4 ms·

Anything from a corporation saying “fearful” (for your wallet) things like “may cost more to produce(costing you more)” or reduce efficiency (costing you more)

Anything from a corporation saying “fearful” (for your wallet) things like “may cost more to produce(costing you more)” or reduce efficiency (costing you more) etc… Is just reworded excuses as to the corporation’s choosing profit. For they will never say “profit us less.”

dwighttk 4y ago
I dunno… it isn’t always a sliding scale… sometimes a change actually switches a product to too expensive to sell.
WalterBright 4y ago
Corporations can choose: 1. making a profit 2. going out of business If you raise the cost of doing business for a corporation, the cost of their products and services is going to rise accordingly.
- flandish 4y ago
  This is assuming we treat profit as immutable. Which is, I suppose, “rule one” in business, no? And in most cases - hey that’s fine. I disagree but it’s ok. One area where I will always push back is on services that are required for life. Food. Shelter. Power (electric, etc) … healthcare. If the service is critical, profit should be considered last, if at all. (As I write this, my elec provider has doubled its generation rate this month… yet making tons of profit for its shareholders…)
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    As history shows us, agriculture for profit is far cheaper and more effective than collective farms. The same with healthcare.
    - drtz 4y ago
      > As history shows us, agriculture for profit is far cheaper and more effective than collective farms. I doubt the accuracy of this statement. But I'll make a largely-unsubstantiated claim of my own, nonetheless: for-profit agriculture has substantially increased the cost of for-profit healthcare by focusing on high-profit foods that are highly processed and addictive instead of foods that are actually good for us to consume.
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        > I doubt the accuracy of this statement Spend 5 minutes researching it with google what happens with collective farms. > for-profit agriculture has substantially increased the cost of for-profit healthcare by focusing on high-profit foods that are highly processed and addictive instead of foods that are actually good for us to consume People vote with their dollars what they want to eat. Besides, if you do google the history of collective farms, the result in every case was famine, not breaking out in health.
        TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
        > collective farms, the result in every case was famine What about kibbutzs and moshavs in Israel? Granted, they are small-scale,
- autoexec 4y ago
  > If you raise the cost of doing business for a corporation, the cost of their products and services is going to rise accordingly. It doesn't always have to. Some companies make so much profit that they could easily choose to absorb an increase in the costs of doing business without raising the costs of the products/services. They'd continue to make massive amounts of profit, just slightly less than they were making before and in some cases I think we should expect companies to do exactly that.

dwighttk 4y ago

I dunno… it isn’t always a sliding scale… sometimes a change actually switches a product to too expensive to sell.

WalterBright 4y ago

Corporations can choose: 1. making a profit 2. going out of business If you raise the cost of doing business for a corporation, the cost of their products and services is going to rise accordingly.

flandish 4y ago
This is assuming we treat profit as immutable. Which is, I suppose, “rule one” in business, no? And in most cases - hey that’s fine. I disagree but it’s ok. One area where I will always push back is on services that are required for life. Food. Shelter. Power (electric, etc) … healthcare. If the service is critical, profit should be considered last, if at all. (As I write this, my elec provider has doubled its generation rate this month… yet making tons of profit for its shareholders…)
- WalterBright 4y ago
  As history shows us, agriculture for profit is far cheaper and more effective than collective farms. The same with healthcare.
  - drtz 4y ago
    > As history shows us, agriculture for profit is far cheaper and more effective than collective farms. I doubt the accuracy of this statement. But I'll make a largely-unsubstantiated claim of my own, nonetheless: for-profit agriculture has substantially increased the cost of for-profit healthcare by focusing on high-profit foods that are highly processed and addictive instead of foods that are actually good for us to consume.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      > I doubt the accuracy of this statement Spend 5 minutes researching it with google what happens with collective farms. > for-profit agriculture has substantially increased the cost of for-profit healthcare by focusing on high-profit foods that are highly processed and addictive instead of foods that are actually good for us to consume People vote with their dollars what they want to eat. Besides, if you do google the history of collective farms, the result in every case was famine, not breaking out in health.
      - TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
        > collective farms, the result in every case was famine What about kibbutzs and moshavs in Israel? Granted, they are small-scale,
autoexec 4y ago
> If you raise the cost of doing business for a corporation, the cost of their products and services is going to rise accordingly. It doesn't always have to. Some companies make so much profit that they could easily choose to absorb an increase in the costs of doing business without raising the costs of the products/services. They'd continue to make massive amounts of profit, just slightly less than they were making before and in some cases I think we should expect companies to do exactly that.