What scares the f*ck out of you?

[henry quirk]

What I know of business comes from running one (not from a book or a school).

I self-employ ('am' the business)...my experience of the world 'as is' trumps (for me) your (in my view) isolating idealism.

But: have it your way, tw...let me know how it works out in your own business.

[henry quirk]

"Productive companies - those that advance mankind - worry about the product."

Of course they do!

I've said the same multiple times, in multiple ways, in this thread.

Why, do they worry about the product, tw?

Because, in selling a better, or superior, product, the wise business owner hopes to make MORE PROFIT.

If more profit were not possible, the owner would NOT improve the product or seek to offer quality.

Why the hell would he?

[tw]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

Because, in selling a better, or superior, product, the wise business owner hopes to make MORE PROFIT.

Not always true. Especially not true with NGOs and other non-profits. All (honest and needed) businesses have in common is what makes them productive. They must decide which one to address. Either better products or better profits. One cannot maximize both.

Productive companies that address their products can have a reward - profits. I keep posting this and you keep ignoring it. In part because it contradicts what business schools indoctrinate. Profit is only a reward. A reward can also exist in other forms. But one must decide to maximize profits (the reward) or the product. Most things done to maximize profits create inferior products. One cannot do both. As demonstrated in examples that were apparently too long; created glazed over eyes.

In every example, companies failed because they wanted to the profits. Innovation dies. Cost controls further destroy products to increase profits. Top management is replaced by profit experts who do not even know how to use the product. This happens when naive MBA types assume profits mean a better product must exist. You have absolutely no reason to assume that.

One must make a choice. Either maximize a product or maximize profits. Balmer so tried to maximize profits as to obviously harm Microsot's products. That is not an exception. It is a rule so reliable that you still fail to provide even one example ton contradict it.

Why do you never post an example? To make the point, you must keep ignoring what was posted. Understand the major difference between a 'purpose' and a 'reward'. Difference is major. It explains why companies that maximized profits end up with inferior products, adversarial employees, and threats of bankruptcy. Every failed company tried to maximize profits; therefore had to ignore the product. Concepts such as cost controls exist in dying companies maximizing profits while ignoring its products. The want the reward without earning it.

[henry quirk]

"I keep posting this and you keep ignoring it."

No sir...in my own way: I've addressed all your points...that you don't like (or, understand) what I'm posting is not my concern.

You are right about this, though: "I keep posting". Yes, you do...the same things over and over and over, just as I keep posting the same things over and over and over.

I've convinced you of nuthin'; you've convinced me of nuthin' and 'round and 'round we go.

When I was young: merry go 'rounds were fun; as an older man: not so much.

So: as I say, tw, 'have it your way' (that is, believe as you like, as will I).

[DanaC]

This is one of the potential contenders (at some point) for leadership of the Conservatives over here - there are a lot of the party who'd like him at the top and the media touts him every so often as a rival to Cameron (partly becaue of the relationship between the London Mayoralty and Parliament) the interview is from 2012. Boris Johnson, Mayor of London:



More recently, on ISIS and the British Jihadi:

[DanaC]

For those who haven't seen him beyond the odd speech - here's the current PM and leader of the Conservatives on Letterman:

[tw]

[quote=henry quirk;925477No sir...in my own way: I've addressed all your points...that you don't like (or, understand) what I'm posting is not my concern.[/QUOTE] Sir. You clearly have not. Because you cannot. To have addressed each point means reasons why (not rhetoric). And you provided examples. You did neither because you cannot.

You said the purpose of a business is profits because profits are the purpose of a business. That is classic Tea Party reasoning - also called rhetoric. When challenged to post examples, you posted none. Not even one. Otherwise the fallacies in that rhetoric are exposed. Your reasoning is disingenuous. But classic of how radical and extremist opinions are defended.

Purpose of a business is either its profits or its products. Which one? Difference between purpose and reward is fundamental. You ignore both to remain entrenched in rhetoric. Same logic also proved increased health by smoking cigarettes. A naive consumer automatically believes only what he is told. And then becomes entrenched when reality and logic expose the myth. You even ignore businesses such as NGOs, SOE, and non-profits. Otherwise you might learn how easily you were deceived by sound byte rhetoric.

No way around exceptions that you ignore. Now way around the examples you cannot provide. No way around disingenuous reasoning that Limbaugh also uses to defect glaring contradictions.

