Wall Street squawks that the membership warehouse giant should push for higher profit margins and reduced labor costs, meanwhile the company, led by its iconoclastic founder and former CEO, Jim Sinegal, constantly flicks his chin at The Street and its yammering analysts. The results: happy employees, enviable stock performance and a brilliant shopping model that, let’s face it, bludgeons consumers into shopping happily for more.
Indeed - min/maxing cost vs profit fails to account for other less quantifiable variables, always surprised by how so many seemingly intelligent people forget to account for the effects of things like staff morale, company reputation and community goodwill that are present in the marketplace.
Did you know that Italian Astronomer Schiaparelli published an article in 1895 – "Life on Mars" - in which he speculated about possibility of life on the planet. He argued that "the apparent changes of the system of canals observed since 1882 could be the results of an intricate irrigation system, used by Martian to irrigate the dry equatorial regions," or something like that.
He also argued that such gigantic constructions needed a robust central government to build and maintain all of this, so he assumed that Mars was ruled by a socialist and peaceful community.
If only he was right, bedub...if only he was right!
Wall Street squawks that the membership warehouse giant should push for higher profit margins and reduced labor costs, meanwhile the company, led by its iconoclastic founder and former CEO, Jim Sinegal, constantly flicks his chin at The Street and its yammering analysts. The results: happy employees, enviable stock performance and a brilliant shopping model that, let’s face it, bludgeons consumers into shopping happily for more.
f*ck Wallstreet.
I don't understand the dichotomy here. Is Jim Sinegal a government employee, government entity, or quasi-government entity? Are his employees government employees? This is a confusing article in light of the thread title.
There is little question that serving customers and making products has become very removed from Wallstreet profits.
The ideals of the market making things better for people is only true in comparison to a fuedal system, not in comparison to a more managed system that allows some competition, but reflects real costs and benefits more effectively.
Wall Street squawks that the membership warehouse giant should push for higher profit margins and reduced labor costs, meanwhile the company, led by its iconoclastic founder and former CEO, Jim Sinegal, constantly flicks his chin at The Street and its yammering analysts. The results: happy employees, enviable stock performance and a brilliant shopping model that, let’s face it, bludgeons consumers into shopping happily for more.
f*ck Wallstreet.
And when he voluntarily/involuntarily passes on the torch, Costco will go to hell. Corporatism will have it's day on Costco, eventually.
Renewed yet infused with apathy.
Let's just have a good time, all right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjQii_BboIk
Wall Street squawks that the membership warehouse giant should push for higher profit margins and reduced labor costs, meanwhile the company, led by its iconoclastic founder and former CEO, Jim Sinegal, constantly flicks his chin at The Street and its yammering analysts. The results: happy employees, enviable stock performance and a brilliant shopping model that, let’s face it, bludgeons consumers into shopping happily for more.
f*ck Wallstreet.
You misspelled "f*ck Wal-Mart!". Hope that helps.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Costco is working great. But the "capitalists" on wall street don't approve. They want Costco to f*ck over their employees and send all the cash to wall street. That's what's wrong with Capitalism. Wall street and the idea that higher profits for wall street means a better America.
bedub1 wrote:Costco is working great. But the "capitalists" on wall street don't approve. They want Costco to f*ck over their employees and send all the cash to wall street. That's what's wrong with Capitalism. Wall street and the idea that higher profits for wall street means a better America.
I don't think the fat cats on Wall Street give much of a shit about "a better America" (generalizing, of course).
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
bedub1 wrote:Costco is working great. But the "capitalists" on wall street don't approve. They want Costco to f*ck over their employees and send all the cash to wall street. That's what's wrong with Capitalism. Wall street and the idea that higher profits for wall street means a better America.
That's what's wrong with a highly regulated banking industry in a country whose monetary policy is at the discretion of a semi-independent monopoly (Federal Reserve) which cooperates with politicians and other bureaucrats.
A nice term for this is "Mixed Economy."
A more accurate term is "Political Capitalism," which is susceptible to cronyism, thus becoming "crony capitalism."
"Capitalism" without the politics is "market anarchy," or "laissez-faire capitalism" if under a limited government.
bedub1 wrote:Costco is working great. But the "capitalists" on wall street don't approve. They want Costco to f*ck over their employees and send all the cash to wall street. That's what's wrong with Capitalism. Wall street and the idea that higher profits for wall street means a better America.
I don't think the fat cats on Wall Street give much of a shit about "a better America" (generalizing, of course).
Exactly my point. We need an economic systems who's goals are in line with humanities goals. The goals of all people, not just a select few that want to hoard everything and enslave the species.
BigBallinStalin wrote:
bedub1 wrote:Costco is working great. But the "capitalists" on wall street don't approve. They want Costco to f*ck over their employees and send all the cash to wall street. That's what's wrong with Capitalism. Wall street and the idea that higher profits for wall street means a better America.
That's what's wrong with a highly regulated banking industry in a country whose monetary policy is at the discretion of a semi-independent monopoly (Federal Reserve) which cooperates with politicians and other bureaucrats.
A nice term for this is "Mixed Economy."
A more accurate term is "Political Capitalism," which is susceptible to cronyism, thus becoming "crony capitalism."
"Capitalism" without the politics is "market anarchy," or "laissez-faire capitalism" if under a limited government.
Well we know "mixed economy" doesn't work very well. I don't think market anarchy is going to be any better.
bedub1 wrote:Costco is working great. But the "capitalists" on wall street don't approve. They want Costco to f*ck over their employees and send all the cash to wall street. That's what's wrong with Capitalism. Wall street and the idea that higher profits for wall street means a better America.
I don't think the fat cats on Wall Street give much of a shit about "a better America" (generalizing, of course).
Exactly my point. We need an economic systems who's goals are in line with humanities goals. The goals of all people, not just a select few that want to hoard everything and enslave the species.
BigBallinStalin wrote:
bedub1 wrote:Costco is working great. But the "capitalists" on wall street don't approve. They want Costco to f*ck over their employees and send all the cash to wall street. That's what's wrong with Capitalism. Wall street and the idea that higher profits for wall street means a better America.
That's what's wrong with a highly regulated banking industry in a country whose monetary policy is at the discretion of a semi-independent monopoly (Federal Reserve) which cooperates with politicians and other bureaucrats.
A nice term for this is "Mixed Economy."
A more accurate term is "Political Capitalism," which is susceptible to cronyism, thus becoming "crony capitalism."
"Capitalism" without the politics is "market anarchy," or "laissez-faire capitalism" if under a limited government.
Well we know "mixed economy" doesn't work very well. I don't think market anarchy is going to be any better.
"Mixed economies" are very broad in nature, so some work with less costs while others impose more costs.
The Economic Freedom Index helps adds some clarity to this term, so even with mixed economies, you can good outcomes (e.g. New Zealand, Hong Kong). The US dropped from about #5 to about #10 in the past several years...
Shifts toward more state ownership and control is not going to be any better. The Soviet Union proved the far extreme of that, but any current shift (re: USA) toward the SU would make things worse. It would enable the crony capitalists more control.
bedub1 wrote:Costco is working great. But the "capitalists" on wall street don't approve. They want Costco to f*ck over their employees and send all the cash to wall street. That's what's wrong with Capitalism. Wall street and the idea that higher profits for wall street means a better America.
That's what's wrong with a highly regulated banking industry in a country whose monetary policy is at the discretion of a semi-independent monopoly (Federal Reserve) which cooperates with politicians and other bureaucrats.
A nice term for this is "Mixed Economy."
A more accurate term is "Political Capitalism," which is susceptible to cronyism, thus becoming "crony capitalism."
"Capitalism" without the politics is "market anarchy," or "laissez-faire capitalism" if under a limited government.
Again, this is so confusing. A private company is doing something; a private investor says they should do something different. People disagree. How is that a problem with capitalism?
PLAYER57832 wrote:There is little question that serving customers and making products has become very removed from Wallstreet profits.
The ideals of the market making things better for people is only true in comparison to a fuedal system, not in comparison to a more managed system that allows some competition, but reflects real costs and benefits more effectively.
The best "managed system" is the one where people manage their own finances and make business and purchasing decisions based on their own needs and wants instead of the government making all those "managed system" decisions.
