HorrorMovieFans.com

Regulations help curtail criminality.

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote: Good lord, adding non-edible things to food is not illegal because of regulations. If you are knowingly adding sawdust to food and serving it, that is criminal, not a regulatory issue. Just like if a hot dog vendor was pissing in the water. Regulations are not needed to enforce that being a crime.

It is important to theorize because you think things are possible that are not. You are looking at the sad story written by the loser and not how things got to that point.

For instance, as it stands right now, I could not be forced out of Crave because I won the vast majority of it. there are not enough outstanding shares beyond my control to force me out. Now, if I were to sell off more than I won, then that would be possible. So, when an owner is forced out because he sold more shares of his company than he controls, who was the greedy party?

if there is not corporate greed at all, in your estimation, then this thread would seem to not have a purpose. if it just winners overcoming losers, then we can all move on?

Everyone is greedy.

if everyone is greedy, then there is no reason to get defensive when i call it out in someone or some organization.

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:
Corporations use liberals as useful idiots.

zombie: corporate greed is a thing.

foo: no it's not.

My issue is that you see a situation and blame the successful person for being greedy. Many times, it is the reverse.

During the whole mortgage meltdown, everyone was blaming lenders for giving out loans people could not afford. The people who took the loans were rarely mentioned.

showa58taro wrote:Regulations help curtail criminality.

uh huh. if you don't have some way to know that someone put sawdust in the bread, then it goes unpunished. hence: regulation.

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:
Corporations use liberals as useful idiots.

zombie: corporate greed is a thing.

foo: no it's not.

My issue is that you see a situation and blame the successful person for being greedy. Many times, it is the reverse.

During the whole mortgage meltdown, everyone was blaming lenders for giving out loans people could not afford. The people who took the loans were rarely mentioned.

your problem is that you want me to be wrong, because you consider me to be a liberal or something, so you don't actually take what i'm saying into account, no matter how many times i try to tell you what i mean. you just twist it and force it to fit your bias.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjD2yrW1bxE

Cautionary tale. Made millions and now can barely pay child support for his 10 kids, lolz.

showa58taro wrote:Regulations help curtail criminality.

What crimes do you not commit because of regulations?

As someone who runs a business in and industry full of regulations, I will tell you we do the right thing because we want to have a successful business with happy customers. I give no shits about the regulations because we care more about the business than the government does. The annoyance for me is paying them to be dipshits.

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:
Corporations use liberals as useful idiots.

zombie: corporate greed is a thing.

foo: no it's not.

My issue is that you see a situation and blame the successful person for being greedy. Many times, it is the reverse.

During the whole mortgage meltdown, everyone was blaming lenders for giving out loans people could not afford. The people who took the loans were rarely mentioned.

Because they were missold or sold under false pretenses on the mortgage they got and the supposed ease of financing. Because it was badly regulated.

The prospecting and futures built on the back of it just worsened it.

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:Regulations help curtail criminality.

What crimes do you not commit because of regulations?

As someone who runs a business in and industry full of regulations, I will tell you we do the right thing because we want to have a successful business with happy customers. I give no shits about the regulations because we care more about the business than the government does. The annoyance for me is paying them to be dipshits.

Good that you're a good one. I've seen the bad ones. And I know just how crucial regulation is. I audit all the U.K. ones.

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:
Corporations use liberals as useful idiots.

zombie: corporate greed is a thing.

foo: no it's not.

My issue is that you see a situation and blame the successful person for being greedy. Many times, it is the reverse.

During the whole mortgage meltdown, everyone was blaming lenders for giving out loans people could not afford. The people who took the loans were rarely mentioned.

your problem is that you want me to be wrong, because you consider me to be a liberal or something, so you don't actually take what i'm saying into account, no matter how many times i try to tell you what i mean. you just twist it and force it to fit your bias.

I asked you several times to explain your example of corporate greed where an owner is forced out. I would say there is a fundamental flaw in your thinking on the subject if you cannot provide how that would even work.

