Greedy Corporate Cocksuckers Smacked Down

[reverendjeremiah]

Ron Paul seeks to protect the corporate profits for his buddies by suggesting that if people have been sexually harrassed at work they should not take the corporations to court..they should just quit their jobs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcC-dAuOm...ure=relmfu

Not that it matters, reallly...the country keeps going more and more right wing...soon we commoners will not be allowed access to the court systems anyways without some kind of proof of corporate citizenship

---

These Ron Paul worshippers are fucking obsessed...unlike on any other topic on Youtube....you cant say one bad thing about Ron Paul without being blitzed by 10 true believers in the first 3 minutes...many of them with names like "fighttheilluminati"...


The Ron Paul cult has invaded TYT, and it is obvious because every single video is run over with right wing libertarian ignorance...whic sucks because TYT is left wing anti-authoritarian and the posts are making us look bad.

[Autumnlicious]

Idly I wonder if the invisible hand is called invisible is because no one sees it pick your pockets.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Yeah, diverse arseholes do it here too,especially utilities,who want to be able to direct debit. Stuff that, I wan to be able to check and query my bills.


Currently there is a massive class action against all for major banks over various fees,which may be legally uninforceable and hence illegal. The banks may have to refund hundreds of millions of dollars in illegal fees. The class actions began after some individuals successfully sued banks for a refund of fees.

PLUS Japan's largest bank (owned by Mitsubishi) is about to enter the lucrative Aussie home mortgage market. Japan has arguably the highest rate of personal savings in the world,for which the banks pay an interest rate of .005%. That means home mortgage rates of UNDER 1%..Although we don't expect 1% loans, it IS expected the Japanese will offer mortgages for at least 2 points below our major banks. Not sure how this will work long term,as it may effect interest on savings and the money rate.

[reverendjeremiah]

Erm...I don't think you quite understood what happened here.

The company tried to add an additional charge to a service. Their customers didn't like the charge and complained. The company reversed the charge.

That is market forces. That is values "working themselves out". This is a perfect example of the free market working exactly how it is supposed to.

You must look down on me all the time dont you? You must think Im a complete bumbling idiot when it comes to economics the way you post responses to me.
not that Im in the least bit interested in discussing this with you (because you will post and post and post and never let it go until its ground into my face while you laugh at me)

This wasnt some "invisible hand" like the capitalists say. THAT is what I was saying (and Im sure you will argue the fuck out of out and Im not interested in doing that with you). That was corporate greed trying to add more cost onto the product. That wasnt some value working itself out. It was an arbitrary price they added onto it.

Oh, and not that I'm trying to defend the company here, but your assertion that there was "no reason other than greed" to add the additional charge was actually refuted by the article itself:

In other words: "Im not trying to defend the company...but....here is my defense of the company below..."

R - Every company has a pre made excuse for everything they do. they have the money for the best lawyers in the world. Sure, you go right ahead and believe that crap. I dont.

---

Besides....Libertarian Ron Paul says that if you get harrased at work, you should just quit your job in stead of take the company to court.

[Tiberius]

No, I don't look down on you at all. I don't think you are a bumbling idiot either, but I do think you've completely misunderstood what happened, and my explanation.

Firstly, I agree: The corporation adding an arbitrary price wasn't the invisible hand of the market, nor was it a value working itself out. I never argued this, nor would I. A corporation deciding to add a charge onto an existing service is not a "market force". We are in agreement on this point.

What were examples of market forces were the consumer reaction, and the subsequent removal of the charge. You seem to only be looking at the first half of this story (i.e. the company adding the charge) and completely ignoring what happened afterwards (i.e. the company removing the charge). Whether they added the charge because they were greedy isn't important to the rest of the story, because they reacted to consumer backlash and removed it.

So we are clear on what I am arguing:

Company adding an additional charge to a service =/= MARKET FORCES (or "invisible hand" or whatever)
Company bowing to pressure of consumers objecting to such a charge = MARKET FORCES.

As for the "excuse" side of it; I wasn't defending the company's decision to add such a charge, I was refuting your point about there being "no other reason other than greed", since another reason was indeed mentioned in the article. Now I work in I.T, so I know that electronic payment systems are indeed cheaper, and more reliable than other payment systems. This isn't some "crap" made up by the company; it really is true. That being said, I don't agree with the charge since I think there are better ways at getting your customers to switch payment systems.

[reverendjeremiah]

Alright...that sounds much more like it...except one thing

This isn't some "crap" made up by the company; it really is true.

LMFAO...it really is true?

I dont trust these corporate fuckwads any further than I can throw them, yet you come out all giddy in their defence.

[Tiberius]

No, like I've said twice now, I don't think what they did is the best way to go about trying to get your customers to switch payment methods. However, just because I don't like what they did doesn't mean I'm not going to defend their reasoning and/or excuse when I know for a fact that it is valid.

Electronic payment systems are cheaper and more reliable. Fact. They are cheaper because you don't have to have to pay someone to be on the other end of a phone, or to read through / enter details provided on a document. They are more reliable because the only human error involved is on the customer end (i.e. a customer enters their details wrong); the system is automatic and so doesn't often make mistakes.

[reverendjeremiah]

Look...if they really had a legitimate reason, then why did they just dump it down on the customers. They should have put a little money in to advertisement and explain to their customers the need of this without adding a charge.

They didnt do that, and THAT is why i say their excuse is bullshit. Of couse they arent going to say "we were trying to boost our profit margin" to the customers. They are going to say something that makes raising the cost of the product seem to be a direct benefit to the customer.

Its nothing to do with you...its them greedy fuckers over THERE that I think are lying scum bags.

[Tiberius]

I agree, they should have put money into advertisement and explained the reason for needing the change. There are lots of ways of handling this issue without adding a charge. I was merely commenting on the fact that the reasoning given in the article is perfectly valid. I don't know if it was the reasoning they used, if they were just being greedy, or if the people behind the decision were simply being lazy. Nobody other than the people who made the decision knows that.

[reverendjeremiah]

Thats cool R, you are obviously much more supportive of companies like this than I am. Whenever something goes wrong between me and a company I am purchasing services from happens, the first thing i think is "oh fuck..I wonder how many days I will have to spend fighting on the phone to get what I paid for?" which is usually a few days, especially down here in the country, they like to use the country as an excuse for taking their sweet time fixing shit..and they NEVER offer credit for down time. I have to get my wife on the phone and she rips them a new asshole and then they give us credit for downtime.

But, I will admit that i do not know what their real reason was. Hell, for all I know they could be telling the truth. It could be perfectly valid. If so, then I think they didnt think shit through very well. Personally if such were the case then i suggest they fire their PR guy and find a better one. Fire a few of those guys on the board...but that will never happen. They probably all have dirt on each other with the threat of leaking it in the event of being terminated.

Always remember, the number one rule of a capitalist company/corporation is INCREASE PROFIT! that reason alone is enough to make them suspect of anything and everything.