Seems appropriate:
I am saddened to hear that about Stihl going downhill. I used to exclusively use their pro-line chainsaws back when I did tree and landscape work. Their saws would last forever if taken care of properly. A co-worker had an old Stihl saw back in the early 2000’s which was stamped “Made in West Germany”.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Seems appropriate:
I actually took a look at all the links in the article, something most readers won’t do. Here’s the gist of it:
- black female academic posts article about how problematic it is to talk about ‘the women’, ‘the blacks’ and ‘the gays’ as if there isn’t any overlap since this pretty much suggests that all women are straight and white.
- white female comes in and starts complaining that, apparently, this means she has no right to complain about her rape since she’s white. (Note that no one said this)
- black female academic loses her shit and tells white female that this isn’t what anyone said and that she’s using the rape card to distort the subject.
- white female tells fox news she feels victimised.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Seems appropriate:
Not really, since it’s apples to oranges in the gist of this debate.
Granted, I think the way the professor responded, despite the fact that she may have had some reason to get annoyed with the victim based on the original FB exchange (see the actual links), was completely unprofessional and very acerbic, so no defense there in that regard.
However, a professor at a university, who is also a public (government) employee that enjoys considerable academic freedom - tenured or not, does not play by the same legal rules as an at-will, private sector employee. There is much case law to support this, and the same goes for K-12 teachers, though to a lesser degree as college professors. You can debate whether or not that’s fair, but it’s a separate topic from what’s being debated here.
[quote]batman730 wrote:
My preference in my own business affairs is to do everything within my power to provide the highest quality product available and to do so at the best value I can reasonably afford in the marketplace and to treat everybody involved with decency and respect in hopes that the proposition is win/win. I consider this to be a matter of ethics. It pays dividends in terms of customer retention etc., but really it just lets me look myself in the mirror which has value for me but would have no value to my hypothetical shareholders if I were operating as a corporation.[/quote]
But you are assuming the consumer is going to choose quality and “reasonable pricing”.
The consumer doesn’t give a fuck about your ethics.
[quote]nighthawkz wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Seems appropriate:
I actually took a look at all the links in the article, something most readers won’t do. Here’s the gist of it:
- black female academic posts article about how problematic it is to talk about ‘the women’, ‘the blacks’ and ‘the gays’ as if there isn’t any overlap since this pretty much suggests that all women are straight and white.
- white female comes in and starts complaining that, apparently, this means she has no right to complain about her rape since she’s white. (Note that no one said this)
- black female academic loses her shit and tells white female that this isn’t what anyone said and that she’s using the rape card to distort the subject.
- white female tells fox news she feels victimised.
[/quote]
My understanding from the actual article was that the two were in some sort of public chat setting (I don’t use Facebook), the topic came up, the white woman felt like she couldn’t reach out because she’s white, and black lady (who was already in hot water for another issue) lost her shit.
[quote]JR249 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Seems appropriate:
Not really, since it’s apples to oranges in the gist of this debate.
Granted, I think the way the professor responded, despite the fact that she may have had some reason to get annoyed with the victim based on the original FB exchange (see the actual links), was completely unprofessional and very acerbic, so no defense there in that regard.
However, a professor at a university, who is also a public (government) employee that enjoys considerable academic freedom - tenured or not, does not play by the same legal rules as an at-will, private sector employee. There is much case law to support this, and the same goes for K-12 teachers, though to a lesser degree as college professors. You can debate whether or not that’s fair, but it’s a separate topic from what’s being debated here. [/quote]
I actually meant that it seemed appropriate because we have been talking about how social media can destroy a career (supposedly).
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I actually meant that it seemed appropriate because we have been talking about how social media can destroy a career (supposedly). [/quote]
We’ve dealt with this in education, though university professors get away with far more than K-12 teachers due to the heightened level of academic freedom (e.g., Ward Churchill’s remarks about 09/11).
