Why Doesnt Dell Offer AMD Based Computer??

[_=DeltaForce=_]

I am wondering why Dell isnt Offering AMD based computer??? THey could be making more money...

[Jeffbx]

Nah. It would cost them more to offer them, because:

- Buying another brand of processors lowers their buying power with Intel, so Intel chip prices will be higher, and they wouldn't be able to REALLY leverage AMD because the volume wouldn't be there.
- They would have to introduce new lines of computers to support the chips. Dell designs their machines from the ground up - they don't just swap components into cases. The would involve lots of engineering & testing work.
- They would have to focus on new marketing campaigns to introuduce the new chipsets, which would take away from their normal marketing of existing systems.

Since they're already stomping all over most other PC manufacturer, there are really no incentives for them to make a fundamental change in their offerings.

[Cheesypuff]

plus like most companies...take for example vid cards. There were some companies vid card makers that did both nvidia and ati. And one or the other companies didn't like that...so they pull their lines out of that brand...and that company can no longer sell that brand.

Just like dell. If they start making amd machines...intel might take it as a threat, and they might tell dell no more putting in thier CPU's in the machienes! it blows...but hey...it's business!

[fallout1]

"that's business.." that's no justification..**** greedy business.

[zenbooty]

"that's business.." that's no justification..**** greedy business.
Whine whine whine. Start your own business if you think you have a better way.

[fallout1]

Whine whine whine. Start your own business if you think you have a better way.

I was a business major in college for 3 years till I changed because I couldn't stand it anymore. You start a business. Business is not intrinsically bad. But profit usually comes before people in America, so in that case, thank you, I will "whine." But if you really want to discuss this, let's move this to the political forum..

[zenbooty]

I was a business major in college for 3 years till I changed because I couldn't stand it anymore. You start a business. Business is not intrinsically bad. But profit usually comes before people in America, so in that case, thank you, I will "whine." But if you really want to discuss this, let's move this to the political forum..
The point I'm getting at is that there was a complaint about Dell not offering AMD processors. Someone replied that there were a number of reason, including some having to do with business competition. He remarked "Hey, business is business," to which you replied, "**** greedy business." So tell me, how is Dell being greedy and horrible by just carrying Intel processors, when carrying both could end up costing them in the long run? Why should it not be their right to carry whatever they want to carry?

[Merlin]

The story I heard was that once several years ago Michael Dell and the CEO of AMD got into a pissing contest over something stupid. You know how these BIG egos can be. The dispute ended with Dell saying that he would never sell AMD products. I don't know if it is true or not but it is believeable.

[InfiniteNothing]

I am wondering why Dell isnt Offering AMD based computer??? THey could be making more money...Because that's what HP is for?

[Jihforce]

I was a business major in college for 3 years till I changed because I couldn't stand it anymore. You start a business. Business is not intrinsically bad. But profit usually comes before people in America, so in that case, thank you, I will "whine." But if you really want to discuss this, let's move this to the political forum..

What does being a business major for 3 years have anything to do with starting a business? First 2 years are usually GEs anyway...:shrug:
Anyway, profit comes before people in every business and country. Without profits, a company cannot survive and grow.

[sbp]

I was a business major in college for 3 years till I changed because I couldn't stand it anymore. You start a business. Business is not intrinsically bad. But profit usually comes before people in America, so in that case, thank you, I will "whine." But if you really want to discuss this, let's move this to the political forum..Start a charity then. Oh wait you doesn't like those cause us selfish Americans don't want to turn everything over to the nanny state. http://home.earthlink.net/~sbp777/smilies/angel2.gif

[fallout1]

The point I'm getting at is that there was a complaint about Dell not offering AMD processors. Someone replied that there were a number of reason, including some having to do with business competition. He remarked "Hey, business is business," to which you replied, "**** greedy business." So tell me, how is Dell being greedy and horrible by just carrying Intel processors, when carrying both could end up costing them in the long run? Why should it not be their right to carry whatever they want to carry?

I wasn't referring to Dell specifically..Just to the corporate shareholder driven lust for ever more profits at whatever the cost.

[zippyjuan]

From PC World :

Dell, AMD May Reach a Deal for 64-Bit Chips

Upcoming Opteron processor may be the chip maker's first to find a home in Dell hardware.

Ashlee Vance, IDG News Service
Wednesday, May 01, 2002

SAN FRANCISCO -- Dell Computer is inching closer to bringing Advanced Micro Devices on as a second chip supplier after the introduction of the company's 64-bit chips for PCs next year, the top executives from both companies indicated Tuesday.

Rumors have circulated for years about Dell possibly purchasing chips from AMD in addition to those it buys from close partner Intel, but company executives have never confirmed such a deal.

Both AMD's colorful Chairman W.J. "Jerry" Sanders III and Dell Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Michael Dell reignited such speculation with comments made here at the Merrill Lynch Hardware Heaven conference. The executives said AMD's 64-bit family of chips, code-named Hammer, could be the first AMD products to make it into Dell's hardware lineup.

"We are very interested, and we are looking," Dell said about the Hammer chip, during a keynote presentation. "There is not much more to say," Dell paused. " . . . in public."

"We are very encouraged to see the innovations that are going on, not only by our current supplier but also future, potential suppliers."

Benefits of 64-Bit Chips
AMD and Intel are working on 64-bit processors that can handle bigger chunks of data than do current 32-bit processors used in PCs and some servers. AMD chose to adopt a 64-bit architecture that does not require developers to alter their 32-bit software to run on the Hammer chips. Intel's 64-bit Itanium chips have a new architecture that will run 32-bit software only at reduced speeds.

