Left wing trade unions- why do they support mass immigration?, I just don't get it!

[angelo]

That's arguable as Iv'e done a uni course in marketing, then spent over 40 years in it! Both retail and the majority of that time in wholesale.

 

[Jayjay]

That's arguable as Iv'e done a uni course in marketing, then spent over 40 years in it!

Must've been a tough course.

 

[bigfield]

That's arguable as Iv'e done a uni course in marketing, then spent over 40 years in it! Both retail and the majority of that time in wholesale.

They evidently forgot to tell you that you aren't supposed to believe your own bullshit.

You must be the only marketer in the world who doesn't understand that "the customer always comes first" is just a bullshit line that businesses feed to their clientele.

 

[angelo]

The art of marketing is to convince the customer he/she can't live without your product. Convince them of that and they will move heaven and earth to get their hands on your product.
Without customers, no business will survive for long. But your employer comes first before the custumer, yes!.

 

[angelo]

That's arguable as Iv'e done a uni course in marketing, then spent over 40 years in it!

Must've been a tough course.

Yea, did a did a 40 year sentence for it.

 

[Harry Bosch]

That's arguable as Iv'e done a uni course in marketing, then spent over 40 years in it! Both retail and the majority of that time in wholesale.

They evidently forgot to tell you that you aren't supposed to believe your own bullshit.

You must be the only marketer in the world who doesn't understand that "the customer always comes first" is just a bullshit line that businesses feed to their clientele.

If I had to guess, maybe you work for the government? In my experience, the best companies are those that deeply understand their customer and how to make him/her happy.

 

[angelo]

They evidently forgot to tell you that you aren't supposed to believe your own bullshit.

You must be the only marketer in the world who doesn't understand that "the customer always comes first" is just a bullshit line that businesses feed to their clientele.

If I had to guess, maybe you work for the government? In my experience, the best companies are those that deeply understand their customer and how to make him/her happy.

Private enterprise wouldn't survive a day without customers.

 

[Canard DuJour]

When investors and bankers consider investing in a company, they primarily evaluate management and the decisions that they make. Of course workers are vital. Good management will retain and find the best workers. But what drives a companies are the decisions that it makes. It's not just "best production". It's also determining the best product mix, where to sell, who to buy inventory from, marketing plans, lean manufacturing, when to expand, when to contract, how much raw material to invest in and at what price, when to buy equipment, when to stand by, what technology to invest in, what technology is obsolete, and etc.

Investors and bankers haven't a fucking clue about most of that stuff. They "primarily evaluate management" because they want to know that the company will be run in the interests of investors and bankers.

It's absolutely shocking that investors and banks would want to invest in companies that would protect their interests!!!

Is it really? I wouldn't have thought so, but opinion noted.

It is, however, totally unreasonable to expect them to have that much expertise about different businesses wanting loans.

 

[Canard DuJour]

If I had to guess, maybe you work for the government? In my experience, the best companies are those that deeply understand their customer and how to make him/her happy.

Private enterprise wouldn't survive a day without customers.

Indeed. Customers who are overwhelmingly employees of other firms. They all want cheap labour and rich customers, which is why they have to be regulated for their own good.

 

[Harry Bosch]

When investors and bankers consider investing in a company, they primarily evaluate management and the decisions that they make. Of course workers are vital. Good management will retain and find the best workers. But what drives a companies are the decisions that it makes. It's not just "best production". It's also determining the best product mix, where to sell, who to buy inventory from, marketing plans, lean manufacturing, when to expand, when to contract, how much raw material to invest in and at what price, when to buy equipment, when to stand by, what technology to invest in, what technology is obsolete, and etc.

Investors and bankers haven't a fucking clue about most of that stuff. They "primarily evaluate management" because they want to know that the company will be run in the interests of investors and bankers.

It's absolutely shocking that investors and banks would want to invest in companies that would protect their interests!!!

Is it really? I wouldn't have thought so, but opinion noted.

It is, however, totally unreasonable to expect them to have that much expertise about different businesses wanting loans.