[quote]dt79 wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
My preference in my own business affairs is to do everything within my power to provide the highest quality product available and to do so at the best value I can reasonably afford in the marketplace and to treat everybody involved with decency and respect in hopes that the proposition is win/win. I consider this to be a matter of ethics. It pays dividends in terms of customer retention etc., but really it just lets me look myself in the mirror which has value for me but would have no value to my hypothetical shareholders if I were operating as a corporation.[/quote]
But you are assuming the consumer is going to choose quality and “reasonable pricing”.
The consumer doesn’t give a fuck about your ethics. [/quote]
I am assuming no such thing. I am conducting my affairs in a way that works for me, on a personal level. I am not admonishing anyone else to do the same. I specifically say that my primary reason for doing this is so I can look myself in the face with a clear conscience. I also specifically say that I can see how this doesn’t apply to a larger corporation.
Our customers may or may not give a fuck about our ethics, however we have near 100% retention, we spend virtually nothing on sales and marketing as we are inundated with referrals and the demand for our services far outstrips our ability to supply those services, the limiting factor be our ability to find good personnel who will provide the quality of service we insist upon. So all in all, it works OK us.
What if the supposed victim of being “thrown under the bus” due to a single act of indiscretion was not a member of the working class being screwed over by an evil corporation, but turned out to be this guy?
[quote]batman730 wrote:
[quote]dt79 wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
My preference in my own business affairs is to do everything within my power to provide the highest quality product available and to do so at the best value I can reasonably afford in the marketplace and to treat everybody involved with decency and respect in hopes that the proposition is win/win. I consider this to be a matter of ethics. It pays dividends in terms of customer retention etc., but really it just lets me look myself in the mirror which has value for me but would have no value to my hypothetical shareholders if I were operating as a corporation.[/quote]
But you are assuming the consumer is going to choose quality and “reasonable pricing”.
The consumer doesn’t give a fuck about your ethics. [/quote]
I am assuming no such thing. I am conducting my affairs in a way that works for me, on a personal level. I am not admonishing anyone else to do the same. I specifically say that my primary reason for doing this is so I can look myself in the face with a clear conscience. I also specifically say that I can see how this doesn’t apply to a larger corporation.
Our customers may or may not give a fuck about our ethics, however we have near 100% retention, we spend virtually nothing on sales and marketing as we are inundated with referrals and the demand for our services far outstrips our ability to supply those services, the limiting factor be our ability to find good personnel who will provide the quality of service we insist upon. So all in all, it works OK us.
[/quote]
Indeed. But that’s your experience in only one small part of a specific industry.
[quote]dt79 wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
[quote]dt79 wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
My preference in my own business affairs is to do everything within my power to provide the highest quality product available and to do so at the best value I can reasonably afford in the marketplace and to treat everybody involved with decency and respect in hopes that the proposition is win/win. I consider this to be a matter of ethics. It pays dividends in terms of customer retention etc., but really it just lets me look myself in the mirror which has value for me but would have no value to my hypothetical shareholders if I were operating as a corporation.[/quote]
But you are assuming the consumer is going to choose quality and “reasonable pricing”.
The consumer doesn’t give a fuck about your ethics. [/quote]
I am assuming no such thing. I am conducting my affairs in a way that works for me, on a personal level. I am not admonishing anyone else to do the same. I specifically say that my primary reason for doing this is so I can look myself in the face with a clear conscience. I also specifically say that I can see how this doesn’t apply to a larger corporation.
Our customers may or may not give a fuck about our ethics, however we have near 100% retention, we spend virtually nothing on sales and marketing as we are inundated with referrals and the demand for our services far outstrips our ability to supply those services, the limiting factor be our ability to find good personnel who will provide the quality of service we insist upon. So all in all, it works OK us.
[/quote]
Indeed. But that’s your experience in only one small part of a specific industry.[/quote]
Indeed. Which is why I describe it as my preference and add in the disclaimers about larger scale business.