Although Intel has not backed down in expressing its confidence in Itanium, the company is reported to be working on another 64-bit chip that, like AMD's, would run 32-bit software with no penalty. In an interview, Dell indicated it would be this chip--code-named Yamhill--that would be sold along with Hammer in Dell PCs next year. Dell said he does not expect Itanium to be used in PCs "anytime soon."

Dell will have to make a decision soon on its strategy for using 64-bit chips in PCs because demand for the more powerful processors will take off next year, Sanders said during his presentation.

When asked in an interview which chip his company would choose, Dell said, "It does not have to be either-or," indicating the company might offer both.

In another interview, Sanders said he expected all major PC makers to ship both AMD and Intel 64-bit products

[fallout1]

What does being a business major for 3 years have anything to do with starting a business? First 2 years are usually GEs anyway...:shrug:
Anyway, profit comes before people in every business and country. Without profits, a company cannot survive and grow.

I never said it had anything to do with starting a business. And no, the first two years are not only GEs. I appreciate you trying to infer my course curriculum, but I have taken plenty of upper division classes in 3 years..I was only 15(4 classes) credits away from a BS in Bus. Admin. On a separate note, yes, you are right profit does come before people. Which is a very sad thing.. As the social contract further erodes, we will begin to drift toward a more and more inequal society where the wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few..Obviously companies need profits to survive..But at what cost? Sending jobs to employ poor asian girls to work for a dollar a day? Yes, it cuts labor costs, makes the shareholder happy, but at the end of the day was it worth it? Is the contingent labor force and the shredding of the Wagner and Fair Labor Standards Act worth the profits it's generating? Is it fair for corporations to be able to play state against state and now nation against nation in an attempt to blackmail their oversight (barely a good word anymore) into furthering their own agenda? If not, pack up and leave..Why do u think Delaware is the state with the most corporate headquarters...Anyways..Profit can still be had by businesses without sacrificing the ideals of social responsibility..It's just not the quick fix analysts and shareholders demand.

[zippyjuan]

That article was from 2002 and similar ones seem to pop up every year. From the Motley Fool July of this year:

AMD: When the Levee Breaks

By Bill Mann (TMF Otter)
July 1, 2004

It's a tale as old as time, but it isn't Disney's (NYSE: DIS) "Beauty and the Beast."

Dell (Nasdaq: DELL), the bellwether PC company (and Motley Fool Stock Advisor pick), has used Intel (Nasdaq: INTC) microprocessors forever. Intel Inside. Exclusively. Intel's biggest rival, AMD (NYSE: AMD), has been pursuing Dell forever to offer computers running its chip. A look back through the Fool archives has mentions of a potential Dell/AMD collaboration from last year, the year before, all the way back to about, oh, 1926.

A research report from Susquehanna Financial Group analyst Tai Nguyen noted that Dell is designing two dual-processor servers based upon AMD's Opteron processors. If this is true, it would represent a major victory for AMD: All of the other big-box makers, including Gateway (NYSE: GTW), Hewlett Packard (NYSE: HWQ), IBM (NYSE: IBM), and Sun Microsystems (Nasdaq: SUNW), ship products running AMD microprocessors. But they're not Dell.

Dell's "special relationship" with Intel has traditionally meant that when Intel releases a new product, Dell gets first crack. This works out great as long as Intel's driving the chip-design horse. But many industry experts have pointed out that AMD has a long history of design wins over Intel, and the recent decision by Intel to offer a chip modeled on Opteron silicon represents a bit of a watershed. These chips can process data at 32 bits, but can scale up to 64 bits for more calculation-intensive applications.

But AMD's been claiming design and processing speed victories for years. Nothing has really helped: Intel still has the outward appearance of a juggernaut, and AMD's various production problems over time have given manufacturers just enough excuse to stay with the proven leader in Intel. AMD hopes that by breaking into some Dell designs, Joe Consumer's perceptions would begin to change. For whatever reason, the fact that Hewlett and IBM, among others, have launched AMD-based products isn't as important to perception as whether the dam breaks at Dell.

This would spell trouble for Intel. Not because Dell is suddenly going to start throwing Intel chips and designs onto the slag heap -- I'd expect that the amount of AMD-driven gear that Dell would sell would comprise a small portion of its overall gross. But given Dell's special relationship with Intel, the only reason that the company would move to the Opteron or Athlon chips from AMD would be due to customer demand. The PC business remains quite hairy and brutally competitive. Due in no small part to its growth trajectory and superior economic model, Dell used to be able to be a bit schoolmarmy with its customers, in effect saying "We choose Intel because it's the best for you." But if customers are demanding AMD, then what does this say about Intel's carefully groomed image?

Let's not start carving Intel's tombstone just yet. In fact, a Dell spokesman has flatly denied claims that the company has plans currently to offer products based on AMD. Until such an announcement takes place, this is just a rumor, coming from an analyst who may simply be trying to make a name for himself. Or it could be that he's done some excellent primary research. Whatever the outcome, he's managed to re-ignite the rumor that just never seems to die. Regardless of what happens with Dell, it seems clear that AMD and smaller Transmeta (Nasdaq: TMTA) are finally prying into a world that was once Intel's own private oyster.

