| reply to Octopussy2
Re: Bottom line Incumbents are not the only one's that care about their bottom line. Any privately held or publicly traded company (ahem, business) is operating for the purpose of making a profit. Did you forget this? If they weren't, they'd be a not-for-profit entity. 
So, while the propaganda coming from all parties may not be valid, don't blame a business for trying to operate in a profitable manner. If no business were to seek a profit you would be doing without a heck of a lot of technology and material goods in your personal life.
Imagine what kind of vehicle you would be driving if all those for-profit automakers closed up shop because they couldn't make a bottom line, or a better bottom line to make better cars next year. |
|
| paranoiainc brings up a good point about an unrivaled business looking out for number 1, but that will never lead to innovation or anything beneficial for the consumer.
crushing competition leads to stagnation because they only care about money. if they're the only providers there, why would they try to change? however, true competition breeds improvement, because the company now must earn your money with better service, cheaper rates, etc...
think past the "business close = bad" idea. if a business closes it's because someone else does it better. support competition. |
|
 cmorda
join:2002-09-07
Ventura, CA | reply to ParanoiaInc
You're right, we can't blame a business for trying to operate in a profitable manner but we should be concerned about deceptive propaganda aimed at voters who are not "in the know" about the issue at hand.
Eliminating deceptive advertising would have little or no negative effect on progressive technology. Deception is a tool for those looking to market a product which cannot speak for itself. Think about "Ronco"... A very popular advertiser yet they have never marketed anything truly revolutionary for the modern kitchen. |
|