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:
Corporations use liberals as useful idiots.

zombie: corporate greed is a thing.

foo: no it's not.

My issue is that you see a situation and blame the successful person for being greedy. Many times, it is the reverse.

During the whole mortgage meltdown, everyone was blaming lenders for giving out loans people could not afford. The people who took the loans were rarely mentioned.

your problem is that you want me to be wrong, because you consider me to be a liberal or something, so you don't actually take what i'm saying into account, no matter how many times i try to tell you what i mean. you just twist it and force it to fit your bias.

I asked you several times to explain your example of corporate greed where an owner is forced out. I would say there is a fundamental flaw in your thinking on the subject if you cannot provide how that would even work.

In the situation he described it sounds like the larger power undercuts and reduces profitability until the owner is forced to sell or shut up shop. It seems odd that you can't stretch to (or read) that in his original points.

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:
Corporations use liberals as useful idiots.

zombie: corporate greed is a thing.

foo: no it's not.

My issue is that you see a situation and blame the successful person for being greedy. Many times, it is the reverse.

During the whole mortgage meltdown, everyone was blaming lenders for giving out loans people could not afford. The people who took the loans were rarely mentioned.

Because they were missold or sold under false pretenses on the mortgage they got and the supposed ease of financing. Because it was badly regulated.

The prospecting and futures built on the back of it just worsened it.

So when you make $2200 a month and take out a $1,000 mortgage, because you have no other bills, and then immediately after getting the mortgage run out and buy a new Lexus with a $700 a month payment, that is the fault of the guy who gave you the mortgage?

Regulations cannot fix stupid. When that same thing happened and property values were rising, and the guy owned a home that he would not otherwise be able to afford, were the regulations bad?

The down payment and ratios were adjusted to allow more people to own homes, because the liberals saw great inequality in only the well off being able to buy homes because you needed 20% down and good income ratios. They gave butt pats all around when black home ownership was rising. Amazing.

Foo wrote:
I asked you several times to explain your example of corporate greed where an owner is forced out. I would say there is a fundamental flaw in your thinking on the subject if you cannot provide how that would even work.

one example: you offer to expand a company to franchise, while the original owners maintain control over the restaurants to the point that they decide how to handle all of the food, even within the new restaurants, even down to not using a substitute for milk as an example, then you find a way to buy the land that the restaurant is operated on, essentially forcing them to pay you to keep operating their own business. and then buying the name of the company away from them.

i see that as a form of corporate greed. you're just gonna see it as good business or winners overcoming losers. which is why i didn't want to continue with it.

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:
I asked you several times to explain your example of corporate greed where an owner is forced out. I would say there is a fundamental flaw in your thinking on the subject if you cannot provide how that would even work.

one example: you offer to expand a company to franchise, while the original owners maintain control over the restaurants to the point that they decide how to handle all of the food, even within the new restaurants, even down to not using a substitute for milk as an example, then you find a way to buy the land that the restaurant is operated on, essentially forcing them to pay you to keep operating their own business. and then buying the name of the company away from them.

i see that as a form of corporate greed. you're just gonna see it as good business or winners overcoming losers. which is why i didn't want to continue with it.

Can you buy land without someone selling it? If you lease, you know the land being sold is always a possibility, but you have a lease for a reason.

Again, the original owner did not mind when they were getting money for selling of some of their rights. There is a reason why you get paid in that scenario.

Can you buy a name someone else owns without them selling it to you?

You don't see how ridiculous that sounds?

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:Regulations help curtail criminality.

What crimes do you not commit because of regulations?

As someone who runs a business in and industry full of regulations, I will tell you we do the right thing because we want to have a successful business with happy customers. I give no shits about the regulations because we care more about the business than the government does. The annoyance for me is paying them to be dipshits.

Good that you're a good one. I've seen the bad ones. And I know just how crucial regulation is. I audit all the U.K. ones.