Dude: are you being sarcastic? Or do you really think that people investing into a company really wouldn't want some expertise on how the company is doing? You really don't think that there is any kind of analysis on the company's probability of success?? If that is your belief, do you have any evidence to support your opinion? Do you blindly invest your money in ventures that you don't understand?

- - - Updated - - -

Private enterprise wouldn't survive a day without customers.

Indeed. Customers who are overwhelmingly employees of other firms. They all want cheap labour and rich customers, which is why they have to be regulated for their own good.

The majority of customers are not employees. The amount of actual workers in the US is less than 50% of the population.

 

[Canard DuJour]

When investors and bankers consider investing in a company, they primarily evaluate management and the decisions that they make. Of course workers are vital. Good management will retain and find the best workers. But what drives a companies are the decisions that it makes. It's not just "best production". It's also determining the best product mix, where to sell, who to buy inventory from, marketing plans, lean manufacturing, when to expand, when to contract, how much raw material to invest in and at what price, when to buy equipment, when to stand by, what technology to invest in, what technology is obsolete, and etc.

Investors and bankers haven't a fucking clue about most of that stuff. They "primarily evaluate management" because they want to know that the company will be run in the interests of investors and bankers.

It's absolutely shocking that investors and banks would want to invest in companies that would protect their interests!!!

Is it really? I wouldn't have thought so, but opinion noted.

It is, however, totally unreasonable to expect them to have that much expertise about different businesses wanting loans.

Dude: are you being sarcastic? Or do you really think that people investing into a company really wouldn't want some expertise on how the company is doing? You really don't think that there is any kind of analysis on the company's probability of success?? If that is your belief, do you have any evidence to support your opinion? Do you blindly invest your money in ventures that you don't understand?

No, of course I'm not suggesting any of that. I'm suggesting that "bankers and investors" cannot have the god-like knowledge of each and every business which happens to seek a loan implied by the highlighted bit.

Private enterprise wouldn't survive a day without customers.

Indeed. Customers who are overwhelmingly employees of other firms. They all want cheap labour and rich customers, which is why they have to be regulated for their own good.

The majority of customers are not employees. The amount of actual workers in the US is less than 50% of the population.

The money spent by ultimate consumers is nontheless overwhelmingly dependent on wages. Not just welfare recipients, the spouses and children of the employed, but most people who live entirely off returns from investment. Squeeze wages hard enough and they're all eventually fucked.

 

[Harry Bosch]

When investors and bankers consider investing in a company, they primarily evaluate management and the decisions that they make. Of course workers are vital. Good management will retain and find the best workers. But what drives a companies are the decisions that it makes. It's not just "best production". It's also determining the best product mix, where to sell, who to buy inventory from, marketing plans, lean manufacturing, when to expand, when to contract, how much raw material to invest in and at what price, when to buy equipment, when to stand by, what technology to invest in, what technology is obsolete, and etc.

Investors and bankers haven't a fucking clue about most of that stuff. They "primarily evaluate management" because they want to know that the company will be run in the interests of investors and bankers.

It's absolutely shocking that investors and banks would want to invest in companies that would protect their interests!!!

Is it really? I wouldn't have thought so, but opinion noted.

It is, however, totally unreasonable to expect them to have that much expertise about different businesses wanting loans.

Dude: are you being sarcastic? Or do you really think that people investing into a company really wouldn't want some expertise on how the company is doing? You really don't think that there is any kind of analysis on the company's probability of success?? If that is your belief, do you have any evidence to support your opinion? Do you blindly invest your money in ventures that you don't understand?

No, of course I'm not suggesting any of that. I'm suggesting that "bankers and investors" cannot have the god-like knowledge of each and every business which happens to seek a loan implied by the highlighted bit.

Private enterprise wouldn't survive a day without customers.

Indeed. Customers who are overwhelmingly employees of other firms. They all want cheap labour and rich customers, which is why they have to be regulated for their own good.

The majority of customers are not employees. The amount of actual workers in the US is less than 50% of the population.

The money spent by ultimate consumers is nontheless overwhelmingly dependent on wages. Not just welfare recipients, the spouses and children of the employed, but most people who live entirely off returns from investment. Squeeze wages hard enough and they're all eventually fucked.

