I think that many things changed over the years. People nowadays doesn't read books as much. People doesn't even like the classical games (hopscotch, Heads Up 7 Up, etc.). Technology was a huge reason for this change. Ever since our modern technology was introduced, people began to rely on those gadgets instead of the old sources. Technology has helped us a lot, but brought everyone down in some way.
Just stating my opinion on the title of the thread and not everything else that is going on, mainly because I am not motivated to read all 9 pages and respond to all of them. Anyway I personally can't stand the world we live in call it angst or anything else, but I have a reason instead of just flying off the handle. To further clarify, as a whole I can't stand the world we live in. Some people I like and some things I like (nature for example). It is just humans have a way of just screwing everything up and making a mess of things in a short time. Sure we have done some great things, it just gets on my nerves at how cruel people can be (I am not saying I am some perfect angel or even that I am better then someone, just annoyed).
The ME has always and rightfully should hate them heh.....It's just far more dangerous now IMO because of the turmoil they have in political transition; the people are feeling the power they have for once.
The ME has always and rightfully should hate them heh.....It's just far more dangerous now IMO because of the turmoil they have in political transition; the people are feeling the power they have for once.
Thanks to the Internet in good part. Now people can help and educate each other from every parts of the World. No wonder evil Corporations such as the music industry (Mafia) and diverse governments tries to censor and police it.
If you think paint such broad strokes of corporations, why do you use the Internet, an Internet device, which are all made by corporations? MNCs and large firms have been disastrous on many accounts, but basic economic theory and history have shown that they are often more beneficial than harmful.
If you think paint such broad strokes of corporations, why do you use the Internet, an Internet device, which are all made by corporations? MNCs and large firms have been disastrous on many accounts, but basic economic theory and history have shown that they are often more beneficial than harmful.
That's a dumb question. You can't compare the Internet which bring many good things and opens us to knowledge, narrows the borders with the music industry or drugs and insurance companies who abuse and treat their customers like garbage. I mean come on.
That's a dumb question. You can't compare the Internet which bring many good things and opens us to knowledge, narrows the borders with the music industry or drugs and insurance companies who abuse and treat their customers like garbage. I mean come on.
It's not a dumb question. Apple create the computers or phones you use to get onto the net for example, and yet we use them rather double standardly. Doesn't that show badly upon your view?
The music industry is solely an evil entity? People enjoy music as far as I know.
That's a dumb question. You can't compare the Internet which bring many good things and opens us to knowledge, narrows the borders with the music industry or drugs and insurance companies who abuse and treat their customers like garbage. I mean come on.
I am not just comparing the Internet, but Internet devices. We use devices made by Apple and other firms to get on the Internet for our benefit, yet these companies have histories of abusing their workers. Isn't that a tad bit hypocritical? The clothes we wear, the fridge, TV, food we use, many are the products of companies that abuse their workers and the environment, yet we turn a blind eye to them. We can't claim to have the moral high ground, or condemn these companies without tainting ourselves with the same dirty brush. They all bring good things to us like you said, but they too are bullies. And so? Should we be quick to label all these corporations eveil without a tinge of shame?
I am not just comparing the Internet, but Internet devices. We use devices made by Apple and other firms to get on the Internet for our benefit, yet these companies have histories of abusing their workers. Isn't that a tad bit hypocritical? The clothes we wear, the fridge, TV, food we use, many are the products of companies that abuse their workers and the environment, yet we turn a blind eye to them. We can't claim to have the moral high ground, or condemn these companies without tainting ourselves with the same dirty brush. They all bring good things to us like you said, but they too are bullies. And so? Should we be quick to label all these corporations eveil without a tinge of shame?
I hear ya, buddy. But twill be a while before the Age of the Corporation falls and small businesses take back the market. Not only did the bigwigs take the technological side of things; smiths, lumberjacks, bowyers, gunsmiths, clothiers, merchants, they all fell to corporative power.
I hear ya, buddy. But twill be a while before the Age of the Corporation falls and small businesses take back the market. Not only did the bigwigs take the technological side of things; smiths, lumberjacks, bowyers, gunsmiths, clothiers, merchants, they all fell to corporative power.
It's not a bad thing for corporations to exist based on economics, suh as economics of scale. People who slam them and think that only SMEs are good are daft.
It's not a bad thing for corporations to exist based on economics, suh as economics of scale. People who slam them and think that only SMEs are good are daft.
How so? Which would you prefer; an Italian teeshirt made of New Zealand wool, or a Chinese-made polyester shirt from Adidas?
How so? Which would you prefer; an Italian teeshirt made of New Zealand wool, or a Chinese-made polyester shirt from Adidas?
I would prefer whichever has decent quality and is cheap. By far the most important aspect and advantage a large firm can reap is the numerous economies of scale as it moves to it's minimum efficient scale. Economies of scale are the cost advantages that a business can exploit by expanding their scale of production. The effect of economies of scale is to reduce the average (unit) costs of production.
Large-scale businesses can afford to invest in expensive and specialist capital machinery. For example, a supermarket chain such as Tesco or Sainsburyâs can invest in technology that improves stock control. It might not, however, be viable or cost-efficient for a small corner shop to buy this technology.
A large firm can spread its advertising and marketing budget over a large output and it can purchase its inputs in bulk at negotiated discounted prices if it has sufficient negotiation power in the market. A good example would be the ability of the electricity generators to negotiate lower prices when negotiating coal and gas supply contracts. The major food retailers also have buying power when purchasing supplies from farmers and other suppliers.
Larger firms are usually rated by the financial markets to be more âcredit worthyâ and have access to credit facilities, with favourable rates of borrowing. In contrast, smaller firms often face higher rates of interest on overdrafts and loans. Businesses quoted on the stock market can normally raise fresh money (i.e. extra financial capital) more cheaply through the issue of shares. They are also likely to pay a lower rate of interest on new company bonds issued through the capital markets.
A tiny firm won't be able to expand to national and global levels; we'd all be paying much more expensive prices for many products. For instance; computers. It would be implausible to have thousands of firms making and selling only a dozen units each day; firms won't be able to produce at cheap rates, which means the consumer pays high.
