Sorry, but banks DID cause the mortgage meltdown

Yonni, I'm not sorry for saying this...VOR is a Douchebag of epic proportions. Yeah, even struck with the chronic malady of dipshititis type 2. Honestly, I think it's that obvious.

Very nice posts PRO.

Thank you. berg

So those corrupt politicians held guns to the heads of these fine Capitalists
and forced them to be scumbags??? HA HA!!! And they did it to all of these fine
upstanding companies at the same time.

Look PRO I can see your point of view. It's just disturbing that you are so quick to put the gun in the hands of the Govt. and absolve the criminals
just because they happen to fall within your philosophy.

Well Brotha your philosophy has flaws. take ownership of those flaws and we're square.

I must have missed something. Exactly where did PRO say he wanted to absolve criminals?

Mr. Berg please go back to your thumb rodeo... The adults are talking.. Run along

Mr. Berg to you for certain VOT.

Yonni, it should be painfully obvious to everyone that VOT is in fact The Forum Douchebag. Can you please put that under his name, so that any unsuspecting visitors will have some advance warning.

Thank you. Berg

And...just where the hell did PRO say that he wants to absolve criminals you Moron? It's just like you to avoid a difficult 3rd grade question.

Mr. BERG since the chances of you actually understanding my reply to
your idiotic inquiry are well below the 10% line I didn't want to waste my limited typing skills.

But I'll break out a crayon just for you, and I'll try to dumb it down.

Your mental equal Mr. PRO is of the opinion that if you let these fine individuals
like Madhoff and the Enron boys run without Govt. interference they will continually do what is, first, Moral, Second, responsible and third in the best interest of the owners / shareholders of the business.

Now MILLIONS of small and large businesses do exactly that every day, just like my not so evil employer. They turn a profit to pay my wages. They are of high enough MORAL CHARACTER that they would do this with or without regulations. Thats why they have a succesful business.

What people of your simple black and white ( or profit and loss ) mental condition don't get and never will get is that profit and loss have very little to do with the success of a product or company.

You can make a ton of profit ONE TIME. Just like the criminal bankers did. So under your definition this is all that matters or should matter. They got paid their books look great, right?? All profit no loss the company is booming and they got paid. This is where your reasoning ends.

Crayons are awesome. Hate to beat a dead horse man, but you are taking PRO out of context. I would call your rant a straw man argument; however, I'm certain others would call it Chronic Dipshitits.

voiceofreason wrote:

Mr. BERG since the chances of you actually understanding my reply to
your idiotic inquiry are well below the 10% line I didn't want to waste my limited typing skills.

But I'll break out a crayon just for you, and I'll try to dumb it down.

Your mental equal Mr. PRO is of the opinion that if you let these fine individuals
like Madhoff and the Enron boys run without Govt. interference they will continually do what is, first, Moral, Second, responsible and third in the best interest of the owners / shareholders of the business.

Now MILLIONS of small and large businesses do exactly that every day, just like my not so evil employer. They turn a profit to pay my wages. They are of high enough MORAL CHARACTER that they would do this with or without regulations. Thats why they have a succesful business.

What people of your simple black and white ( or profit and loss ) mental condition don't get and never will get is that profit and loss have very little to do with the success of a product or company.

You can make a ton of profit ONE TIME. Just like the criminal bankers did. So under your definition this is all that matters or should matter. They got paid their books look great, right?? All profit no loss the company is booming and they got paid. This is where your reasoning ends.

I'm literally speechless at this degree of business ignorance.

I knew you would Mr. BASS, and that is why we are in the predicament we are now in.

Lets use the diet drug phen phen. the company made a ton of profit... Untill it was found to kill people. Under your definition this would be a success. To the family of the dead it would be a tragedy. How did the profit / loss philosophy work out for the long term business model of this company?? Did the company rush this drug to market to maximize profits?? Did they falsify data to the FDA to turn a profit??

As long as a business model is built solely on profit / loss the business will fail.
As long as profit / loss is priority 1 you'll continue to see a lack of re-investment in business as well as cut corners to gain your flawed end result.

voiceofreason wrote:

I knew you would Mr. BASS, and that is why we are in the predicament we are now in.

Lets use the diet drug phen phen. the company made a ton of profit... Untill it was found to kill people. Under your definition this would be a success. To the family of the dead it would be a tragedy. How did the profit / loss philosophy work out for the long term business model of this company?? Did the company rush this drug to market to maximize profits?? Did they falsify data to the FDA to turn a profit??

As long as a business model is built solely on profit / loss the business will fail.
As long as profit / loss is priority 1 you'll continue to see a lack of re-investment in business as well as cut corners to gain your flawed end result.

My ex son-in-law's mother sued the manufacturers of Fen-phen for a supposed hole in her heart (according to a doctor that her lawyer hired) and won a $750,000 settlement although she suffered no physical discomfort and it never kept her from doing what she wanted to do. She is still a lunch lady in the Ogden school district and she still does the exact same physical things she did before taking Fen-phen.