[fallout1]

Start a charity then. Oh wait you doesn't like those cause us selfish Americans don't want to turn everything over to the nanny state. http://home.earthlink.net/~sbp777/smilies/angel2.gif

Maybe I will start a charity. I "doesn't" like greedy businesses. I am an American as well. It seemed u thought I wasn't or something..And I dunno..If you look at the fact that 60,000,000(20% of the pop) children in the US are growing up in poverty, while in Sweden, only 164,000(2.3% of the pop) are..Then it seems their "nanny state" is doing something right. But we American's enshrine this individualism crap to the extent that we'd rather have mass poverty and inequality than embrace the social market..Great priorities.. :disa:

[Apex]

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=955

BTW, would love to hear where the statistics on US child poverty comes from, with the buying power between US and Sweden accounted for. Thanks.

As of 2003, 35 million Americans were identified as being "in poverty" by the US Census Bureau.

Of these 35 million people below the poverty line:

46% own their own homes (average of a 3-bedroom house with 1.5 baths, garage, and porch or padio)

76% have air conditioning

6% are overcrowded, while >66% have more than 2 rooms per person.

The average person in America living below the poverty line has more living space than the average person (not classifed as poor) living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe.

Almost 3/4 have a car, 30% have 2 or more cars.

97% have color TV's, >50% have two or more. 78% have a VCR or DVD, 62% have cable or satellite.

73% have microwaves, >50% have stereos, 1/3 have automatic dishwashers.

Expenditures per person in the lowest 20% of households today equal those of the median household in the 70's, after adjusting for inflation.

60 million kids out of 35 million total...

I'm obviously not saying it's not a problem. However, we do have to look at facts objectively. 2/3 of poor children live in single parent homes, and each year 1.3 million children are born out of wedlock. If poor mothers actually married their child(ren)'s father, almost 3/4 would no longer be below the poverty line.

[Cheesypuff]

Why don't we brace for both sides of the arguement! Fallout goes for the we we we idea, and sbp goes for the me me me idea!

At times, I really don't understand why our society can't have a happy medium of both we and me. Lets not go to the extremes people. To a certain extent, there needs to be regulation on both sides of the arguements. But the way I see it, the humanitarian way of doing things would be a bit harder for some to grasp because we as humans are greedy by nature.

[LegendKiller]

Fallout,


Who do you think "corporate shareholders" are? I ask this question of Canta often, or other people who start ranting of evil corps and their lack of social responsibility. Many thing that "shareholders" is some catchall phrase that can describe the prototypical "White rich fatcat" who drives an H2.

However, the vast majority of shares and bonds that corporations pay are held by institutional investors, which in turn hold them for large porfolio's which in turn hold the wealth of millions of Americans through pensions, 401k's, Thrift Savings (govt workers), IRA's, College plans, mutual funds, index funds...etc.

Sure, individuals do own shares, but it isn't this massive conspiracy that you seem to be hinting at.


Furthermore, isn't societies best interests lie in letting people do what they want?


Go to a store, buy a 5lb bag of sugar for $4, then while your walking to the register think of what that $4 is really buying. Its not $4 to the company, hell no. That $4 is bought by your tax dollars, YOU are paying double that amount in tax subsidies to keep domestic sugar growers in business.


How about steel. Steel tariffs cost americans BILLIONS of hard earned dollars. Yet, what did those teriffs do? Sure, they kept a few hundred thousand (or even a million) jobs around. But they also stiffled innovation, stopped efficiency, modernization, and cheaper goods.


You claim that searching for profits is socially bad. But is it always good for society to support the few at the loss of the many?


LK


.....


Smackdown by Apex. I wonder how many own cell phones and many pounds of bling bling.








Back to the original post.



I am not sure about what Merlin states. Just looking at it from a sheer economics point of view, AMD chips require a whole retooling of Dell's lines. As mentioned before, mobo's are different, power equirements, heatsink requirements, RAM, drivers. You have to run 2 lines instead of 1, which more than doubles costs due to inefficiencies. Dell is streamlined, adding in complexity is something that Dell will not do easily.

[slaus]

By selling one line of CPUs, dell can better achieve economies of scale thus making their products cheaper and letting more people afford computers.

[InfiniteNothing]

I say 46% home ownership is sobering. I don't care if you're rich or poor, you should get to own your own home unless you live in NY City where there are no homes.

Fallout,


Who do you think "corporate shareholders" are? I ask this question of Canta often, or other people who start ranting of evil corps and their lack of social responsibility. Many thing that "shareholders" is some catchall phrase that can describe the prototypical "White rich fatcat" who drives an H2.

However, the vast majority of shares and bonds that corporations pay are held by institutional investors, which in turn hold them for large porfolio's which in turn hold the wealth of millions of Americans through pensions, 401k's, Thrift Savings (govt workers), IRA's, College plans, mutual funds, index funds...etc.
Yes, but how well does that money trickle down? Is the middle American taking a peice of the pie or is a "Big Swinging Dick" sinking a customer making big money for his chairman and improving Salomon's portfolio

[LegendKiller]

I say 46% home ownership is sobering. I don't care if you're rich or poor, you should get to own your own home unless you live in NY City where there are no homes.
Yes, but how well does that money trickle down? Is the middle American taking a peice of the pie or is a "Big Swinging Dick" sinking a customer making big money for his chairman and improving Salomon's portfolio


You shoudn't get to own your own home if you are incapable of maintaining and paying for it, that is just simple logic. Giving a home to everybody just because is stupidity. YOu should earn something in your life. Even in the most socialist countries there isn't anywhere close to 100% home ownership.

How would the middle american NOT get some advantage of increasing profits from companies? Stock goes up, mutual/401k/IRA/pensions go up, they get more retirement money, rely less on SS, which makes that last longer.