That said, it could be seen as somewhat concerning that some of the most powerful entities on the planet are specifically designed to operate without concern for conscience or ethics. Seems like something of a two edged sword. The unsustainability and collateral destruction resulting from primary industry alone should give even the most dyed in the wool capitalist moment’a pause.
Over 90% of the oceans’ biomass has been depleted. Some, more well off consumers are just now beginning to make seafood choices based on sustainability. Kinda late in the game to start voting with our dollars. It is what it is. I’m not doing an evil corporation rant. I’m just saying maybe there are some questions we need to ask about the future direction of capitalism.
[quote]batman730 wrote:
[quote]dt79 wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
[quote]dt79 wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
My preference in my own business affairs is to do everything within my power to provide the highest quality product available and to do so at the best value I can reasonably afford in the marketplace and to treat everybody involved with decency and respect in hopes that the proposition is win/win. I consider this to be a matter of ethics. It pays dividends in terms of customer retention etc., but really it just lets me look myself in the mirror which has value for me but would have no value to my hypothetical shareholders if I were operating as a corporation.[/quote]
But you are assuming the consumer is going to choose quality and “reasonable pricing”.
The consumer doesn’t give a fuck about your ethics. [/quote]
I am assuming no such thing. I am conducting my affairs in a way that works for me, on a personal level. I am not admonishing anyone else to do the same. I specifically say that my primary reason for doing this is so I can look myself in the face with a clear conscience. I also specifically say that I can see how this doesn’t apply to a larger corporation.
Our customers may or may not give a fuck about our ethics, however we have near 100% retention, we spend virtually nothing on sales and marketing as we are inundated with referrals and the demand for our services far outstrips our ability to supply those services, the limiting factor be our ability to find good personnel who will provide the quality of service we insist upon. So all in all, it works OK us.
[/quote]
Indeed. But that’s your experience in only one small part of a specific industry.[/quote]
Indeed. Which is why I describe it as my preference and add in the disclaimers about larger scale business.
That said, it could be seen as somewhat concerning that some of the most powerful entities on the planet are specifically designed to operate without concern for conscience or ethics. Seems like something of a two edged sword. The unsustainability and collateral destruction resulting from primary industry alone should give even the most dyed in the wool capitalist moment’a pause.
Over 90% of the oceans’ biomass has been depleted. Some, more well off consumers are just now beginning to make seafood choices based on sustainability. Kinda late in the game to start voting with our dollars. It is what it is. I’m not doing an evil corporation rant. I’m just saying maybe there are some questions we need to ask about the future direction of capitalism.[/quote]
It isn’t the private ownership of capital to blame for poor choices. In fact a government is almost no different than a massive conglomerate like that which you are speaking of.
Taking away the ownership of capital from individuals (ie: removing freedom from the people) will not, in any way shape of form, guarantee the sudden shift and saving of the ocean or rain forest.
I’m flabbergasted that anyone that has even an infantile understanding of what WWII was could possibly, for even one moment, even begin to think that collective control of capital would be some sort of improvement over individual ownership.
In short, you’re fallaciously blaming capitalism for a problem it has nothing to do with, it doesn’t exasperate, and its alternative doesn’t fix.
[quote]batman730 wrote:
[quote]dt79 wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
[quote]dt79 wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
My preference in my own business affairs is to do everything within my power to provide the highest quality product available and to do so at the best value I can reasonably afford in the marketplace and to treat everybody involved with decency and respect in hopes that the proposition is win/win. I consider this to be a matter of ethics. It pays dividends in terms of customer retention etc., but really it just lets me look myself in the mirror which has value for me but would have no value to my hypothetical shareholders if I were operating as a corporation.[/quote]
But you are assuming the consumer is going to choose quality and “reasonable pricing”.
The consumer doesn’t give a fuck about your ethics. [/quote]
I am assuming no such thing. I am conducting my affairs in a way that works for me, on a personal level. I am not admonishing anyone else to do the same. I specifically say that my primary reason for doing this is so I can look myself in the face with a clear conscience. I also specifically say that I can see how this doesn’t apply to a larger corporation.