It's too bad that you have no experience running a business. You would never make these sophomoric statements or use these rare instances where a business breaks the law to damn the entire free market system.

Keep your head in the Marxist sand and STAY CLASSY voiceoftreason.

Mr. BASS. So much goes in to profit to say that profit is all that matters is ignorant
and highlights your lack of business acumen.

One day you will realize THAT PROFIT IS A RESULT!!!! NOT A GOAL!!! NOT A PHILOSOPHY.

I'm damn glad you don't run the business I work for cause you are the problem.

voiceofreason wrote:

Mr. BASS. So much goes in to profit to say that profit is all that matters is ignorant
and highlights your lack of business acumen.

One day you will realize THAT PROFIT IS A RESULT!!!! NOT A GOAL!!! NOT A PHILOSOPHY.

I'm damn glad you don't run the business I work for cause you are the problem.

That's so much altruistic bullshit. No profit, no business...unless you're one of the white house's favorites and have unlimited "stimulus funds" to piss away like Solyndra.

Mr. BASS, so if you were running a business and you had a 20 plus year employee
would you fire him to hire a kid that you could pay $3.00 less an hour?? Assuming they were identically skilled???

voiceofreason wrote:

Mr. BASS, so if you were running a business and you had a 20 plus year employee
would you fire him to hire a kid that you could pay $3.00 less an hour?? Assuming they were identically skilled???

No such thing as identically skilled. No such thing as identically experienced, either. I've been on both ends of this conundrum and won the job both times so I'm not the guy you want to answer this question, Mr treason.

Quit being a bitch Mr. BASS and answer the question.

voiceofreason wrote:

Mr. BASS, so if you were running a business and you had a 20 plus year employee
would you fire him to hire a kid that you could pay $3.00 less an hour?? Assuming they were identically skilled???

Typical inane ramblings. Why would a kid agree to work for less? What is the attitude of the 20 plus year employee, what is the productivity of said employee? There are so many factors that you omit, that your question is as flawed as your 'reasoning' on who is to blame for the housing crisis. You see, what makes an employee valued is not his skills, but his production. Why you ask? Because it helps turn a PROFIT.

It's not a typical inane question... Would you fire an employee that had worked for you for over 20 years to hire a person that is identical in every way but will cost you $3.00 less per hour???

Quit running like little girls and answer the question

voiceofreason wrote:

Quit being a bitch Mr. BASS and answer the question.

I would not fire the older worker unless there was cause. I value a trusted and loyal employee over an unknown quantity.
But if the government raised my taxes to the point that I'd go bankrupt I would have no choice but to fire the older worker and hire the younger...and that's what Obamacare will force some businesses to do, bitch.

fatbass wrote:

voiceofreason wrote:

Quit being a bitch Mr. BASS and answer the question.

I would not fire the older worker unless there was cause. I value a trusted and loyal employee over an unknown quantity.
But if the government raised my taxes to the point that I'd go bankrupt I would have no choice but to fire the older worker and hire the younger...and that's what Obamacare will force some businesses to do, bitch.

True. Also, who the employer chooses to hire/fire is NONE of the governments business. If it is unwise to fire the old employee and hire the newbie, the employer will suffer. No one is 'owed' a job/career.

I didn't say anything about Govt. regs. I simply asked if you would fire the guy to save $24.00 per day.

Both of you answered NO. So apparently PROFIT comes in second to LOYALTY...

Maybe the reason this theoretical business is PROFITABLE IS A DIRECT RESULT OF LOYAL
EMPLOYEES WHO ARE AMBASSADORS OF THIS BUSINESS THAT WON'T JUMP SHIP THE MINUTE SOMEBODY OFFERS THEM $3.00 AN HOUR MORE!!!


Scenario #2

You own a pawn shop and an old widow comes in with all kinds of stuff she needs to sell
because the TEALIBAN shut down MEDICARE and she has to pay her recently deceased husbands medical bills.
Now among the stuff she has to sell is her late husband's collection of trading cards. In the collection is a Babe Ruth RookieCard, a Hank Aaron Rookie Card, a Mickey Mantle Rookie Card and a Michael Jordan Rookie Card with a piece
of his game jersey worn during the first game of his career. She wants $25.00 for the whole thing having no idea what any of it is worth. Do you give her the $25.00 or do you tell her what she has???

Mr. BASS. Why can't you quit while you are ahead??? I knew nobody in their
right mind would fire an employee they've worked with for 20 years to save $24.00
a day.


So like I said LOYALTY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN PROFIT..

Looking at your reply to the second question it also appears that HONESTY and PERSONAL INTEGRITY come in ahead of PROFIT.

Honesty and loyalty are major factors, no doubt. But, one doesn't open a business to 'make' honesty and loyalty, they open a business to make a PROFIT! Those are traits that help a company make a PROFIT, and to be able to sustain profitability long term. The drive for PROFIT has lead to great inventions, and a better standard of living for everyone. Greed has always been a great motivator, it is when greed goes unchecked we have problems, and when the greediest of all reside in the government things are sure to get ugly. Greed for power is what drives Washington DC, and that is the case for BOTH parties!