Yeah, we gotta keep an eye on everything. You know, cause people are buying hot dog carts to piss and shit in the water. Without regulations and paying the government at every turn, that would happen for sure! I bet the other day someone was gonna take a dump in the BBQ pork they were selling, then they remembered the Health Department will be doing an inspection 4 months later and decided not to.

Reign in Blood wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjD2yrW1bxE

Cautionary tale. Made millions and now can barely pay child support for his 10 kids, lolz.

Corporate greed!

Foo wrote:
Can you buy land without someone selling it? If you lease, you know the land being sold is always a possibility, but you have a lease for a reason.

Again, the original owner did not mind when they were getting money for selling of some of their rights. There is a reason why you get paid in that scenario.

Can you buy a name someone else owns without them selling it to you?

You don't see how ridiculous that sounds?

i don't know the ins and outs of all of the deals made that led to that point, both with the owners of the restaurant and with other people to undercut through loopholes and connivance and whatever else. should they have been more careful with their business? probably. should they never have agreed to work with him? absolutely, based on how he acted toward them.

i think you can find ways to do any number of things. there was obviously wiggle room and loopholes within the contracts that he exploited.

if it didn't happen the way it was portrayed in the movie, tell me how it happened. and i will adjust my understanding to fit the reality of the events.

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:
Can you buy land without someone selling it? If you lease, you know the land being sold is always a possibility, but you have a lease for a reason.

Again, the original owner did not mind when they were getting money for selling of some of their rights. There is a reason why you get paid in that scenario.

Can you buy a name someone else owns without them selling it to you?

You don't see how ridiculous that sounds?

i don't know the ins and outs of all of the deals made that led to that point, both with the owners of the restaurant and with other people to undercut through loopholes and connivance and whatever else. should they have been more careful with their business? probably. should they never have agreed to work with him? absolutely, based on how he acted toward them.

i think you can find ways to do any number of things. there was obviously wiggle room and loopholes within the contracts that he exploited.

if it didn't happen the way it was portrayed in the movie, tell me how it happened. and i will adjust my understanding to fit the reality of the events.

The reality is that they sold off rights to their business because they wanted money.

The brothers had a royalty deal from the beginning. As the franchises were struggling with growth, they wanted to do a cash buyout. It was the equivilent of $8M today. Part of the agreement was they gave up the name. So as the franchise got some new managers in place and started taking off, the brothers decided to get back into the business. They had to restart under a new name, because they sold the old one. So then, when the McDonalds company they sold is rapidly expanding without them, they get bitter.

They chose to sell off their successful business. There was no force. Problems only happened when they started to regret the deal they made. Keep in mind, had they not sold, the McDonalds we know today would not be a thing because the players who grew it into an empire would have done something else.

i'm guessing you've read up more on his life that i have. i'll take your word for it, until (if) i find out different. if the movie was not accurate in the depiction, that would be nice to have noted somewhere. the way that it's noted with most other biographical / historical movie inaccuracies.

i guess we can just let this whole corporate greed thing go. whichever corporations, you spoke of, that are using liberals as useful idiots, are doing it for some other purpose, that does not relate to greed.

zombie wrote:i'm guessing you've read up more on his life that i have. i'll take your word for it, until (if) i find out different. if the movie was not accurate in the depiction, that would be nice to have noted somewhere. the way that it's noted with most other biographical / historical movie inaccuracies.

i guess we can just let this whole corporate greed thing go. whichever corporations, you spoke of, that are using liberals as useful idiots, are doing it for some other purpose, that does not relate to greed.

Why is this difficult? You have to be willing to sell something in order for another to buy it.

I have an uncle who has a hobby of restoring vintage corvettes. He buys them cheap and then resells them. I remember another family member calling him a crook because he bought one for like $4000 and sold it for like $20,000, Do you think the other family member was aware he had $10,000 in the restoration? Was it fair to judge without knowing the details?