Re: FCC votes to remove protections for the open Internet in the USA.
- Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 18:01:27 -0500
- From: Wolf K <wolfmac@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: FCC votes to remove protections for the open Internet in the USA.
On 2017-12-19 13:12, The Real Bev wrote:
On 12/19/2017 09:33 AM, Wolf K wrote:
On 2017-12-19 10:11, Ed Mullen wrote:
On 12/19/2017 at 9:02 AM, Wolf K created this epitome of digital genius:
On 2017-12-19 03:48, Ron Hunter wrote:
On 12/18/2017 7:27 AM, Rinaldi wrote:
On 2017-12-17 20:35, Wolf K wrote:
Business exists to serve customers.
Don't be naive. Businesses exist to separate customers from their
You are both right. If a business doesn't give satisfactory service,
and has lousy products, it will go broke. Some level of quality of
both product and service must be offered in return for the customer's
I was alluding to the idjit judge's ruling that a corporation's first
duty iis to its shareholders, not to its customers.
In a legal/fiduciary sense, the judge was correct. A company's first
duty is to its owners (shareholders).
You're right, of course. But you shouldn't be.
Why bother to form a business if you're not going to make money with it?
A business can't survive without customers willing to buy its products.
Why is this evil?
Nothing evil about it. It's what's happened to the notion of "profit",
and the distortion of the share-holding principle.
An owner/partner-operator's "profit" is their income, and they're
entitled to a decent living, just like their employees and customers.
That's one reason I support local owner-operated businesses. The other
is to persuade them to stay, so's I don't have to spend four hours or
more round trip and shopping in "the big city" 150km distant to get what
I need and want. (Footnote)
"Share holding" is now part of a gambling racket. After the IPO, any
profit made on share-trading accrues to the share-holder, not to the
company whose increasing value accounts for the increasing value of the
shares. IMO, if you make a profit on selling a company's shares, the
company should get a slice of the winnings. The stock-market also sucks
money out of the economy, so that the players can play their games. The
acquisition and merger game is even worse: all mergers result in
"efficiencies" and "rationalisation", aka layoffs and plant closures.
Not that I'm guiltless: My excellent (and mandatory) pension plan is
excellent because it has invested in money-spinning corporations for
Footnote: At the current (Ontario) minimum wage of $14/hour, a shopping
trip costs around $60 to $120 in time, plus the mileage cost of the
vehicle, which at the current common expense-claim rate of around
$0.40/km amounts to about $120. Total direct and indirect cost: $180 to
$240 or so. If saving money on shopping is the prime motive for
travelling to the city, you'd have to spend a thousand dollars or more
to come out even. OTOH, since we do have to go to the city for services
we can't get here, adding a shopping excursion reduces the cost of the trip.
"The next conference for the time travel design team will be held two
general mailing list