I fail to see any logic in your last sentence. Salomon doesn't really own their own portfolio, you seem to think that these companies just get cash from nowhere. People OWN Salomon. People OWN its assets, in this case it's Citibank's investors. People OWN Salomon's portfolio's. This isn't very hard.

LK

[InfiniteNothing]

You shoudn't get to own your own home if you are incapable of maintaining and paying for it, that is just simple logic. Giving a home to everybody just because is stupidity. YOu should earn something in your life. Even in the most socialist countries there isn't anywhere close to 100% home ownership.

How would the middle american NOT get some advantage of increasing profits from companies? Stock goes up, mutual/401k/IRA/pensions go up, they get more retirement money, rely less on SS, which makes that last longer.

I fail to see any logic in your last sentence. Salomon doesn't really own their own portfolio, you seem to think that these companies just get cash from nowhere. People OWN Salomon. People OWN its assets, in this case it's Citibank's investors. People OWN Salomon's portfolio's. This isn't very hard.

LKTo me, a really nice home should be something you earn but a decent home seems like a staple. Just one of those common decency things. Maybe I'm out there on this one. :shrug:

You said that middle america benifits by owning mutual funds. I'm saying that there's a big blockage between the stocks and the mutual fund owners. Namely the bond trader's cuts, the floor men's cut, the CEO's cut. How much trickles down? Who's really making the money out there? The white fat cats who offer mutual funds or the mutual funds owners. There's another blockage, the financial advisor. What cut does they guy putting your portfolio together make? What about his boss?

[Merlin]

What cut does they guy putting your portfolio together make? What about his boss?

About 150 basis points. ;)

Not very much at all. They (we, since it is what I do) only do well once the amount of assets under management gets to a critical mass. So the cut taken from each person is really quite low.

[InfiniteNothing]

About 150 basis points. ;)

Not very much at all. They (we, since it is what I do) only do well once the amount of assets under management gets to a critical mass. So the cut taken from each person is really quite low.What do you make if he loses money or breaks even? (Curiosity)

[Merlin]

Same thing. It is a flat fee and not performance based. At least in the traditional mutual fund game. Now if you get into the realm of hedge funds it is a very different story where they get a big base fee and take a cut of the upside as well.

Now we can earn bonuses for beating the market and our peer group but that does not change the fee the investors are charged. The company picks that up knowing that if we beat the market the assets under management will increase and that brings in more revenue.

[LegendKiller]

A house is NOT a staple. A house is a luxury. You can live without a house and apartments are not that bad.


Let me ask you, were do we get the money to give everybody a house? People need to be paid, workers need to be compensated, materials need to be bought. If 35,000,000 people are in poverty and 54% were given a house with an average cost of 60k, that would equal 1,134,000,000,000. Thats 1.134 TRILLION dollars. Are you really that naive?


A trader loses money if he is holding the wrong side of the market, but the market sets the spread.

A portfolio manager makes his money as the assets grow larger in the portfolio. He can make more if the port does well, but that is obvious.

If middle america has its money in a losing port, thats their fault.

The advisor gets his cut because he advises. He doesn't get much more or less because Coke has 5% extra profits one quarter, which is really what we are talking about.


LK

[InfiniteNothing]

A house is NOT a staple. A house is a luxury. You can live without a house and apartments are not that bad.


Let me ask you, were do we get the money to give everybody a house? People need to be paid, workers need to be compensated, materials need to be bought. If 35,000,000 people are in poverty and 54% were given a house with an average cost of 60k, that would equal 1,134,000,000,000. Thats 1.134 TRILLION dollars. Are you really that naive?


A trader loses money if he is holding the wrong side of the market, but the market sets the spread.

A portfolio manager makes his money as the assets grow larger in the portfolio. He can make more if the port does well, but that is obvious.

If middle america has its money in a losing port, thats their fault.

The advisor gets his cut because he advises. He doesn't get much more or less because Coke has 5% extra profits one quarter, which is really what we are talking about.


LKBy trader I mean a bond sales man hired by the finacial investing institution that holds the mutual funds/pensions, etc. By chairman, I mean the guy who is above the trader. I want to know their cut and how much gets to middle america. I'm not saying they are losing money, I'm just saying there's alot of corporate greed out there.

Now, I didn't realize how much it would cost to build all those houses. It's alot of money. I wouldn't say it's impossible though. It seems like many of these people's current rents could go towards a house. $1000 a month over 50 years is $600000. 47% is sad.

[LegendKiller]

By trader I mean a bond sales man hired by the finacial investing institution that holds the mutual funds/pensions, etc. By chairman, I mean the guy who is above the trader. I want to know their cut and how much gets to middle america. I'm not saying they are losing money, I'm just saying there's alot of corporate greed out there.

Now, I didn't realize how much it would cost to build all those houses. It's alot of money. I wouldn't say it's impossible though. It seems like many of these people's current rents could go towards a house. 47% is sad.


The trader can lose his shirt one day and make a ton next. It depends on what side of the market he is on, how much spread their is between bid/ask (dictated by the market), and how much his personal holdings are.

it used to be worse when they would front trade individual orders, but that kind of stuff is being watched much more closely in the past decade. They should make a lot of money, its a high-stress, dog-eat-dog, live or die world where you have to be damn smart, dedicated, and quick.


LK

[InfiniteNothing]

The trader can lose his shirt one day and make a ton next. It depends on what side of the market he is on, how much spread their is between bid/ask (dictated by the market), and how much his personal holdings are.

it used to be worse when they would front trade individual orders, but that kind of stuff is being watched much more closely in the past decade. They should make a lot of money, its a high-stress, dog-eat-dog, live or die world where you have to be damn smart, dedicated, and quick.


