ah, so price discrimination *can* be illegal, depending on what gets factored in when setting the price. But when you shop online, you have no idea how they determine what to charge you. This is a part of what makes it sleazy. You don't even know that it's happening, and it is happening, and they just might be straying to the illegal side, too.
In a B&M store, at least you can see when you're payig more for teh bag of chips than the guy before you did. The playing level is more equal. To rephrase an old adage, on the internet nobody knows they're getting screwed.