haarp Can make earthquakes?

Forums › Off topic › haarp Can make earthquakes?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12

532 posts

Ultimate Geek

#495829 20-Jul-2011 16:31

cgrew: I understand your angst on the matter, but there comes a point when the so called profit becomes too "excessive".

I would be interested in what you define as "so called profit". It is a term that is new to me despite my having worked in for profit organisations for decades. Is it some special form of profit that is not what is normally referred to as being profit, or some special part of profit, etc?

I would also be interested in what you regard as "too excessive". Could you couch that in terms of that returned to shareholders, that retained for research and development, that retained as working capital (business expansion, more jobs, etc), etc, that ordinarily come out of profit. Assuming, of course, those things are included in your "so called profit".

If return to shareholders is to be regarded as an "excessive" aspect of "so called profit" or of profit should, for example, the likes of the shareholding of the institutional shareholders such as the NZ Superannuation Fund, insurers and banks, etc get some special treatment in order to ensure they remain sustainable protecting the general publics investment in them, and should retail shareholders participate in some different less rewarding way?

I would also be very interested in who you consider should determine when "so called profit" becomes "too ""excessive""" and the process they would go through in order to determine that was so. Of course, if "so called profit" is only "so called" and so not profit at all would you describe why it matters if it is or is not "excessive"?

So many questions spring from your one sentence claim and I am sure there are many more. So thanks for your time responding.

MightyApe

You will find anything you want at MightyApe (affiliate link).

Skolink

1081 posts

Uber Geek

#495964 20-Jul-2011 21:51

John2010:
cgrew: I understand your angst on the matter, but there comes a point when the so called profit becomes too "excessive".

I would be interested in what you define as "so called profit". It is a term that is new to me despite my having worked in for profit organisations for decades. Is it some special form of profit that is not what is normally referred to as being profit, or some special part of profit, etc?

I would also be interested in what you regard as "too excessive". Could you couch that in terms of that returned to shareholders, that retained for research and development, that retained as working capital (business expansion, more jobs, etc), etc, that ordinarily come out of profit. Assuming, of course, those things are included in your "so called profit".

If return to shareholders is to be regarded as an "excessive" aspect of "so called profit" or of profit should, for example, the likes of the shareholding of the institutional shareholders such as the NZ Superannuation Fund, insurers and banks, etc get some special treatment in order to ensure they remain sustainable protecting the general publics investment in them, and should retail shareholders participate in some different less rewarding way?

I would also be very interested in who you consider should determine when "so called profit" becomes "too ""excessive""" and the process they would go through in order to determine that was so. Of course, if "so called profit" is only "so called" and so not profit at all would you describe why it matters if it is or is not "excessive"?

So many questions spring from your one sentence claim and I am sure there are many more. So thanks for your time responding.

One measure of the profit (or CEO's salary) being excessive would be to compare it to what the employees get for the effort they expend in making the goods or services. If they work very hard in poor conditions, and their remuneration does not provide much more than mere survival, then even $1 profit is excessive. The shareholders do not deserve any return on such an investment.

Talkiet

4689 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#495969 20-Jul-2011 21:54

Skolink:[snip]
One measure of the profit (or CEO's salary) being excessive would be to compare it to what the employees get for the effort they expend in making the goods or services. If they work very hard in poor conditions, and their remuneration does not provide much more than mere survival, then even $1 profit is excessive. The shareholders do not deserve any return on such an investment.

I have a better idea. Instead of getting a high price CEO, just get one of the regular employees to be CEO and pay them the same as they get for an average job within the company.

Let's see how well that works.

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are the product of my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

Skolink

1081 posts

Uber Geek

#495971 20-Jul-2011 21:55

cws82us: I been reading up on google about haarp and some poeple say that haarp did christchurch Earthquake
more info http://chemtrailsnorthnz.wordpress.com/2010/09/04/major-earthquake-strikes-near-christchurch-haarp/
what you guys think? true or not true

oh, and: not true

Skolink

1081 posts

Uber Geek

#495976 20-Jul-2011 21:58

Talkiet:
Skolink:[snip]
One measure of the profit (or CEO's salary) being excessive would be to compare it to what the employees get for the effort they expend in making the goods or services. If they work very hard in poor conditions, and their remuneration does not provide much more than mere survival, then even $1 profit is excessive. The shareholders do not deserve any return on such an investment.

I have a better idea. Instead of getting a high price CEO, just get one of the regular employees to be CEO and pay them the same as they get for an average job within the company.

Let's see how well that works.

Cheers - N

If it's a finance company, I'd say it could only be an improvement.

Dratsab

3933 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#495978 20-Jul-2011 22:04

John2010:
cgrew: I understand your angst on the matter, but there comes a point when the so called profit becomes too "excessive".

I would be interested in what you define as "so called profit". It is a term that is new to me despite my having worked in for profit organisations for decades. Is it some special form of profit that is not what is normally referred to as being profit, or some special part of profit, etc?

I would also be interested in what you regard as "too excessive". Could you couch that in terms of that returned to shareholders, that retained for research and development, that retained as working capital (business expansion, more jobs, etc), etc, that ordinarily come out of profit. Assuming, of course, those things are included in your "so called profit".

If return to shareholders is to be regarded as an "excessive" aspect of "so called profit" or of profit should, for example, the likes of the shareholding of the institutional shareholders such as the NZ Superannuation Fund, insurers and banks, etc get some special treatment in order to ensure they remain sustainable protecting the general publics investment in them, and should retail shareholders participate in some different less rewarding way?