LK
You were trying to equate what the market makes to what the "average" American makes. I'm saying that Corporate profits largely go to the rich.

[Jihforce]

I never said it had anything to do with starting a business. And no, the first two years are not only GEs. I appreciate you trying to infer my course curriculum, but I have taken plenty of upper division classes in 3 years..I was only 15(4 classes) credits away from a BS in Bus. Admin. [/b]

The reason I brought that was was because you brought up your education in response to zenbooty telling to you to start your own business. Anyway, in my experience, most people's first 2 years are spent taking their GEs, sure there are exceptions and it seems that you are one of them so, so I stand corrected in this particular matter.


On a separate note, yes, you are right profit does come before people. Which is a very sad thing.. As the social contract further erodes, we will begin to drift toward a more and more inequal society where the wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few.. Obviously companies need profits to survive..But at what cost? Sending jobs to employ poor asian girls to work for a dollar a day? Yes, it cuts labor costs, makes the shareholder happy, but at the end of the day was it worth it? Is the contingent labor force and the shredding of the Wagner and Fair Labor Standards Act worth the profits it's generating? Is it fair for corporations to be able to play state against state and now nation against nation in an attempt to blackmail their oversight (barely a good word anymore) into furthering their own agenda? If not, pack up and leave..Why do u think Delaware is the state with the most corporate headquarters...Anyways..Profit can still be had by businesses without sacrificing the ideals of social responsibility..It's just not the quick fix analysts and shareholders demand.

Not saying that child labor is justified. However, can you tell me what those poor asian girls would be doing instead of making shoes for nike?

Is this worth it? Not really, but then again, consider a few things. A profitable business can create more jobs, improve benefits, and promote economic growth and a higher standard of living. We all know what happens to unprofitable companies so I'm not going to get into that.

Anyway, LK has posted fairly good reason that I agree with. I don't think I want to rewrite what he has stated. I can tell you one thing from personal experience, I am a shareowner of a few companies, granted I am not a majority owner, but their profits do affect me, and i'm just an regular guy. I don't own a boat or a yatch or a mansion in beverly hills. I do own my own business and I can tell you that it is NOT easy. I have to constantly find ways to cut costs and improve my bottom line because it is my survival that I am doing it for. Granted i try to do things that do not contradict my moral integrity, but believe me, certain decisions are not easy but need to be made regarless. Again, don't get all bent out of shape when someone tells you to start a business. The reason people say that is because unless you do, you can't relate.

[LegendKiller]

Now, to a certain degree I agree with you, corporate heads and some other main people have been getting WAY too rich. Once you start surpassing a ratio of 1000+ for what your lowest to highest paid (CEO) makes, then it gets rediculous. It was much smaller before. For example, last year the max raise was 3% for a Cendant worker, the CEO got a 77% raise, 18->32m, not including options.


That being said. People who are in securities are taking the same risk as every other investor. Bond traders often put their lives on the line and can lose them in a heartbeat, sometimes they take MUCH more risk than the average investor, and must be compensated.

Rich people get more of the same amount of money because they are risking more of the same amount per share. They get more rich because they have more invested, there is NOTHING wrong with that.

I have no 401k yet (had to pay down CC bills from being unemp, and the company doesn't match for 1 year), but I work damn hard for what I am now. I will probably be in the higher brackets of income within the next 5 years. Does that mean that I do not deserve it when I work F#$$ing hard? Most people who are rich built their fortunes somehow, you just need to get over it.


LK

[Apex]

I have no 401k yet (had to pay down CC bills from being unemp, and the company doesn't match for 1 year), but I work damn hard for what I am now. I will probably be in the higher brackets of income within the next 5 years. Does that mean that I do not deserve it when I work F#$$ing hard?
LK

Correct. It means you have now become an undeserving corporate fatcat and should, in all fairness, give up your income to support those who do not wish to work so hard.

[InfiniteNothing]

Is this worth it? Not really, but then again, consider a few things. A profitable business can create more jobs, improve benefits, and promote economic growth and a higher standard of living. We all know what happens to unprofitable companies so I'm not going to get into that.
I think a slightly profitable company that employs many people and has a CEO that gets a reasonable large salary is the happy medium that we want.

[LegendKiller]

I think a slightly profitable company that employs many people and has a CEO that gets a reasonable large salary is the happy medium that we want.



What is slightly profitable? So you are saying we should make companies inefficient so that a few more people can have jobs.

This would pretty much hurt EVERYBODY, not just rich but also the middle class. Why would investors put their money into the companies if the companys are rife with fat payrolls that don't even keep up with inflation?

Then, why would they invest in a company that is risky because that inefficiency, and it might go out of business. So, they will still only get a small return but STILL lose money as those companies would go out of business.


Essentially, you have removed every risk/return incentive from investing. YOu have enabled more people to have jobs but you have removed any motivation to give a company money that it needs to create those jobs.


Good job my friend, you have utterly destroyed an economy and all intermediaries of finance.

Do you have any idea what a share of a company is? Do you understand that it represents not only a piece of its assets, but also a portion of its future earnings? Do you understand that people are GIVING them money in hopes of getting that money back? Do you understand that some companies are riskier than others and that making them inefficient makes them even more risky.

Where do you park your extra earnings when you can't even keep up with inflation because there aren't good investments? You park it in gold and other tangible assets. That means that companies stop getting funding, lay off workers, and fail.

Now you have chaos.


