4 ms·
Why was he able to make billions anyway? That money would have been spent better on charging less for his products than giving it to charity where much will pr
by Ardit20 16y ago
Why was he able to make billions anyway?
That money would have been spent better on charging less for his products than giving it to charity where much will probably be lost in immense bureaucracy.
- c1sc0 16y agoCould you define a level of bureaucracy that would be acceptable to you? 10%? 20%? 30%? While many charities are woefully inefficient, so are many businesses. And charities don't live in some kind of vacuum: inefficient charities fail just like inefficient businesses.
- Ardit20 16y agoIts the greater point which you have missed. He is not being some great guy, he is not being awesome, in this drunken state I am free to say that which I wanted to all along, he is a thief pure and simple, it is not HE giving away money, HE is not being ethical, some kind of god we should all adore for being so nice to us paroles. He stole this money. He charged much more for his products than he clearly, plainly knew he should have. He is not some guy who might have guessed how much he should charge, thus through trial and error trying to find out. He knew full well that he was making obscene amounts of money because he was charging highly for his products. So my point was not about charities. They are a matter for a different discussion. My point was, why on earth was he able to make BILLIONS, you know an amount that millions of us together need to work our Ass off to gain in perhaps our life time. Its legitimised theft and nothing else.
- mrtron 16y agoI wouldn't advise arguing against capitalism while drunk. What does the amount they charged for their product have to do with anything? Pricing is influenced by the market - the market was willing to pay what they were being charged. I don't know that pure capitalism is the ideal system (being Canadian I rely on public services like health care) but it is very difficult to claim he is a thief. They were wildly successful because they added a lot of value to the market.
- Ardit20 16y agoAlso, down vote the comment all you like. I was fully aware you would. Engage however if you dare :), that is what shows your worth.
- mrtron 16y agoThis type of comment isn't useful. Please refrain from feeling the need to add this when people disagree with your comment.
- Ardit20 16y agoI was making a fine point. The comment was down voted because they disagreed with it. Yet reasonable people can disagree. I think in this community down voting is used to discourage a certain behaviour, not so as to penalise someone who expresses a valid opinion. Charities are full of bureaucracy and the entire money does eventually not end up to the people who are supposed to get it. Also, squeezing as much profit as possible, perhaps to the expense of life and great environmental disaster in the case of BP, is not desirable.
- qq66 16y agoCharging less for his products would have primarily benefitted shareholders and white-collar professionals in American and Western European corporations. Why should he have benefitted them over abjectly poor people in the rest of the world?