[QUOTE=Boilrig;50590785]There's only one example I can think of being a large company which isn't public which would be Valve. Due to their position as not being public, they have no board to answer to or investors to make money for as they are a privately owned company.
The perfect example as the opposite of this is Electronic Arts, who are on the stock market and people will say most of all their decisions are money based, because yes, they have investors to make money for, so microtransactions and high game prices are perfect for that.
When it comes to investors and stockbrokers, they can be considered immoral as in some cases, for example they buy entire companies and then shut them down because the land and capital of that factory is worth more than the business itself putting hundreds of people out of jobs.[/QUOTE]
so people are owed jobs? interesting.
your valve EA comparison thing is awful, valve consistently shows that they are incapable of even the most basic customer service (not screwing the consumer) while EA has shown the exact opposite. as for how much their games cost, it isnt up to you to make an evaluation of their product (though valve and EA usually have the same starting price for new release games.)
[QUOTE=Muggi;50590754]Bit of a strawman there.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=mr kjerr;50590798]so people are owed jobs? interesting.
your valve EA comparison thing is awful, valve consistently shows that they are incapable of even the most basic customer service (not screwing the consumer) while EA has shown the exact opposite. as for how much their games cost, it isnt up to you to make an evaluation of their product (though valve and EA usually have the same starting price for new release games.)[/QUOTE]
Valve have no mandate to make money, due to their platform of Steam, they have a guaranteed revenue that they have no reason to make games, that's why we see the push of their Vive VR device. But in comparison, while EA have that money, it isn't in their best interest to spend years developing VR devices because that takes a lot of money, it is more feasible to simply develop yearly sports games and bi-yearly Battlefield games etc.
Due to this, Valve only provide up to the legal amount of support required, as many have seen with them in court over refunds in Europe. EA has to make money, their support will be more efficient and more streamlined to save costs and make sure customers are repeat customers. If Valve were a public company, Steam and Valve would be a completely different thing to what they are today.
[QUOTE=mr kjerr;50590772]oh "basically most." guess you shouldn't have spoken in absolutesl.
so you think that all investors and stockbrokers or whatever lingo buzzword thing you want to use next are immoral people?[/QUOTE]
Again, you stupidly try to strawman your way into indirectly calling us assholes for "thinking that all people who run businesses are sociopaths". Every post you made so far just seems to try to paint whoever you disagree with as an arse.
Of course the businesspeople are not sociopaths(at least i hope most of them aren't, but sociopaths do love power though). their actions in search for a higher profit margin may not look like to them an immoral action. It'd just be them making decisions like "buy all our competion up so we're the only ones providing the service , ergo more $$$"
On the surface that doesn't in any way seem bad or immoral, but what it leads to is monopolization and an overall decrease in economic stability, which is bad. Thus, corporations, not the people who run them neccessarily, are unfeeling towards its actions.
Here is a good summary of the candidates:
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36618738[/url]
Boris Johnson: Narcissist whose core driving belief is self-promotion. Most don't think he actually believed in his side in the referendum campaign, and he is disliked by many in his party, though his standing improved later in the campaign. Currently most likely to succeed Cameron and considered a strong electoral asset due to popularity with the public, but also often considered unsuitable for the position.
Theresa May: Longest serving Home Secretary in history who seems to dislike publicity. Impressively adept at avoiding scandal in the most difficult job in British politics. Second most likely to succeed Cameron and quietly supported Remain for the campaign.
Michael Gove: Extremely unpopular former Education Secretary, currently Lord Chancellor (controls Justice in the UK) where he has gotten a much better reception. A lot of the negativity surrounding him is somewhat unfair, but it has stuck. He personally plays down his potential to be leader and I personally doubt he will actually try.
George Osbourne: Originally considered a shoo-in, but his standing has declined among the Party due to his second disastrous and unpopular budget as well as his behaviour in the referendum campaign. Never been liked by many in the public, but still has many allies in the party, but his fortune has been previously closely linked with Cameron's, so he is in a weak position.
Others: Stephen Crabb (Tory Sadiq Khan. Has a beard, currently Welsh Secretary), Nicky Morgan (moderate and current education secretary, fairly low profile and not much backing in the party), Liam Fox (Disgraced former Defence secretary who shouldn't show himself around British politics if he had any honour), Andrea Leadsom, Dominic Raab, Sajid Javid, Phillip Hammond(?).
I think Johnson has it in the bag to be honest, unfortunately.
[QUOTE=mr kjerr;50590635]hilarious how you come to the conclusion that my ideas are based on naivety when you yourself seem to have a pessimistic world view that seems to see everyone as immoral. if you were a company owner or researcher would you charge a ridiculous price for a life saving drug that you could mass produce?[/QUOTE]
Me? No. The people in power? I think they definitely would.
Remember, we haven't "defeated" a disease since polio back in the '50s. That's not by accident. Cures don't sell, and treatment is most profitable when it keeps people merely [i]alive,[/i] not actually [b]healthy.[/b] The people running American healthcare don't want to help people, they want to [i]farm[/i] them. Keep them in that state of [i]adequate[/i] health that keeps them alive but also coming back.
It's all about that high score.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.