LK

[ray]

I think a slightly profitable company that employs many people and has a CEO that gets a reasonable large salary is the happy medium that we want.

You're going to have problems then. Because the Owners of the company don't want the happy medium that you want. Owners want a highly profitable company, not a slightly profitable company.

[Jeffbx]

Some people seem to fail to grasp the fact that corporations exist for one purpose & one purpose only: to make money. Not to create jobs, not to provide goods that are useful and necessary, not to benefit the community at large. These side benefits are nice, and essential for the growth of the economy, but these are not goals of the company, except in order to lead to higher profits.

Now, with that out of the way, there are a lot of good things that come out of major corporations that are helpful to the community. For example, the (Bill) Gates Foundation (http://www.gatesfoundation.org/default.htm) gives away billions of dollars to help people out. Why do they do this? Because MS is a very highly profitable company, and they can very well afford it. Plus, although he may have sold his soul to Satan some years ago, Bill Gates is actually a very generous person.

Please don't think of big companies as the rich, powerful oppressors of the people. These companies are what give people their jobs, they create the goods & services that we use every day, and are what made the US one of the richest nations in the world. How? By trying to make a profit!

[ray]

Some people seem to fail to grasp the fact that corporations exist for one purpose & one purpose only: to make money. Not to create jobs, not to provide goods that are useful and necessary, not to benefit the community at large. These side benefits are nice, and essential for the growth of the economy, but these are not goals of the company, except in order to lead to higher profits.

Now, with that out of the way, there are a lot of good things that come out of major corporations that are helpful to the community. For example, the (Bill) Gates Foundation (http://www.gatesfoundation.org/default.htm) gives away billions of dollars to help people out. Why do they do this? Because MS is a very highly profitable company, and they can very well afford it. Plus, although he may have sold his soul to Satan some years ago, Bill Gates is actually a very generous person.

Please don't think of big companies as the rich, powerful oppressors of the people. These companies are what give people their jobs, they create the goods & services that we use every day, and are what made the US one of the richest nations in the world. How? By trying to make a profit!

Well put Jeffbx. Couldn't have said it better myself. I can tell you one thing though. GE may be the largest company in the world, but they sure do suck as employers. Want to know what NBC stands for? NoBody Cares

[Jihforce]

I agree with most of you on this one. I don't see how a company can ever amount to anything if they are only doing a "half-@ssed" job. That is not a company i would invest in nor would i want to be part of a company like that.

[fallout1]

Some people seem to fail to grasp the fact that corporations exist for one purpose & one purpose only: to make money. Not to create jobs, not to provide goods that are useful and necessary, not to benefit the community at large. These side benefits are nice, and essential for the growth of the economy, but these are not goals of the company, except in order to lead to higher profits.

Please don't think of big companies as the rich, powerful oppressors of the people. These companies are what give people their jobs, they create the goods & services that we use every day, and are what made the US one of the richest nations in the world. How? By trying to make a profit!

I must disagree with your adherance to the corporate mystique...Milton Friedman echoed your sentiments in saying, "the only responsibility a corporation has is to make profits." This is absurd logic. Not only are corporations highly dependent on the Federal Gov't, they benefit greatly from all the privaleges of incorporating in America (laws, infrastructure,etc). And since the landmark (and tragic) Santa Clara case in the 1800's that gave corporations protection with the bill of rights by granting the corporation "citizenship", what makes the corporation free of obligation? If they are going to be treated as a citizen, they need to act like one. The pure unbridled lust for, and acquisition of, money will ruin us as a nation if corporations don't take responsibility for decisions they make. Because of their unparalleled power and rights that put many NATIONS to shame (at least financially and legally), their decisions have MASSIVE consequences. Corporations are going unchecked with no countervailing power at all. Government bends over backwards for them. Now, I am NOT saying corporations shouldn't try to make a profit. I totally agree that they do create jobs, and they are largely responsible for the dramatic increase in the standard of living in the last hundred or so years. HOWEVER, this does not give them license to run amok across the rights of citizens, countries and whomever they please purely in the name of profit. Eventually it will bite them in ass. Pollution, massive inequality, the shredding of democracy, a social contract between employee and employer that has been destroyed, a new workforce of temps and contingent labor with virtually zero rights, and an ever present attitude of anti-union/anti-involvement rhetoric are the by-products of the lust for profit taken out of control. Profit is the goal of corporations, but they MUST be held responsible for their methods and means. To think corporations should be granted complete license to acquire money with no regard for anything else around them is utterly frightening and absolutely ridiculous.


I agree with most of you on this one. I don't see how a company can ever amount to anything if they are only doing a "half-@ssed" job. That is not a company i would invest in nor would i want to be part of a company like that.
There is a difference between corporate responsibility and being "half-assed."

