Purpose of any Company is Profits - screw the workers

[lookout123]

I'm just waiting for some instant lessons on the proper pro-american method of investing. I'm sure someone will come along with a few clever one liners implying we'd all be wealthy and happy if we were smart enough to invest "the right way" like them.

and true to form ladies and gentlemen, I present *drumroll* TW!

Originally Posted by tw

Which is why finance people must be heavily regulated; why finance people are so easily corrupted. If reward was the only purpose as lookout123 says, then Bill Gates should buy all Olympic gold metals and be the world's best athlete.

Meanwhile, in the real world, only people who deserve profits are those who contribute to the advancement of mankind – who make better products that an economy needs. When finance people are honest, that is what happens.

No profits? That message says the product / company is operating against mankind – working to corrupt the economy. Profits only say one might be advancing mankind. Eventually even the spread sheets from Enron style companies show how much they have subverted mankind because only profits were important.

If a company is earning a profit instead of advancing the product; that is the mafia. Obviously, finance people rarely grasp the concept because their training and nature is to be corrupt at any opportunity. Greed is good. Screw the people, economy, mankind, and the world. That simple principle commonly found in Wall Street where innovation and economic advancement is not the purpose. Where innovation is something messy that just gets in the way of profits.

American soldiers were found dead. Slumped over their broken down and jammed M-16s. Why? That was good. By using cheaper ammunition, profits were made. Lookout123’s principles. Profits are the purpose. Which is why those deaths were routinely covered up until whistle blowers were finally discovered. Those dead American soldiers are a direct result of lookout123's principles. Even openly advocated by the George Jr administration: ie Haliburton, K-Street, and long list of world record corruption.

Since profits are the purpose of any company, George Jr's adminstration even refused to prosecute Enron. In complete agreement with the principles advocated by lookout123.

[TheMercenary]

Oh, good God.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by lookout123

So what you are saying is that you buy stocks with no concern for what they'll be at some point in the future?

Nooo, you invest to make money for yourself. The likelihood of profit is just greater in well run companies who also happen to be innovative. Don't mistake motive for method.

I'm not saying people don't invest hoping stock will go up in the future, of course they do. But speculators and short sellers and the like MANIPULATE THE MARKET to artificially make prices go up or down so they can make a lot of money in the short run, then they pull out and everything goes all wonky and collapses. THAT is what I'm talking about. They use unethical practicies that should be outlawed, because they are the cause of millions of people losing their savings, their retirement funds, companies going bankrupt, etc. They have caused several crashes, and now they have caused a global crash. They need to be stopped, period.

If Obama had not pumped so much money into the economy so quickly we would probably still be on a downward spiral and in a depression, but of course he gets reamed for doing it, sooooo...

[lookout123]

If Obama had not pumped so much money into the economy so quickly we would probably still be on a downward spiral and in a depression, but of course he gets reamed for doing it, sooooo...

Or weak companies would have collapsed causing a very bloody but necessary culling of the herd. Now all we've done is create different problems from the ones people were crying about in the fall and winter. Greenspan slashed the rates and encouraged homeownership for the unqualified which helped bring us out of recession... i think i've heard someone say that wasn't the right thing to do. don't worry, i'm sure Obama thought everything through just fine.

I'm not saying people don't invest hoping stock will go up in the future, of course they do. But speculators and short sellers and the like MANIPULATE THE MARKET to artificially make prices go up or down so they can make a lot of money in the short run, then they pull out and everything goes all wonky and collapses. THAT is what I'm talking about. They use unethical practicies that should be outlawed, because they are the cause of millions of people losing their savings, their retirement funds, companies going bankrupt, etc. They have caused several crashes, and now they have caused a global crash. They need to be stopped, period.

Can you tell me what exactly they do in something other than outraged soundbyte terminology?

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

Or weak companies would have collapsed causing a very bloody but necessary culling of the herd.

lookout123 conveniently ignores a common factor in those nearly bankrupt companies. A widespread belief that the company's purpose is its profits. Those who most want profits (screw the products) are same that most need bankruptcy. lookout123 simply forgets that part. It could not be true. Otherwise concepts taught to stock brokers and business school graduates must be wrong!

How did 1979 Chrysler and 1981 Ford get saved? Executives who knew their purpose was profits (did exactly what Wall Street said) got removed. New executives were people who come from where the work gets done - know products are the purpose. Both companies went from near bankruptcy to record profits by simply ignoring profits and making better products. But that is not what stock brokers say. "Greed is good", says lookout123.

Many American jobs may have been saved simply by forcing companies to admit to Enron accounting. Enron accounting because profits are the only purpose. lookout123 never criticized Enron accounting for good reason.

Unfortunately, not enough Enron trained accountant and other business school graduates got the shaft they deserve. We know what created this recession. People so corrupt as to even say tax cuts (welfare) to the rich will increase profits. Money games by people so corrupt as to say the purpose of a company is profits.

lookout123 even said companies can earn profits without producing anything – and that is good. lookout123 has just approved of the mafia. So what is the difference between a stock broker or finance guy – and the mafia? Less than some want to admit. Profits can be earned by making no products - because corruption is the purpose of business.

[lookout123]

New executives were people who come from where the work gets done - know products are the purpose. Both companies went from near bankruptcy to record profits by simply ignoring profits and making better products.