I would also be very interested in who you consider should determine when "so called profit" becomes "too ""excessive""" and the process they would go through in order to determine that was so. Of course, if "so called profit" is only "so called" and so not profit at all would you describe why it matters if it is or is not "excessive"?

So many questions spring from your one sentence claim and I am sure there are many more. So thanks for your time responding.

I don't think he needs to prove anything - or provide any meaningful, verifiable data to lend credence to, or help define, his terms. Let's return to the original tenet of this thread and in doing so, you'll need to provide scientific evidence which disproves the existence of "so called profit" and "excessive profit".

Talkiet

4689 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#495981 20-Jul-2011 22:06

Dratsab: [snip]
I don't think he needs to prove anything - or provide any meaningful, verifiable data to lend credence to, or help define, his terms. Let's return to the original tenet of this thread and in doing so, you'll need to provide scientific evidence which disproves the existence of "so called profit" and "excessive profit".

Given the lack of a smiley, I'll assume you're being serious.

No... The onus would be on someone to prove excessive profits... Not for someone to DISPROVE them.

Cheers - N.

Please note all comments are the product of my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

Skolink

1081 posts

Uber Geek

#495995 20-Jul-2011 22:24

Talkiet:
Dratsab: [snip]
I don't think he needs to prove anything - or provide any meaningful, verifiable data to lend credence to, or help define, his terms. Let's return to the original tenet of this thread and in doing so, you'll need to provide scientific evidence which disproves the existence of "so called profit" and "excessive profit".

Given the lack of a smiley, I'll assume you're being serious.

No... The onus would be on someone to prove excessive profits... Not for someone to DISPROVE them.

Cheers - N.

Just because the words 'excessive profits' and 'CEO's salary' were used, doesn't mean we're attacking your employer.

Talkiet

4689 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#495998 20-Jul-2011 22:27

Skolink:
Talkiet:
Dratsab: [snip]
I don't think he needs to prove anything - or provide any meaningful, verifiable data to lend credence to, or help define, his terms. Let's return to the original tenet of this thread and in doing so, you'll need to provide scientific evidence which disproves the existence of "so called profit" and "excessive profit".

Given the lack of a smiley, I'll assume you're being serious.

No... The onus would be on someone to prove excessive profits... Not for someone to DISPROVE them.

Cheers - N.

Just because the words 'excessive profits' and 'CEO's salary' were used, doesn't mean we're attacking your employer.

Now you're making stuff up. At no time have I referred to Telecom, and at no time have I intended to even obliquely mean Telecom... I have been speaking in general terms.

There are a lot of CEOs paid a lot more than the average worker - I'd suggest approximately 100% of large companies have this disparity.

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are the product of my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

Skolink

1081 posts

Uber Geek

#496006 20-Jul-2011 22:38

Talkiet:
Skolink:
Talkiet:
Dratsab: [snip]
I don't think he needs to prove anything - or provide any meaningful, verifiable data to lend credence to, or help define, his terms. Let's return to the original tenet of this thread and in doing so, you'll need to provide scientific evidence which disproves the existence of "so called profit" and "excessive profit".

Given the lack of a smiley, I'll assume you're being serious.

No... The onus would be on someone to prove excessive profits... Not for someone to DISPROVE them.

Cheers - N.

Just because the words 'excessive profits' and 'CEO's salary' were used, doesn't mean we're attacking your employer.

Now you're making stuff up. At no time have I referred to Telecom, and at no time have I intended to even obliquely mean Telecom... I have been speaking in general terms.

There are a lot of CEOs paid a lot more than the average worker - I'd suggest approximately 100% of large companies have this disparity.

Cheers - N

I know, I just thought was amusing when I noticed who you worked for, since they have often been accused of the the two things you have been defending.
Of course CEOs should (usually) be paid more than the rest of the workers. And the amount of profit isn't the problem either, it's the manner in which it is made (is what I was trying to say previously).

Dratsab

3933 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#496020 20-Jul-2011 22:59

@talkiet - lack of smiley? Did you miss the rolling laughter at the top of the post..?

Talkiet

4689 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#496025 20-Jul-2011 23:14

Dratsab: @talkiet - lack of smiley? Did you miss the rolling laughter at the top of the post..?

Heh, yes I did :-) I'm so old I only recognise proper ASCII smilies :-)

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are the product of my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

cgrew

860 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#496077 21-Jul-2011 08:34

It appears I have missed something? I should have been more specific in regards to "excessive profit" - The example Skolink provided would be something of that degree.

A friend of mine forwarded me this video this morning. In relation to this subject - I would say this is "excessive profit" not to mention "cheating the system" if these claims are true.

http://www.facebook.com/l/VAQBpkE5RAQBOxMu-ajY3BZH0Qc-0ayCpK_3ZsZRR6OlAuQ/www.youtube.com/watch?v=7x...

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
76363 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#496090 21-Jul-2011 09:03

There are tax cheaters everywhere. That's called "greed".

It's not a conspiracy, and not reason to overthrown the government, change the system.

It's reason to investigate and prosecute them.

As for "excessive profits", there isn't anything there about that.

Please support Geekzone by subscribing, or using one of our referral links: Dosh referral: 00001283 | Sharesies | Goodsync | Mighty Ape | Backblaze

freitasm on Keybase | My technology disclosure

cgrew

860 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#496093 21-Jul-2011 09:19

It's profit to them. I think it's unfair & rather concerning that the super-rich can get away with this ridiculous tax fraud so easily.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12