[LegendKiller]

I must disagree with your adherance to the corporate mystique...Milton Friedman echoed your sentiments in saying, "the only responsibility a corporation has is to make profits." This is absurd logic. Not only are corporations highly dependent on the Federal Gov't, they benefit greatly from all the privaleges of incorporating in America (laws, infrastructure,etc). And since the landmark (and tragic) Santa Clara case in the 1800's that gave corporations protection with the bill of rights by granting the corporation "citizenship", what makes the corporation free of obligation? If they are going to be treated as a citizen, they need to act like one. The pure unbridled lust for, and acquisition of, money will ruin us as a nation if corporations don't take responsibility for decisions they make. Because of their unparalleled power and rights that put many NATIONS to shame (at least financially and legally), their decisions have MASSIVE consequences. Corporations are going unchecked with no countervailing power at all. Government bends over backwards for them. Now, I am NOT saying corporations shouldn't try to make a profit. I totally agree that they do create jobs, and they are largely responsible for the dramatic increase in the standard of living in the last hundred or so years. HOWEVER, this does not give them license to run amok across the rights of citizens, countries and whomever they please purely in the name of profit. Eventually it will bite them in ass. Pollution, massive inequality, the shredding of democracy, a social contract between employee and employer that has been destroyed, a new workforce of temps and contingent labor with virtually zero rights, and an ever present attitude of anti-union/anti-involvement rhetoric are the by-products of the lust for profit taken out of control. Profit is the goal of corporations, but they MUST be held responsible for their methods and means. To think corporations should be granted complete license to acquire money with no regard for anything else around them is utterly frightening and absolutely ridiculous.


There is a difference between corporate responsibility and being "half-assed."



This has to be the biggest hyperbole rant I have EVER heard. "shredding of democracy". You sound like one of those clueless hippies who run around Cali protesting the WTO and other corporations. Puhlees, your rediculous statements only polarize people like me.

I was in Santa Cruz working for Seagate 2 summers ago. I was with my mentor who happened to be a 6' 5" ex-navy chief, somebody you didn't want to f with. Some hippie moron came up to us ranting about corporations (we were still in our work clothes) and how they were destroying america (funny, since america was built on corporations). He eventually tried to stop us from leaving by putting his hand on my mentors shoulder, the next thing the guy knew, he was flying through the air and landed in the middle of the sidewalk 5' away. Funny anecdote about misguided morons.


But I digress. The notion of a social contract has gotten many countries into trouble, not to mention our own. For example, Japan. They had the jobs-for-life social contract, not to mention jobs-for-your-relatives social contract. Eventually these "contracts" lead to apathy and 100-year mortgages, which were affected by the bank problems and their "social contracts", people start losing houses and corporations were losing money because of social contracts.


Or how about UAL or Delta, or now GM, all shackled by uber-high pension costs because unions and their "social contracts" demanded too much. How about the crane operators on the west coast 2 years ago. 120k for a low skill job, yet they demanded more AND fought chance of efficiency that might eliminate a few of their jobs. As a result, they shut down all west coast ports. Yeah, great "social contract" there, cost EVERYBODY else jobs, money, and work while you try to keep your cushy job. What happened to their "social contract".

Foreign competitors enter into markets and drive costs down, while American companies are shackled with workers fat from apathy. Steel is a perfect example, they fought against modernization and we LOST. So then we have to go and protect them because of their laziness and lack of vision. They broke their own "social contract".

Corporations do less to hurt democracy than the average american who lets measures like the Patriot Act pass, yet you don't bitch about them. WHy?

Many corporations are concious of pollutants and the number is growing. Many more are concious of their workers needs, but don't offer them a promise of employment for life.

You still haven't answered my questions about what a stock actually is, how it works. How the flow of capital works or what an investment actually is. You think you know so much about what companies should do, yet you know nothing about how to do it and what the consequences are. You think you have all of the answers but you provide none. You think you know all of tha paths but you are just a blind person with no leadership. You spew the words of others without a grasp of the reality of what those idiotic words would lead to.


Essentially, you are a corporate tool. Except that corporation doesn't search for profits, it searches for something that would destroy society. You swallow it blindly without thought of consequence or reason.


LK

[fallout1]

This has to be the biggest hyperbole rant I have EVER heard. "shredding of democracy". You sound like one of those clueless hippies who run around Cali protesting the WTO and other corporations. Puhlees, your rediculous statements only polarize people like me.

I was in Santa Cruz working for Seagate 2 summers ago. I was with my mentor who happened to be a 6' 5" ex-navy chief, somebody you didn't want to f with. Some hippie moron came up to us ranting about corporations (we were still in our work clothes) and how they were destroying america (funny, since america was built on corporations). He eventually tried to stop us from leaving by putting his hand on my mentors shoulder, the next thing the guy knew, he was flying through the air and landed in the middle of the sidewalk 5' away. Funny anecdote about misguided morons.


But I digress. The notion of a social contract has gotten many countries into trouble, not to mention our own. For example, Japan. They had the jobs-for-life social contract, not to mention jobs-for-your-relatives social contract. Eventually these "contracts" lead to apathy and 100-year mortgages, which were affected by the bank problems and their "social contracts", people start losing houses and corporations were losing money because of social contracts.


Or how about UAL or Delta, or now GM, all shackled by uber-high pension costs because unions and their "social contracts" demanded too much. How about the crane operators on the west coast 2 years ago. 120k for a low skill job, yet they demanded more AND fought chance of efficiency that might eliminate a few of their jobs. As a result, they shut down all west coast ports. Yeah, great "social contract" there, cost EVERYBODY else jobs, money, and work while you try to keep your cushy job. What happened to their "social contract".

Foreign competitors enter into markets and drive costs down, while American companies are shackled with workers fat from apathy. Steel is a perfect example, they fought against modernization and we LOST. So then we have to go and protect them because of their laziness and lack of vision. They broke their own "social contract".

Corporations do less to hurt democracy than the average american who lets measures like the Patriot Act pass, yet you don't bitch about them. WHy?

You still haven't answered my questions about what a stock actually is, how it works. How the flow of capital works or what an investment actually is. You think you know so much about what companies should do, yet you know nothing about how to do it and what the consequences are. You think you have all of the answers but you provide none. You think you know all of tha paths but you are just a blind person with no leadership. You spew the words of others without a grasp of the reality of what those idiotic words would lead to.