Did you really think that I was proposing that investors and bankers have god-like power to properly evaluate companies? I've been reading your posts for a long time and you aren't the kind for creating strawman.

 

[bilby]

If I had to guess, maybe you work for the government? In my experience, the best companies are those that deeply understand their customer and how to make him/her happy.

Private enterprise wouldn't survive a day without customers.

or staff; or money; or utilities; or air.

But nobody ever said "In this business, we put the air first!", or "Our money is our greatest asset!"*, or "Electricity supply is what makes our business thrive!"













*OK, perhaps on Wall Street.

 

[whichphilosophy]

When investors and bankers consider investing in a company, they primarily evaluate management and the decisions that they make. Of course workers are vital. Good management will retain and find the best workers. But what drives a companies are the decisions that it makes. It's not just "best production". It's also determining the best product mix, where to sell, who to buy inventory from, marketing plans, lean manufacturing, when to expand, when to contract, how much raw material to invest in and at what price, when to buy equipment, when to stand by, what technology to invest in, what technology is obsolete, and etc.

Investors and bankers haven't a fucking clue about most of that stuff. They "primarily evaluate management" because they want to know that the company will be run in the interests of investors and bankers.

It's absolutely shocking that investors and banks would want to invest in companies that would protect their interests!!!

Is it really? I wouldn't have thought so, but opinion noted.

It is, however, totally unreasonable to expect them to have that much expertise about different businesses wanting loans.

Dude: are you being sarcastic? Or do you really think that people investing into a company really wouldn't want some expertise on how the company is doing? You really don't think that there is any kind of analysis on the company's probability of success?? If that is your belief, do you have any evidence to support your opinion? Do you blindly invest your money in ventures that you don't understand?

No, of course I'm not suggesting any of that. I'm suggesting that "bankers and investors" cannot have the god-like knowledge of each and every business which happens to seek a loan implied by the highlighted bit.

Private enterprise wouldn't survive a day without customers.

Indeed. Customers who are overwhelmingly employees of other firms. They all want cheap labour and rich customers, which is why they have to be regulated for their own good.

The majority of customers are not employees. The amount of actual workers in the US is less than 50% of the population.

The money spent by ultimate consumers is nontheless overwhelmingly dependent on wages. Not just welfare recipients, the spouses and children of the employed, but most people who live entirely off returns from investment. Squeeze wages hard enough and they're all eventually fucked.

Further to your point, pay decent wages and money is spent and thus circulated into the economy. More housing is purchased, more types of food, entertainment and education which in turn creates more jobs. Europe learnt this but most Asian countries did not, except China Singapore and a few others. India definitely did not learn this where as its economy seems to boom poverty remains constant.

 

[whichphilosophy]

If I had to guess, maybe you work for the government? In my experience, the best companies are those that deeply understand their customer and how to make him/her happy.

Private enterprise wouldn't survive a day without customers.

The exception may be the monopoly who owns all means of production. Advertising attracts interest but good service and value for money retains customers for a considerable amount of time.

However if the employee is paid fair or even well for his work, his or her increased spending creates more companies needed to service his consumer demands such as hotels, bars, holiday resorts, household and houses etc.

However the consumer nowadays prefers to purchase cheap goods which are disposable so as to save money. I purchased a washing drier manufactured in Australia and it lasted 18 years with no problems. Now it is awaiting repair. In that time we have cone through 4 washing machines made in China. The cost of these could have been reduced if my wife had agreed to import one from the USA for more money. Guaranteed if you ever live in the Philippines you will find it difficult to purchase a product which does not breakdown within a year.

 

[Canard DuJour]

When investors and bankers consider investing in a company, they primarily evaluate management and the decisions that they make. Of course workers are vital. Good management will retain and find the best workers. But what drives a companies are the decisions that it makes. It's not just "best production". It's also determining the best product mix, where to sell, who to buy inventory from, marketing plans, lean manufacturing, when to expand, when to contract, how much raw material to invest in and at what price, when to buy equipment, when to stand by, what technology to invest in, what technology is obsolete, and etc.

Investors and bankers haven't a fucking clue about most of that stuff. They "primarily evaluate management" because they want to know that the company will be run in the interests of investors and bankers.

