handofdave
|
When record profits aren't enough
Jul 31, 2008, 16:43
|
http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/31/news/companies/exxon_profits/?postversion=2008073110
This is considered a 'disappointment' to Exxon's stock analysts, because tho it was a record haul, it didn't reach the astronomical projections that were hoped for.
What do you call it when greed reaches such levels.. where perception is that skewed?
I once overheard a young woman complain bitterly that her dad had not bought her the BMW she wanted, but instead got her a Toyota. I remember thinking what an ungrateful brat she was. That a company can make record profits and still call it a bad day... I'm having similar thoughts about Exxon.
|
Margaret_Thatcher
|
Re: When record profits aren't enough
Aug 01, 2008, 02:09
|
|
You're not a shareholder then?
|
PMM
|
Re: When record profits aren't enough
Aug 01, 2008, 09:19
|
I used to be a shareholder.
I used to have shares in British Steel, British Gas, British Telecom. Other things too.
Then your government went and sold my share to private individuals. But if I'd had any money, I might have got a tax cut from it. Since I was poor, what I actually got was a £57.38 electric card from manweb as a windfall.
|
Margaret_Thatcher
|
Re: When record profits aren't enough
Aug 01, 2008, 14:36
|
|
Only way to make them run effectively...simple. How much tax do you think you'd be paying now if they were in public hands...and how efficient do you think they would be?
|
grufty jim
|
Edited Aug 01, 2008, 15:23
Re: When record profits aren't enough
Aug 01, 2008, 15:15
|
|
Margaret_Thatcher wrote: Only way to make them run effectively...simple. How much tax do you think you'd be paying now if they were in public hands...and how efficient do you think they would be?
Bollocks.
Sorry to be blunt and confrontational. But that argument makes my blood boil.
If state-owned industries are badly run, that's an issue of management and policy implementation, not a question of ownership. Please tell me what law of physics states that working for a publicly owned corporation causes a drop in efficiency.
There is none, of course, what there is instead is an historical artefact. There are well-understood reasons for the tendency of publicly owned institutions to run less efficiently than private ones. When people advocate selling public assets into private hands, they are essentially stating that they are unaware of, or do not understand those reasons. Or if they are aware of them and understand them, they are not competent to address them.
The question, to me, then becomes: why the fuck are you standing for office?! The job of running a nation includes running those assets owned by the nation. Standing for election on the platform "we don't know how to run this stuff efficiently, so we're going to sell it" is mind-boggling to me. And that people should vote for that platform in large numbers merely demonstrates the irrationality of crowds.
Public assets can be run efficiently and effectively. It's really not impossible. Selling them off is both criminally negligent (and I mean that literally; a government that fails to protect the interests of those it represents is negligent; one that actively schemes to damage those interests is criminally so) and an admission of incompetence.
|
Margaret_Thatcher
|
Re: When record profits aren't enough
Aug 01, 2008, 15:41
|
|
It's not an argument, it's a perfectly sound commerial philosophy.
|
Margaret_Thatcher
|
Re: When record profits aren't enough
Aug 01, 2008, 15:42
|
|
apologies for my spelling
|
grufty jim
|
Re: When record profits aren't enough
Aug 01, 2008, 16:01
|
|
Margaret_Thatcher wrote: It's not an argument, it's a perfectly sound commerial philosophy.
That's a way of shutting down the discussion without engaging with anything I've said, isn't it?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this "commercial philosophy" of which you speak is, in fact, making claims about the best way to run essential services, right? Well, as far as I know, that's what is generally known (in the English language) as "advancing an argument".
|
Sir John Dunn
|
Re: When record profits aren't enough
Aug 01, 2008, 18:32
|
|
Margaret_Thatcher wrote: apologies for my spelling
Apology accepted.
We'll meet afterwards, shall we?
|
Margaret_Thatcher
|
Re: When record profits aren't enough
Aug 02, 2008, 01:57
|
|
Your a bit too right wing for me Errol!
|