Essentially, you are a corporate tool. Except that corporation doesn't search for profits, it searches for something that would destroy society. You swallow it blindly without thought of consequence or reason.
LK

First of all, get your conversations straight. YOu are saying I "still haven't answered your questions about what a stock is,etc." Infinite made that comment, not me. So get off my back about that. Let me start from the beginning, since you seem to be so intent on being hostile toward me and pointing out my lack of intelligence I will be as articulate as possible so that you don't misconstrue any of my futher points.
IF you don't think that democracy in America is being shredded I would hate to see your ideal of democracy. As big money infiltrates further and further into politics, you and I matter less and less as our representatives begin to represent the hand that feeds them, not you or I. American employees have virtually no representation at the bargaining table and shareholders and execs like to keep it this way.
Your story about some muscled ex-military guy assaulting some guy (who granted shouldn't have touched him) has nothing to do with this so I won't really address that other than the fact that violence solves nothing.
I will agree with you that certain aspects of the social contract can be negative, but I think the positives far outweigh the negatives. In Germany, workers have representation at the table with execs and shareholders. If you prefer to work for some huge company and entrust them to look out for YOUR best interests, be my guest..But as you said...They are there to make profit, not care for you or your family. I am not saying it is perfect. I am saying that unless trust can be established between workers and their employers, there is not going to be that loyalty or productivity that you demand. Workers are so afraid these days and they get treated like crap..Corporations are part of the community and should take care of their own..Instead, workers get treated like a commodity. An adversarial relationship exists. How good can that be for the company? Well, for short-term profits..good I suppose. But the world is much more complex than short-term profits. I don't think all these companies pensions are failing because the people demanded "too much." I don't have figures, but these workers are not paid much as it is and I would bet that their retirement is already shot..You act as if they are trying to bleed this sovereign corporation dry..They are just trying to make a living..The corporations would have them subsist on virtually nothing and if we didn't have unions, albeit weak ones, we would be back to the gilded age. I suppose you think that was a great era for business? Look at what it did to our country. We are getting right back to it. Corps. Like to blame foreign competition for their actions, but that simply is not an excuse for the wholesale reversal on workers rights established under FDR. I'm sorry...
Corporations do less to hurt democracy? Really..The bill of rights applies to a corporation..We give them the right to disenfranchise, and shed accountability more and more and you think that is good for democracy? Is the Multilateral Agreement on Investments good for democracy? You can't seriously tell me it is. Why don't I "bitch" about the Patriot act? Because that wasn't what we were talking about. Don't attack me on issues tangent to what we are discussing. I am in full agreeance with you that the Patriot Act is an assault on our freedoms. No arguement here.
As far as your attacks on me that referred to someone else's comments, I'll give them a shot..A stock..an ownership interest in a company. How it works..What relevance does this have about our conversation on democracy? What do you mean how it works..Stock is bought and sold on markets, by shareholders, who then have ownership interests in the company..Issuance of securities is a method of generating capital, dividends are then paid out,etc,etc,etc..Anything else? I took 2 qtrs of business law and 6 quarters of financial and cost accounting so I know how stock works..
You accuse me of knowing what companies should do, yet not how to do it. What do you want me to explain? My whole point here can be summed up by saying this: Corporations need to exist. Corporations exist primarily to earn profit. But should also be held accountable for their actions in the community and world. That's all I'm trying to say. I never said we didn't need business or corporations. I just think we have gotten a long way off from their original intent. I could make the same arguement to you as well. You think you know all the answers , but you provide none. I think when it comes down to it, neither of us knows truely how to run a corporation..But we have some good ideas on principles they should be run by. You act as if being socially responsible and profitable are two mutually exclusive entities. That's absurd. Life and the world does not revolve around profit. Money can still be made, and in ENORMOUS quantities, while maintaining social responsibility. I'm not saying they should be "inefficient and lazy"..You are so extreme. I'm saying they need to measure the consequences of their actions against the greater good of this global community. Social responsibility has been shown time and again that it can actually INCREASE profitability. You say I spew the words of others with no grasp of what it could lead to..I know full well of what it could lead to. The gilded age, part 2. They are my own opinions and words. Thank you for saying they aren't, but I assure you I'm not quoting some book. Please don't insult my intelligence without ever really talking to me or by labeling me by a narrow-minded stereotype (hippie,etc)
I am a corporate tool? How so? I am trying to figure out that last sentence you wrote but I don't quite grasp it grammatically, so I'll save that for later I guess. I am sorry that this conversation has had to descend into name calling and negativity on your behalf, but I would like to try and keep this logical rather than letting it feed off emotions on both of our behalfs. We could talk on AIM or MSN or something and truely discuss this in greater detail..That would be cool I think..Thanks for responding..
Peace
:)

[Jeffbx]

Profit is the goal of corporations, but they MUST be held responsible for their methods and means. To think corporations should be granted complete license to acquire money with no regard for anything else around them is utterly frightening and absolutely ridiculous.

That wasn't my point. I never said they should be granted license for ANYTHING.

My point (again) is that corporations exist to make money. Period. If they aren't making money, they cease to exist. Of course they need to adhere to local & national laws... that's part of doing business. Of course they SHOULD make an effort at returning to the community, and many do, because this leads to good faith in the company, which leads to higher profits.

You can't impose artificial restraints on companies for social good. They're not MEANT to improve society, except by strengthening the financial aspect. In many cases they DO, which is nice, but it's not a function or a goal of a corpration, nor should it be.