PLAYER57832 wrote:There is little question that serving customers and making products has become very removed from Wallstreet profits.
The ideals of the market making things better for people is only true in comparison to a fuedal system, not in comparison to a more managed system that allows some competition, but reflects real costs and benefits more effectively.
The best "managed system" is the one where people manage their own finances and make business and purchasing decisions based on their own needs and wants instead of the government making all those "managed system" decisions.
Becuase your wants automatically result in what is best for society?
PLAYER57832 wrote:There is little question that serving customers and making products has become very removed from Wallstreet profits.
The ideals of the market making things better for people is only true in comparison to a fuedal system, not in comparison to a more managed system that allows some competition, but reflects real costs and benefits more effectively.
The best "managed system" is the one where people manage their own finances and make business and purchasing decisions based on their own needs and wants instead of the government making all those "managed system" decisions.
Becuase your wants automatically result in what is best for society?
Sorry, that's called greed, not sense.
It's not my job to decide what is best for society. If I do harm to society, that's when the government can come in and carry out a punishment. The government doesn't get to decide what is best and punish those who do harm. And wanting to make personal decisions for yourself instead of the government making them is not greed. What is greedy is thinking a person has the power to make decisions for everybody else.
Always implied: I know what is best for society. Period.
and
Making economic decisions through one's own self-interest = greed, not sense
Having your economic decisions made by government or forced upon you by the government = sense?, not greed?
Night Strike wrote:The government doesn't get to decide what is best and punish those who do harm.
Isn't that pretty much the definition of what a government does?
Night Strike wrote:And wanting to make personal decisions for yourself instead of the government making them is not greed. What is greedy is thinking a person has the power to make decisions for everybody else.
For instance, whether two individuals who love each other can be married.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Night Strike wrote:The government doesn't get to decide what is best and punish those who do harm.
Isn't that pretty much the definition of what a government does?
Until Obamacare, the government could not force you to take any action that you did not want to take. Of course, now they can, so I guess they can dictate everything to you.
Woodruff wrote:
Night Strike wrote:And wanting to make personal decisions for yourself instead of the government making them is not greed. What is greedy is thinking a person has the power to make decisions for everybody else.
For instance, whether two individuals who love each other can be married.
No one is forced to get married, so the government has the ability to define what marriage is.
Night Strike wrote:The government doesn't get to decide what is best and punish those who do harm.
Isn't that pretty much the definition of what a government does?
Until Obamacare, the government could not force you to take any action that you did not want to take. Of course, now they can, so I guess they can dictate everything to you.
Were you going to answer my question, or did you just want to stick with the diversionary tactic?
Night Strike wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
Night Strike wrote:And wanting to make personal decisions for yourself instead of the government making them is not greed. What is greedy is thinking a person has the power to make decisions for everybody else.
For instance, whether two individuals who love each other can be married.
No one is forced to get married, so the government has the ability to define what marriage is.
Stone cold hypocricy. You should be ashamed of yourself, Night Strike...seriously.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
NS is right - no one is forced to get married. That's not really what the argument is about, but you (woodruff) trapped yourself there. By the way, that's the equal protection argument for not permitting gay marriage.
thegreekdog wrote:NS is right - no one is forced to get married. That's not really what the argument is about, but you (woodruff) trapped yourself there. By the way, that's the equal protection argument for not permitting gay marriage.
I didn't trap myself at all. Of course, no one is forced to get married...that's not what I was responding to. What I was responding to was Night Strike's direct statement below that "What is greedy is thinking a person has the power to make decisions for everybody else.". Or do you believe that those against gay marriage AREN'T thinking they have the power to make that decision for everybody else? He's talking about wanting to make personal decisions for himself, but at the same time not allowing others to do so. The discussion is about having that ability. To quote:
Woodruff wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
Night Strike wrote:And wanting to make personal decisions for yourself instead of the government making them is not greed. What is greedy is thinking a person has the power to make decisions for everybody else.
For instance, whether two individuals who love each other can be married.
No one is forced to get married, so the government has the ability to define what marriage is.
Stone cold hypocricy. You should be ashamed of yourself, Night Strike...seriously.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