You're a fucking moron. oh i should probably finish that... you're a fucking moron if you believe they became profitable by ignoring profits. good management understands that real profits come from creating products people want, at a pricepoint they can afford, with costs being significantly less than revenues.

Many American jobs may have been saved simply by forcing companies to admit to Enron accounting. Enron accounting because profits are the only purpose. lookout123 never criticized Enron accounting for good reason.

I haven't criticized Enron because they aren't a part of this discussion. They may be one of your obsessions but that doesn't make them relevant to every discussion.

We know what created this recession. People so corrupt as to even say tax cuts (welfare) to the rich will increase profits. Money games by people so corrupt as to say the purpose of a company is profits.

Sure, it could be that. Or we could also acknowledge the inarguable fact that recessions are an inevitable and necessary part of the economic cycle. They come and go regardless of political party or hair styles. Ever notice how wacko extremists tend to place blame at the feet of their enemies regardless of the facts?

lookout123 even said companies can earn profits without producing anything – and that is good.

Could you cite that post for me? I seem to have misplaced it.

So what is the difference between a stock broker or finance guy – and the mafia?

Oooh, I know I know! the mafia tend to kill fools whereas I just ridicule them on the internet.

Profits can be earned by making no products - because corruption is the purpose of business.

You've beat that drum long enough now would you care to provide some support for your incorrect ideas or should we just assume you're speaking out your ass again?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by lookout123

we should just assume you're speaking out your ass again?

fixed that for ya.

[lookout123]

sorry, my greed fueled incompetence got the better of me there.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by lookout123

Or weak companies would have collapsed causing a very bloody but necessary culling of the herd. Now all we've done is create different problems from the ones people were crying about in the fall and winter. Greenspan slashed the rates and encouraged homeownership for the unqualified which helped bring us out of recession... i think i've heard someone say that wasn't the right thing to do. don't worry, i'm sure Obama thought everything through just fine.

Well, according to almost every economist I've heard interviewed, they agree we would be in much worse shape. Of course all of them don't agree about different aspects of all the different plans, but they pretty much all agree he (and Bush also) acted quickly and with a lot of money, which is what needed to happen. You saw what happened with teh collapse of just one bank. Imagine that x about 50 of the biggest financial institutions in the world. It would have been chaos.

Can you tell me what exactly they do in something other than outraged soundbyte terminology?

Look, I have read a LOT about this, and I have watched a LOT about this, but granted I don't completely understand every aspect of it. I can certainly post clips of how "those in the know" describe it, but I thought you would appreciate me speaking in my own words. If you want something deeper, I'll have to use links or cut and paste.

You know, I feel like you are just trying to trip me up, not because I'm wrong, but because you think I'm too stupid to understand what I'm talking about. Well, I've got news for you. A lot of those really smart people who were doing it didn't completely understand it either, because if they did, we wouldn't be in this mess.

[sugarpop]

Following are just a few places where I have gleaned information about what is going on, and things that are related and have happened in the past, like the price of oil last year, or what happened during the Great Depression and how it was different, and the actions we took then vs what we haven't done this time, and how that might adversely affect us. It is all connected. I can post more, if you'd like lookout. I also get a lot of information from PBS and PBR shows like Democracy Now and Frontline and Bill Moyers, or from various magazines, like Fortune, Mother Jones, Time or Adbusters, and I sometimes read papers like the Washington Post, or New York Times, I like people like Paul Krugman, Arrianna Huffington and Noam Chomsky, and I sometimes read Salon or other online sources. I watch a lot of msnbc and cnbc and cnn as well. So, I am actually getting information from a whole lot of different sources.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...e_big_takeover

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meltdown/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ws/regulation/

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04...anscript1.html

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02...anscript3.html

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/finance/

http://www.cnbc.com/id/28892719

http://www.cnbc.com/id/26334704

http://www.cnbc.com/id/29476319

I watched a couple of shows on (I think) the History Channel as well, but I can't find them.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I didn't realize the guy that invented/marketed the Hula-Hoop and made a gazillion dollars, was advancing mankind.

[Undertoad]

PBS
Democracy Now
Frontline
Bill Moyers
Fortune
Mother Jones
Time
Adbusters
Washington Post
New York Times
Paul Krugman
Arrianna Huffington
Noam Chomsky
Salon

So, I am actually getting information from a whole lot of different sources.

Yep, you've got all points covered, from the mildly left to the radical left.

[lookout123]

Thanks UT. That is my point of contention with Sugarpop. You can read a lot of sources and find they all the same thing, that's great. What you have to consider is whether they say the same thing because they are correct or because they are all incorrect together.

In my world I describe the phenomenon like this: I get clients who sho up and tell me how they are very safely invested because they are very diversified with no more than 5% of their money in any one mutual fund... the problem is that those funds own almost the same thing so they aren't really diversified at all.

[classicman]

Good points - they probably get their information from the same/similar biased sources, just like the opposing view.

When they are all telling you what you WANT to believe, hear or agree with its difficult not to get all worked up.

I try to watch, read, listen to multiple platforms from different leanings and then take the extremist views out, knowing that the truth is usually somewhere between the two.

[sugarpop]

Oh good grief. Those are not all left sources. Some of them are, but most of them are completely unbiased and right in the middle. And ftr, when I was trying to figure out what happened, I went to sources like Forbes, Fortune and the Wall Street Journal as well. Those are financial magazines. And CNBC is a financial network.

Tell me lookout, what is wrong with any one of those sources that I listed? NOTHING.