Our customers may or may not give a fuck about our ethics, however we have near 100% retention, we spend virtually nothing on sales and marketing as we are inundated with referrals and the demand for our services far outstrips our ability to supply those services, the limiting factor be our ability to find good personnel who will provide the quality of service we insist upon. So all in all, it works OK us.
[/quote]
Indeed. But that’s your experience in only one small part of a specific industry.[/quote]
Indeed. Which is why I describe it as my preference and add in the disclaimers about larger scale business.
That said, it could be seen as somewhat concerning that some of the most powerful entities on the planet are specifically designed to operate without concern for conscience or ethics. Seems like something of a two edged sword. The unsustainability and collateral destruction resulting from primary industry alone should give even the most dyed in the wool capitalist moment’a pause.
Over 90% of the oceans’ biomass has been depleted. Some, more well off consumers are just now beginning to make seafood choices based on sustainability. Kinda late in the game to start voting with our dollars. It is what it is. I’m not doing an evil corporation rant. I’m just saying maybe there are some questions we need to ask about the future direction of capitalism.[/quote]
Alright. I don’t think we’re on the same page here. Let’s agree to disagree. 
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
[quote]dt79 wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
[quote]dt79 wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
My preference in my own business affairs is to do everything within my power to provide the highest quality product available and to do so at the best value I can reasonably afford in the marketplace and to treat everybody involved with decency and respect in hopes that the proposition is win/win. I consider this to be a matter of ethics. It pays dividends in terms of customer retention etc., but really it just lets me look myself in the mirror which has value for me but would have no value to my hypothetical shareholders if I were operating as a corporation.[/quote]
But you are assuming the consumer is going to choose quality and “reasonable pricing”.
The consumer doesn’t give a fuck about your ethics. [/quote]
I am assuming no such thing. I am conducting my affairs in a way that works for me, on a personal level. I am not admonishing anyone else to do the same. I specifically say that my primary reason for doing this is so I can look myself in the face with a clear conscience. I also specifically say that I can see how this doesn’t apply to a larger corporation.
Our customers may or may not give a fuck about our ethics, however we have near 100% retention, we spend virtually nothing on sales and marketing as we are inundated with referrals and the demand for our services far outstrips our ability to supply those services, the limiting factor be our ability to find good personnel who will provide the quality of service we insist upon. So all in all, it works OK us.
[/quote]
Indeed. But that’s your experience in only one small part of a specific industry.[/quote]
Indeed. Which is why I describe it as my preference and add in the disclaimers about larger scale business.
That said, it could be seen as somewhat concerning that some of the most powerful entities on the planet are specifically designed to operate without concern for conscience or ethics. Seems like something of a two edged sword. The unsustainability and collateral destruction resulting from primary industry alone should give even the most dyed in the wool capitalist moment’a pause.
Over 90% of the oceans’ biomass has been depleted. Some, more well off consumers are just now beginning to make seafood choices based on sustainability. Kinda late in the game to start voting with our dollars. It is what it is. I’m not doing an evil corporation rant. I’m just saying maybe there are some questions we need to ask about the future direction of capitalism.[/quote]
It isn’t the private ownership of capital to blame for poor choices. In fact a government is almost no different than a massive conglomerate like that which you are speaking of.
Taking away the ownership of capital from individuals (ie: removing freedom from the people) will not, in any way shape of form, guarantee the sudden shift and saving of the ocean or rain forest.
I’m flabbergasted that anyone that has even an infantile understanding of what WWII was could possibly, for even one moment, even begin to think that collective control of capital would be some sort of improvement over individual ownership.
In short, you’re fallaciously blaming capitalism for a problem it has nothing to do with, it doesn’t exasperate, and its alternative doesn’t fix. [/quote]
No, I am not. I don’t have time to clarify this right now but I will.