It's absolutely shocking that investors and banks would want to invest in companies that would protect their interests!!!

Is it really? I wouldn't have thought so, but opinion noted.

It is, however, totally unreasonable to expect them to have that much expertise about different businesses wanting loans.

Dude: are you being sarcastic? Or do you really think that people investing into a company really wouldn't want some expertise on how the company is doing? You really don't think that there is any kind of analysis on the company's probability of success?? If that is your belief, do you have any evidence to support your opinion? Do you blindly invest your money in ventures that you don't understand?

No, of course I'm not suggesting any of that. I'm suggesting that "bankers and investors" cannot have the god-like knowledge of each and every business which happens to seek a loan implied by the highlighted bit.

Private enterprise wouldn't survive a day without customers.

Indeed. Customers who are overwhelmingly employees of other firms. They all want cheap labour and rich customers, which is why they have to be regulated for their own good.

The majority of customers are not employees. The amount of actual workers in the US is less than 50% of the population.

The money spent by ultimate consumers is nontheless overwhelmingly dependent on wages. Not just welfare recipients, the spouses and children of the employed, but most people who live entirely off returns from investment. Squeeze wages hard enough and they're all eventually fucked.

Did you really think that I was proposing that investors and bankers have god-like power to properly evaluate companies? I've been reading your posts for a long time and you aren't the kind for creating strawman.

OK, sorry if I've misinterpreted. Sure, bankers and investors might reasonably expect managers to have that depth of knowledge of their own business, but no one could have it about each and every business seeking a loan. Say I'm making ROVs which coat hyperbaric pipelines with smart polymers, I could tell them any old garbage. The next applicant might want to expand her crystal healing business..

 

[Harry Bosch]

When investors and bankers consider investing in a company, they primarily evaluate management and the decisions that they make. Of course workers are vital. Good management will retain and find the best workers. But what drives a companies are the decisions that it makes. It's not just "best production". It's also determining the best product mix, where to sell, who to buy inventory from, marketing plans, lean manufacturing, when to expand, when to contract, how much raw material to invest in and at what price, when to buy equipment, when to stand by, what technology to invest in, what technology is obsolete, and etc.

Investors and bankers haven't a fucking clue about most of that stuff. They "primarily evaluate management" because they want to know that the company will be run in the interests of investors and bankers.

It's absolutely shocking that investors and banks would want to invest in companies that would protect their interests!!!

Is it really? I wouldn't have thought so, but opinion noted.

It is, however, totally unreasonable to expect them to have that much expertise about different businesses wanting loans.

Dude: are you being sarcastic? Or do you really think that people investing into a company really wouldn't want some expertise on how the company is doing? You really don't think that there is any kind of analysis on the company's probability of success?? If that is your belief, do you have any evidence to support your opinion? Do you blindly invest your money in ventures that you don't understand?

No, of course I'm not suggesting any of that. I'm suggesting that "bankers and investors" cannot have the god-like knowledge of each and every business which happens to seek a loan implied by the highlighted bit.

Private enterprise wouldn't survive a day without customers.

Indeed. Customers who are overwhelmingly employees of other firms. They all want cheap labour and rich customers, which is why they have to be regulated for their own good.

The majority of customers are not employees. The amount of actual workers in the US is less than 50% of the population.

The money spent by ultimate consumers is nontheless overwhelmingly dependent on wages. Not just welfare recipients, the spouses and children of the employed, but most people who live entirely off returns from investment. Squeeze wages hard enough and they're all eventually fucked.

Did you really think that I was proposing that investors and bankers have god-like power to properly evaluate companies? I've been reading your posts for a long time and you aren't the kind for creating strawman.

OK, sorry if I've misinterpreted. Sure, bankers and investors might reasonably expect managers to have that depth of knowledge of their own business, but no one could have it about each and every business seeking a loan. Say I'm making ROVs which coat hyperbaric pipelines with smart polymers, I could tell them any old garbage. The next applicant might want to expand her crystal healing business..

Okay, I get your point! BTW: an ROV that coats hyperbaric pipelines with smart polymers sounds very cool!