Purpose of a productive business is its products. That will not change no matter how many times rhetoric says otherwise and its examples are ignored. Product (not profits) made America (and other free market nations) great. Profits are simply one example of the reward - and not the purpose of all businesses. When the purpose of a business is profits, then words such as racketeering and mafia apply. More examples that expose fallacies in your rhetoric. Since the purpose of businesses (that are not corrupt) has always been their product.

What they contribute to the advancement of mankind.

[tw]

Originally Posted by DanaC

For those who haven't seen him beyond the odd speech

So these guys hype 'let's get out of the EU'. When push comes to shove, do they really mean it? Or is this classic rhetoric that politicians use to inspired their followers - and that they do not really want or believe? What do you think? Are they really serious?

[henry quirk]

As I say, tw: 'have it your way'.

'nuff said.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by tw

So these guys hype 'let's get out of the EU'. When push comes to shove, do they really mean it? Or is this classic rhetoric that politicians use to inspired their followers - and that they do not really want or believe? What do you think? Are they really serious?

Some of them are - the Conservative Party is divided on the issue - some of them want out, others want to stay in but with renegotiated terms. Most of the serious leading figures in the party want to stay in, but there's a lot of pressure for them to promise an 'in/out' referendum.

It's a funny issue Europe - most of the main parties are divided on it, but for different reasons (the right of the Tories want out for reasons of national soveriegnty, whilst the left of Labour wants out because the dream of Europe has turned into a wet dream for business and we've basically already opted out of the worker protection aspects of Europe). One of the big issues is immigration and the free movement of citizens within Europe - so, when the new states joined their people suddenly had the right to move freely and work in any ocuntry in Europe etc - this led to an influx of people from Eastern Europe coming to the UK and that's upset a lot of people.

The right to control our own borders is a big issue for the anti-Europe side.

Whether they're serious? Don't know really. Some of them very much are - this has been a divisive issue within the Conservatives in particular, for decades. It was their internal divisions over Europe that pretty much killed them in '97.

For many of them though it is a rallying call - for someone like Cameron it is an albatross - on the one hand the needs of business and the economy clearly warrant a relationship with Europe - but he has to play a eurosceptic note if he wants to keep his troops onside.

The right wing fringe parties (like UKIP) have made much of the Conservatives' unwillingness to 'stand up for Britain' and free us from the European project - as they're the party most likely to draw away Tory support, there's a lot of pressure for the Conservatives to take a harder stance.

I've over simplified the issue - it's divisive and you'll find anti-european union attitudes amongst the left and right, for different reasons - and the fringe parties, on both left and right, often take a much harsher stance. With the main parties so close together (no one party won enough seats to form a credible government alone) those fringe parties are more of a threat to them than ever before. There is always a tug of war within parties and between parties over this issue.

[tw]

Originally Posted by DanaC

I've over simplified the issue - it's divisive and you'll find anti-european union attitudes amongst the left and right, for different reasons - and the fringe parties, on both left and right, often take a much harsher stance. With the main parties so close together (no one party won enough seats to form a credible government alone) those fringe parties are more of a threat to them than ever before.

Will this undermine the Conservatives coalition? British elections happen quickly. Can we expect the Queen to learn that Parliament has been dissolved? Details that might predict that event are difficult to grasp at this distance. Or has this already started?

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

<snip>

The situation seems closer to the owner saying "No" to these specific customers ...
because of what the owner believes these customers are going to do in the future ?
e.g, is the "religious freedom" issue that the customers are going to sin ?
or, who the customers appear to be in the eyes of the owner ?
How does that then differ from discrimination against any ethic group?

...It engages in commerce to serve the public.

Oregon law seems to agree...

Same-sex couple in Sweet Cakes controversy should receive $135,000, hearings officer says
George Rede - The Oregonian/OregonLive - 4/24/15

The lesbian couple turned away by a Gresham bakery that refused to make them a wedding cake
for religious reasons should receive $135,000 in damages for their emotional suffering,
a state hearings officer says.

Bureau prosecutors sought $75,000 for each woman -- $150,000 total -- during a hearing on damages in March.
...
The amounts recommended by law judge Alan McCullough, coming after four days of testimony, are not final.
State Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian has the final authority to raise, lower or leave the proposed damages as is.

In a statement Friday, BOLI* said: "The facts of this case clearly demonstrate that
the Kleins unlawfully discriminated against the Complainants.

Under Oregon law, businesses cannot discriminate or refuse service based on sexual orientation,
just as they cannot turn customers away because of race, sex, disability, age or religion.
Our agency is committed to fair and thorough enforcement of Oregon civil rights laws, including the Equality Act of 2007."

[BOLI - Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries]