930 Forums
=> GENERAL DISCUSSION => Topic started by: miss pretentious on June 10, 2008, 01:01:00 pm
-
Dunno how many of you read Consumerist. But the bracket is down to the Sweet 16 of the worst companies in America. (http://consumerist.com/tag/worst-company-in-america/?i=5015020&t=worst-company-in-america-2008-sweet-16-bracket)
<img src="http://consumerist.com/assets/images/consumerist/2008/06/wciaround3.jpg" alt=" - " />
The Ticketmaster v. Comcast vote is tight. It's tough to decide which is actually the worst out of this lot.
Anyone have any horror stories of these to share?
-
How did Clear Channel lose to Countrywide?
-
i had to pay $250 to cancel my united health care when i got married
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
How did Clear Channel lose to Countrywide?
countrywide takes the blame for fucking the country up
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
Originally posted by vansmack:
How did Clear Channel lose to Countrywide?
countrywide takes the blame for fucking the country up [/b]
Wrongly. They were just as guilty as every other lender, they just didn't have other assets to hide their losses.
But Clear Channel? Come on! They single handedly destroyed radio and are the financial backing for LiveNation.
-
i didnt say that clear channels didnt deserve to win
-
Originally posted by miss pretentious:
The Ticketmaster v. Comcast vote is tight.
In looking at the seedings, those two never should have met in the third round.
Elite eight if not final four.
-
Ebay beat out Sallie Mae? Yeah. Whatever.
-
maybe its just me, but what kind of company is DieBold?
-
they make the voting machine touch screens
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
they make the voting machine touch screens
...as a side business.
Their big business is ATM machines.
-
take away these companies, and the economy crumbles and you are eating dirt in the street as you loot and commit whatever just to survive.
the government of our country is the worst company i know.
-
Originally posted by walkonby:
take away these companies, and the economy crumbles and you are eating dirt in the street as you loot and commit whatever just to survive.
Their necessity does not make them great, simply necessary. It's ok to say that some of these companies, while necessary, suck.
-
After just reading a new book called "Why Work Sucks", I have a much more favorable opinion of Best Buy. They have some incredibly progressive attitudes toward work at their corporate headquarters.
-
Originally posted by walkonby:
take away these companies, and the economy crumbles and you are eating dirt in the street as you loot and commit whatever just to survive.
the government of our country is the worst company i know.
Truer words have never been spoken.
Comcast provides me with an internet service that meets my demands for a reasonable price.
Ticketmaster allows me the convenience of buying tickets from home without having to take an extra trip to the box office or an outlet, thus saving on my personal time, and emissions/gas/wear/tear on my vehicle.
Exxon efficiently provides an extremely valuable source of energy that is extremely complicated and expensive to extract and produce, that has done more to make this world a better place for more people than anything else in the history of mankind, all despite the constant threat from an ignorant, economically retarded congress (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,364846,00.html) who harrasses them for their supposed "unreasonable profits" when their margins are actually average or even below average to other industries.
DeBeers, I could care less about, because I don't wear jewlery besides my wedding ring, but obviously they're meeting a demand for a product that I'm pretty sure many of you either have or want sometime in the future. You may have a case if you present evidence of their support of warlords or wars or military juntas or whatever other atrocities in their mining countries, however.
Best Buy meets a demand for consumer electronics, media and household appliances, and along with their competitors, has brought the market for many of these goods down to a level of affordability for middle class Americans like myself faster than ever before. Just this afternoon, I got a great deal for a new laptop for my father, who is now able to integrate more technology into his farming operation, thus making his business more efficient and organized.
Diebold, despite their election machine gaffes, has done much to make ATM's more available and secure, thus saving us all the time of having to work through "bankers hours" to get to our own money.
eBay/PayPal? Seriously? How many people have launched successful businesses from eBay, using the convenience of PayPal to receive payments? How many people have found valuable deals on eBay, and used PayPay to get to them? How many products and services were allocated more efficiently due to having this interactive and integrated platform with which to do business?
People always talk about the minority of folks who fail to use credit properly, but what about the benefits of the vast majority of us who have utilized available credit to our own advantages, to better our lives, expand or start businesses, etc? Yes, damn you Capital One for making this credit available where it may not have been available before.
People love to beat up on Wal-Mart, it's so evil...but look now, when the economy isn't doing so hot, Wal-Mart is thriving. No company has done more to make a consumer market and a supply chain more efficient, which in turn, passes off more savings to consumers...who in turn, need Wal-Mart more than ever for their cheaper prices when times are tough and all of their money matters. I'd argue that if not for companies like Wal-Mart, we'd be in a much worse position now than we are.
Wellpoint/United Health Care/Blue Cross/Blue Shield - yes, damn these companies for making health insurance more available and affordable for more people, despite the fact that they have to deal with hundreds of different government restrictions and regulations in every state that distort their markets.
I'm not sure I can argue for American Airlines at the momement, but they do have their place in airline history, where they have been a valuable contributer to an evergrowing and everchanging industry.
Microsoft is another one of those companies that has done more to improve our lives in the last two decades than nearly any other corporation, ever. Their products have made us more open, more available, more efficient, and have expanded knowledge and technology to the ends of the earth.
Bank of America and Countrywide are two more corporations that have made more credit and opportunity available for more people. Again, you all love to point out the minority of people who have abused this newly available credit, but what about the vast majority of us who have used it to improve our lives, and our communities?
What have you people done?
-
Alternative Thread Title:
Cliched List of Companies That Hipsters Hate Because They Are A Bunch of Self-Absorbed Slackers Who Could Never Make It in The Real World.
-
Brandon's post goes a long way towards illustrating why libertarians are douchebags. Almost every paragraph in his post centers on "I," "me," and "myself." Basically the attitude is, "I don't care how many people get fucked over, as long as I get provided a service as cheaply as possible."
Knee-jerk libertarianism taken too far can twist one into ridiculous knots of illogic, such as Brandon's defense of Comcast, which is a private firm that depends on a government-granted monopoly to be profitable.
On the other hand, it's hard to argue with the Gov't being the worst company... how many other companies take your money by force and use it to initiate legalized mass violence (war) around the world?
And I don't get why Target is on the list. Some of the choices (including Microsoft) seem odd.
-
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
And I don't get why Target is on the list. Some of the choices (including Microsoft) seem odd.
I'm a pretty consistent Consumerist reader and from what I can tell, the problem most seem to have with Target revolves around the return policy. On the site, each of the companies has links to the horror stories people tell about each and way back in the beginning (months ago) it was all compiled pretty neatly together.
Some of them, are a no-brainer - like Menu Foods.
-
Originally posted by Brandon Brendall, the thief:
Comcast provides me with an internet service that meets my demands for a reasonable price.
If you only knew...and you don't because Comcast won't let you know.
The United States is now No. 16 and heading south in broadband deployment
Folks in Korea and Japan are getting 10 times the capacity at a half or a third or a quarter of the price of the US
Comcast does not provide internet service to low income households despite being guaranteed a monopoly in the area served
And I haven't even talked about their cable serve or their customer service.
-
Originally posted by miss pretentious:
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
And I don't get why Target is on the list. Some of the choices (including Microsoft) seem odd.
I'm a pretty consistent Consumerist reader and from what I can tell, the problem most seem to have with Target revolves around the return policy. On the site, each of the companies has links to the horror stories people tell about each and way back in the beginning (months ago) it was all compiled pretty neatly together.
Some of them, are a no-brainer - like Menu Foods. [/b]
I don't know... a crappy return policy (something I've not experienced) doesn't seem to be in the same league with Wal-Mart's vicious treatment of employees, it's town-busting and quasi monopolistic practices. Wal-Mart is famous for wiping out entire small town business districts --although crappy returns are more likely to directly impact the type of people who vote in online polls. You can see the limitations of this kind of exercise.
Same with Microsoft...computer geeks hold their grudges, but I'm guessing Microsoft treats its staff pretty well, and the Gates Foundation holds huge promise in addressing some of the world's ills.
-
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
Brandon's post goes a long way towards illustrating why libertarians are douchebags.
That's a pretty broad stroke you're painting with. I was gonna answer "a field full of drunken Skynard fans" when I saw this thread heading.
-
Originally posted by miss pretentious:
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
And I don't get why Target is on the list. Some of the choices (including Microsoft) seem odd.
I'm a pretty consistent Consumerist reader and from what I can tell, the problem most seem to have with Target revolves around the return policy.[/b]
90 days is a bad return policy??
-
Comcast is by far the shakiest and most unreliable ISP I've ever used and I've used at least five over the last twelve years including AOL. The fact that they're the only guy in town for so many is disgusting and sad.
I've had FIOS since fall '05 and haven't looked back since.
-
Comcast has also recently been in the news for throttling bandwidth on downloads without informing customers.
-
Why yes, yes they have.
-
Change everywhere I said "I" or "me" to "us" or "the average consumer," and your argument on me supposedly being a selfish libertarian douchebag for defending these companies is null and void. Sorry for assuming you had the insight to read into the fact that "I" and "me" were representative of consumers in general, not my own selfish desires. That said, it's pretty funny when people still don't understand the basic concept of one's economic self-interest being in the interest of society.
And it's funny you took my simple defense of Comast providing a vast majority of their consumers with an adiquate high speed internet service that meets or exceeds their demands as an argument on net neutrality or whatever you're getting at. But if you want to go there, we can. You can cry all you want about Comcast's business practices, and claim eternal entitlement to all the bandwidth you care to use as part of your basic $40 a month package, based on the fact that they use a government granted monopoly along their routes, but until you come up with a way to make bandwidth a truly infinite resource, at a fraction of the current costs, you'll keep losing this argument.
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
Brandon's post goes a long way towards illustrating why libertarians are douchebags. Almost every paragraph in his post centers on "I," "me," and "myself." Basically the attitude is, "I don't care how many people get fucked over, as long as I get provided a service as cheaply as possible."
Knee-jerk libertarianism taken too far can twist one into ridiculous knots of illogic, such as Brandon's defense of Comcast, which is a private firm that depends on a government-granted monopoly to be profitable.
On the other hand, it's hard to argue with the Gov't being the worst company... how many other companies take your money by force and use it to initiate legalized mass violence (war) around the world?
And I don't get why Target is on the list. Some of the choices (including Microsoft) seem odd.
-
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Brandon Brendall, the thief:
Comcast provides me with an internet service that meets my demands for a reasonable price.
If you only knew...and you don't because Comcast won't let you know.
The United States is now No. 16 and heading south in broadband deployment
Folks in Korea and Japan are getting 10 times the capacity at a half or a third or a quarter of the price of the US
Comcast does not provide internet service to low income households despite being guaranteed a monopoly in the area served
And I haven't even talked about their cable serve or their customer service. [/b]
I most areas where Comcast is available, multiple DSL offerings are also available.
And there are other utility providers that are guarenteed even worse of monopolies in areas (power, gas, water, landline phone), and they do not provide their services to low income households either, as far as I know. One would think you'd be more concerned for that, rather than assuming everyone is entitled to high speed internet just because it exists.
-
where do low income people not get water power or gas
-
Originally posted by Brandon Brendall, the thief:
That said, it's pretty funny when people still don't understand the basic concept of one's economic self-interest being in the interest of society.
there are lots of examples where social good is trampled by individual need/greed. for example, the commons dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons_dilemma). i'd say your assertion that self-interest = interest of society is wrong, all too often.
-
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
Brandon's post goes a long way towards illustrating why libertarians are douchebags.
I just choked on my tongue from suddenly laughing, seriously.
-
It's always interesting to note that the average new Walmart receives about 2-3 times the number of job applications than there are available jobs. I don't deny that there are cases where they've stepped over the line and gotten in trouble for mistreatment, but I think that number speaks volumes on the overall positives of landing a job there.
In addition, even if WalMart did supposedly "bust" towns and run "quasi-monopolies" (whatever that means), why is it assumed that inefficient businesses are entitled to remain in place? I mean if not WalMart, wouldn't something else have displaced their market share eventually? And do you have evidence of a WalMart actually "wiping out" the business district of an "entire" small town, where everything remained boarded up, never to return? Or did WalMart simply displace the most inefficient companies, who where then replaced by something more in demand for the given market (example being a hardware store or a clothing store closing, and then a resturaunt or a gym opening in their place)?
I don't know, I see alot of talking points from the anti-WalMart crowd that state "WalMart decimates small towns," but I rarely see it backed by any solid evidence.
I don't know... a crappy return policy (something I've not experienced) doesn't seem to be in the same league with Wal-Mart's vicious treatment of employees, it's town-busting and quasi monopolistic practices. Wal-Mart is famous for wiping out entire small town business districts --although crappy returns are more likely to directly impact the type of people who vote in online polls. You can see the limitations of this kind of exercise.
Same with Microsoft...computer geeks hold their grudges, but I'm guessing Microsoft treats its staff pretty well, and the Gates Foundation holds huge promise in addressing some of the world's ills.
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
where do low income people not get water power or gas
If you do not pay your power, gas or water bill, they get turned off, no?
-
Originally posted by Brandon Brendall, the thief:
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
where do low income people not get water power or gas
If you do not pay your power, gas or water bill, they get turned off, no? [/b]
Yes, Alex, "not paying your bill and therefore being denied future services" is entirely the same thing as "not providing electricity or water to low income areas." Entirely.
I think the honeymoon has rotted your thinking facilities.
-
Originally posted by Brandon Brendall, the thief:
It's always interesting to note that the average new Walmart receives about 2-3 times the number of job applications than there are available jobs. I don't deny that there are cases where they've stepped over the line and gotten in trouble for mistreatment, but I think that number speaks volumes on the overall positives of landing a job there.
And also despite the risk of arrest or HIV, people continue to be drug dealers and prostitutes. I don't deny that there are cases where people have been burned by this lifestyle, but I think the overall trend speaks volumes on the overall positives of landing a job in said industries.
Seriously, what the hell, dude? Are you just reading verbatim from the Bob-Barr-Batshit-Insane-Talking-Points '08 guide?
-
Your argument would be valid if I was talking about pure, unregulated self-interest. But I'm not. Notice I said ECONOMIC self-interest, which trumps the commons dilemma far more often than not through economic factors such as the market, which successfully allocates and conserves those resources that would otherwise fall victim to the commons dilemma.
Originally posted by sweetcell:
there are lots of examples where social good is trampled by individual need/greed. for example, the commons dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons_dilemma). i'd say your assertion that self-interest = interest of society is wrong, all too often.
-
wow
-
Yes, Alex, "not paying your bill and therefore being denied future services" is entirely the same thing as "not providing electricity or water to low income areas." Entirely.
I think the honeymoon has rotted your thinking facilities.
Go back and read before accusing others of not thinking. Vansmack said "households" not "areas."
-
You'er going to seriously set up a strawman comparing people who have a desire to work at Walmart to people who deal drugs and sell their bodies for sex, and then accuse me of using "batshit insane" talking points?
That's rich, even for you.
And also despite the risk of arrest or HIV, people continue to be drug dealers and prostitutes. I don't deny that there are cases where people have been burned by this lifestyle, but I think the overall trend speaks volumes on the overall positives of landing a job in said industries.
Seriously, what the hell, dude? Are you just reading verbatim from the Bob-Barr-Batshit-Insane-Talking-Points '08 guide?
-
Originally posted by Brandon Brendall, the thief:
Go back and read before accusing others of not thinking. Vansmack said "households" not "areas."
It's still disingenuous. There's a difference between denying a household a service because they didn't pay for it when you gave it to them before and denying them a service because their neighbors are poor.
-
Originally posted by Brandon Brendall, the thief:
You'er going to seriously set up a strawman comparing people who have a desire to work at Walmart to people who deal drugs and sell their bodies for sex, and then accuse me of using "batshit insane" talking points?
That's rich, even for you.
Hey, it's your logic. All sorts of people take all sorts of terrible jobs. We have close to 6% unemployment in this country. The willingness of someone to do something for money does not, in fact, make it a "good" job, nor does it speak to the overall positives of said employment.
This doesn't even address the biggest elephant in the room with regards to this argument: that the IQ of the average Walmart applicant is probably around 83. I knew a mentally handicapped boy in high school who'd lick his own shoe; it's not substantial evidence that muddy rubber is tasty.
-
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
Originally posted by Brandon Brendall, the thief:
Go back and read before accusing others of not thinking. Vansmack said "households" not "areas."
It's still disingenuine. There's a difference between denying a household a service because they didn't pay for it when you gave it to them before and denying them a service because their neighbors are poor. [/b]
That wasn't the argument presented, thus it wasn't the one to which I was responding...but if you want to take it there, we can.
Do you have evidence that Comcast has deliberately excluded entire populated areas from their services, due to it being a generally low-income area?
-
Originally posted by Brandon Brendall, the thief:
Do you have evidence that Comcast has deliberately excluded entire populated areas from their services, due to it being a generally low-income area?
I don't think even Comcast denies that they're going to expand into all the high-income sections in an area before expanding to the ghetto.
For the record, I don't have a problem with it; it's good business, and cable television isn't an essential service like heat or electricity, I just find your particular argument so ridiculous it discredits the underlying good argument.
-
Originally posted by Brandon Brendall, the thief:
eBay/PayPal? Seriously? How many people have launched successful businesses from eBay, using the convenience of PayPal to receive payments? How many people have found valuable deals on eBay, and used PayPay to get to them? How many products and services were allocated more efficiently due to having this interactive and integrated platform with which to do business?
What have you people done?
first of all my big business loving republican friend. Paypal is a terribly shady company....they deserve to be on that list. Ebay does too.
I know someone very well who works very closely with these people and some very fucked up business practices happen here. I wont go into them because its not really my information to leak.
Secondly, our economy would NOT collapse without these companies. because without these companies other , perhaps more honest well-intentioned companies, would step to the forefront and provide us the same services.
My final four, i would pick Ticketmaster, Capital One, American Airlines and United Health Care.....with Capital One over AA in a nailbiter!
Whats in your wallet!
-
Brandon Brendall is the textbook reason why I wont vote Republican or Libertarian.
I just cant be associated with people like that.
its disgusting.
-
Originally posted by Erinaceous Sonickus:
Brandon Brendall is the textbook reason why I wont vote Republican or Libertarian.
He voted Kerry in 04!
-
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
Originally posted by Erinaceous Sonickus:
Brandon Brendall is the textbook reason why I wont vote Republican or Libertarian.
He voted Kerry in 04! [/b]
he's a complete idiot. he must be a day trader or something. "Exxon and Comast work for me!" woohooo
loser.
-
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
Originally posted by Brandon Brendall, the thief:
You'er going to seriously set up a strawman comparing people who have a desire to work at Walmart to people who deal drugs and sell their bodies for sex, and then accuse me of using "batshit insane" talking points?
That's rich, even for you.
Hey, it's your logic. All sorts of people take all sorts of terrible jobs. We have close to 6% unemployment in this country. The willingness of someone to do something for money does not, in fact, make it a "good" job, nor does it speak to the overall positives of said employment.
This doesn't even address the biggest elephant in the room with regards to this argument: that the IQ of the average Walmart applicant is probably around 83. I knew a mentally handicapped boy in high school who'd lick his own shoe; it's not substantial evidence that muddy rubber is tasty. [/b]
So, I'm accused of speaking with batshit talking points...but you're allowed to broadly paint everyone working at Walmart as being slightly above mentally retarded, who are forced to take "terrible" jobs?
Why does the fact that YOU think it is a terrible job, one that is so beneath the likes of what you'd ever take, one that you think that only retarded people take (with no evidence), make it terrible for everyone? I know people who have worked there who have hated it, and I know people who have worked there and loved it. I know people who have worked just about anywhere who have hated it, while others loved it for what it was at the time, at a certain point in their career.
Now we're getting into you setting up what defines a good job, when you're not even the one doing the job.
And the average number of applicants versus number of jobs has been constant, even when we were at 4.5% unemployment (we're at 5.5% today, by the way).
-
just a side note, not that i'll call it "evidence" but i heard some ppl in my neighborhood talking about how they went to apply for a job at the new Super Wal-Mart opening up a couples miles away and that someone should have told them they needed to bring their ID with them to apply!
now, i'm not saying thats retarded, but come on people.
-
Originally posted by Brandon Brendall, the thief:
So, I'm accused of speaking with batshit talking points...but you're allowed to broadly paint everyone working at Walmart as being slightly above mentally retarded, who are forced to take "terrible" jobs?
This is somehow surprising to you? How long have you known me? My ad hominym-riddled debating style almost exclusively consists of lumping people together, then painting them with broad strokes. This has been the ground rules of our relationship for, like, 6 years.
-
first of all my big business loving republican friend. Paypal is a terribly shady company....they deserve to be on that list. Ebay does too.
I know someone very well who works very closely with these people and some very fucked up business practices happen here. I wont go into them because its not really my information to leak.
Unless you can provide evidence of how they've screwed over massive numbers of people or made our lives miserable in ways that overcome the positive aspects they've brought to our lives, you have no argument.
Secondly, our economy would NOT collapse without these companies. because without these companies other , perhaps more honest well-intentioned companies, would step to the forefront and provide us the same services.
Are you seriously insinuating that the ONLY reason these particular companies are at the top of their respective industries, is because they've been dishonest, and mal-intentioned?
-
Originally posted by Erinaceous Sonickus:
Brandon Brendall is the textbook reason why I wont vote Republican or Libertarian.
I just cant be associated with people like that.
its disgusting.
he's a complete idiot. he must be a day trader or something. "Exxon and Comast work for me!" woohooo
loser.
As opposed to you, one who would rather toss around ad homenim attacks, stereotypical assumptions and childish name-calling, than actually debate a point on its logic and merits?
I would say this is why I'll never vote Democrat, but I'm not going to stoop to your level and play that game.
-
Originally posted by Brandon Brendall, the thief:
I would say this is why I'll never vote Democrat, but I'm not going to stoop to your level and play that game.
If there's anything I'm known for it's for fostering a spirit of cooperation and promoting detante as to aggression, so I'd just like to say, as an olive branch of understanding, that I'm voting McCain in November, almost entirely to punish the Democratic party for selecting a naked emperor as their nominee. So, really, we're not so different.
-
Originally posted by Brandon Brendall, the thief:
Unless you can provide evidence of how they've screwed over massive numbers of people or made our lives miserable in ways that overcome the positive aspects they've brought to our lives, you have no argument.
dont you read, Brandon? I do have plenty of evidence regarding Marketing practices, policies regarding credit disputes and policies they have within their company , that obviously I will not just blurt out on a public forum.
I am just letting you know that perhaps other people are aware about them. and perhaps others know more about Ebay and Paypal than you, to know its probably not run by boy scouts!
You are right about one thing, I dont have an argument, because i am not arguing, I am telling you. If you knew what i knew, you would probably not continue to use your paypal account unless you absolutely had to.
Is all that too complicated for you to understand?
-
Originally posted by Brandon Brendall, the thief:
Are you seriously insinuating that the ONLY reason these particular companies are at the top of their respective industries, is because they've been dishonest, and mal-intentioned?
of course not. in fact, I am not even insinuating that the companies on this list ARE dishonest or mal-intentioned. All I meant was while the services these companies provide may be necessary, the specific companies are not.
Besides, Brandon i think you kinda missed the fun spirit of this whole thing and made it some stupid economic argument.
-
Originally posted by Brandon Brendall, the thief:
I most areas where Comcast is available, multiple DSL offerings are also available.
Yes, DSL companies that provide service for reduced rate to low income families. But DSL is limited by distance from the swtich, unlike cable, so there are many households who can't get a DSL connection, but can get cable via the guaranteed monopoly, and Comcast does not provide a discounted rate for low income families with children in school that would greatly benefit from having internet access. Internet access that would not increase costs dramatically to the provider.
I wouldn't mind your argument so much if Comcast did not go out of its way so dramitically to keep their monopolistic franchise agreements, even from municiplaities that want to provide free internet access (see Philadelphia and San Francisco).
-
Originally posted by Erinaceous Sonickus:
dont you read, Brandon? I do have plenty of evidence regarding Marketing practices, policies regarding credit disputes and policies they have within their company , that obviously I will not just blurt out on a public forum.
I am just letting you know that perhaps other people are aware about them. and perhaps others know more about Ebay and Paypal than you, to know its probably not run by boy scouts!
You are right about one thing, I dont have an argument, because i am not arguing, I am telling you. If you knew what i knew, you would probably not continue to use your paypal account unless you absolutely had to.
Is all that too complicated for you to understand?
No, it's not complicated in the least. You claim you know things, but you won't say what they are. As a consumer who uses a PayPay account every now and then, I'd like to know. And I don't claim that any of these corporations (or any corporation for that matter) are run by boy scouts and have never done any harm.
But this proves nothing in the overall argument on whether or not eBay and PayPay (or the other so-called evil "big businesses") have been by and large beneficial for far more people than they have harmed.
-
Originally posted by Brandon Brendall, the thief:
No, it's not complicated in the least. You claim you know things, but you won't say what they are. As a consumer who uses a PayPay account every now and then, I'd like to know. And I don't claim that any of these corporations (or any corporation for that matter) are run by boy scouts and have never done any harm.
But this proves nothing in the overall argument on whether or not eBay and PayPay (or the other so-called evil "big businesses") have been by and large beneficial for far more people than they have harmed.
I apologize that i do not feel at liberty to say what i know about Paypal. But its not my place to go into specifics....it certainly doesnt mean that they dont exist. My point in even mentioning this was to sorta point out that, just cause you havent read any tragic story about a company slaughtering children, revoking benefits or poisioning resevoirs doesnt mean they are "beneficial".
If you refuse to to believe that sometimes a company gets ahead in the marketplace by shorting customers, stealing competitors ideas/marketing plans/trade secrets or providing less than desirable working condition and/or customer service on a regular basis, than theres no point in even discussing this with you.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Brandon Brendall, the thief:
I most areas where Comcast is available, multiple DSL offerings are also available.
Yes, DSL companies that provide service for reduced rate to low income families. But DSL is limited by distance from the swtich, unlike cable, so there are many households who can't get a DSL connection, but can get cable via the guaranteed monopoly, and Comcast does not provide a discounted rate for low income families with children in school that would greatly benefit from having internet access. Internet access that would not increase costs dramatically to the provider.
I wouldn't mind your argument so much if Comcast did not go out of its way so dramitically to keep their monopolistic franchise agreements, even from municiplaities that want to provide free internet access (see Philadelphia and San Francisco). [/b]
Personally, I think it would be great if Comcast did that. It would be great for lower income families, and great PR for a company that takes shit left and right otherwise. But I'm not running Comcast, nor do I own any of their stock; I don't know their margins or bottom line, and I'm not familiar enough with their capabilities to know if they could offer subsidized service.
I'm also all for injecting more competition into the market by eliminating certain government monopolies or protections. However, in this case, wouldn't that mean more cable on the lines or in the ground, or do these lines have the capabilities to share different service providers without degredation of QOS?
Also, in regards to municipal wireless internet service, didn't those fail in the larger markets (like Philly, San Fran, Chicago and Houston) because the cities didn't want to put up the required public investments to undertake such large projects? I seem to remember they all kind of dumped it on Earthlink, who then ran into all sorts or technical issues and couldn't compete with established ISP's who already have their infastructure set and/or paid off. Since providing the service isn't "free" it would still have to be paid for, and the cities didn't want to pay for it. I don't doubt that Comcast would fight it, but I'm also pretty sure that Comcast wansn't the primary villan in the failure of the municipal wifi projects.
-
Originally posted by Erinaceous Sonickus:
Originally posted by Brandon Brendall, the thief:
No, it's not complicated in the least. You claim you know things, but you won't say what they are. As a consumer who uses a PayPay account every now and then, I'd like to know. And I don't claim that any of these corporations (or any corporation for that matter) are run by boy scouts and have never done any harm.
But this proves nothing in the overall argument on whether or not eBay and PayPay (or the other so-called evil "big businesses") have been by and large beneficial for far more people than they have harmed.
I apologize that i do not feel at liberty to say what i know about Paypal. But its not my place to go into specifics....it certainly doesnt mean that they dont exist. My point in even mentioning this was to sorta point out that, just cause you havent read any tragic story about a company slaughtering children, revoking benefits or poisioning resevoirs doesnt mean they are "beneficial".[/b]
But under this reasoning, can't we say that just because you know of a few examples where PayPal has harmed some consumers, it doesn't mean that they are "harmful" in the grand scheme of things?
If you refuse to to believe that sometimes a company gets ahead in the marketplace by shorting customers, stealing competitors ideas/marketing plans/trade secrets or providing less than desirable working condition and/or customer service on a regular basis, than theres no point in even discussing this with you.
I've said several times that I am well aware that almost all companies have done shady things before, and many get caught and pay for it, either legally and/or through a loss of business to a competitor that pledges to do things differently.
It seems that you are the one who is refusing to ackowledge that, despite the misgivings that come from the basic fact that no one is perfect, these companies have done far more good for all of our lives than they have done harm. I mean if PayPal or eBay have done more harm, then they simply wouldn't exist.
-
Originally posted by Brandon Brendall, the thief:
Personally, I think it would be great if Comcast did that. It would be great for lower income families, and great PR for a company that takes shit left and right otherwise. But I'm not running Comcast, nor do I own any of their stock; I don't know their margins or bottom line, and I'm not familiar enough with their capabilities to know if they could offer subsidized service.
[/b]
But for the monopoly, a lot of folks would vote by not getting their service. But what can you do when they are all you can get? And just we're clear, this whole discussion started by you saying that you were happy with the service you got. You can do more to make this happen if you really wanted to.
Originally posted by Brandon Brendall, the thief:
in this case, wouldn't that mean more cable on the lines or in the ground, or do these lines have the capabilities to share different service providers without degredation of QOS?
[/b]
Nobody would lay coaxial cable any longer, but I can assure you that Comcat has gone out of their way to stop telephony companies from laying Fiber in major metropolitan areas. You wanna know why you don't have FiOs in DC? It's not because verizon doesn't think it's profitable, I can assure you of that.
Originally posted by Brandon Brendall, the thief:
Also, in regards to municipal wireless internet service, didn't those fail in the larger markets (like Philly, San Fran, Chicago and Houston) because the cities didn't want to put up the required public investments to undertake such large projects? I seem to remember they all kind of dumped it on Earthlink, who then ran into all sorts or technical issues and couldn't compete with established ISP's who already have their infastructure set and/or paid off. Since providing the service isn't "free" it would still have to be paid for, and the cities didn't want to pay for it. I don't doubt that Comcast would fight it, but I'm also pretty sure that Comcast wansn't the primary villan in the failure of the municipal wifi projects.
This is where you're most wrong. Who do you think introduced the bills in the state legislature to block municipalities from offering internet service? Comcast and Verizon went to their state legislators in PA (and at&t in CA) to convince them to block municipalities from offering internet service, free or otherwise.
The SF model with google was beautiful, and yes there were politcal hangups, but the biggest fight came from telephony companies and cable companies blocking new compeitition. I expect more from a libertarian.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
This is where you're most wrong. Who do you think introduced the bills in the state legislature to block municipalities from offering internet service? Comcast and Verizon went to their state legislators in PA (and at&t in CA) to convince them to block municipalities from offering internet service, free or otherwise.
on the other hand, at&t was responsible for getting a statewide cable franchise law passed. . .
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
on the other hand, at&t was responsible for getting a statewide cable franchise law passed. . .
I've been waiting for you to chime in....
And why did at&t do that (and let's not forget that Comcast was opposed to this law)?
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
on the other hand, at&t was responsible for getting a statewide cable franchise law passed. . .
I've been waiting for you to chime in....
And why did at&t do that (and let's not forget that Comcast was opposed to this law)? [/b]
sorry, been busy all morning doing the lord's work. . .
anyway, at&t didn't want to deal with the plethora of municipalities in order to offer competing cable service. . .in other words, they did not want to be subject to extortion from municipalities, and instead, put their faith in the wisdom of the state public utilities commission.
-
If that were true Comcast would have done that (1) years ago and (2) supported it.
The real reason is that they didn't want to fight Comcast, Time Warner, Adelphia, etc. in every city they wanted to roll out their U-Verse.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
If that were true Comcast would have done that (1) years ago and (2) supported it.
The real reason is that they didn't want to fight Comcast, Time Warner, Adelphia, etc. in every city they wanted to roll out their U-Verse.
i don't disagree with that. i think i said something about competing with cable.
however, the fact that comcast (and other cable companies) DID negotiate franchises with muncipalities is in itself a reason to avoid a statewide franchise- they've got sunk costs to recover from local customers, which could turn into stranded costs. . .so, they have their own incentive to not want a statewide franchise because of those costs which they may not be able to recover.
-
The majority of that cable was laid in the early 80's. How much longer do these cable co's need to recoup their costs (and I would love to see an itemization of Comcasts profits vs. capital costs to lay the cable) and at what cost to the consumer?
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
The majority of that cable was laid in the early 80's. How much longer do these cable co's need to recoup their costs (and I would love to see an itemization of Comcasts profits vs. capital costs to lay the cable) and at what cost to the consumer?
what i'm getting at is that comcast was a government approved monopoly provider of cable- they have an interest to protect that status. for example, a captive rate base would be a benefit to them, and allow them to recover whatever capital costs are still recoverable.
i don't know what the depreciation rate is for cable, or what other capital costs are still being incurred.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
comcast was a government approved monopoly provider of cable- they have an interest to protect that status.
You forgot "with shareholders to please"
-
You know, this could have been an interesting discussion about the relative merits, or demerits, of one corporation versus another. Some are definitely better public citizens than others, and there are different ways of assessing that. It's never as simple as "all corporations are good" (Brandon) or "all corporations are bad" (some green types.)
It could have been interesting, until Brandon jumped in with his ideological, reality-deprived douchery.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Alternative Thread Title:
Cliched List of Companies That Hipsters Hate Because They Are A Bunch of Self-Absorbed Slackers Who Could Never Make It in The Real World.
With all due respect, have you ever consider that those who chose those companies on the Worst Company In America Contest were former customers and employees? Here 2 things I learned in business courses I took in college.
1. Bad news will spread faster than good news
2. Businesses spend more time, energy and money trying to regain former customers than new customers.
I used be a Bank of America customer until I discovered how much money I was losing to some fees.
I used to have comcast until electrical surge left me with no cable, and the bad customer service cause the switch to Verizon Fios. I'm just following the old adage of voting with your wallet!
-
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
You know, this could have been an interesting discussion about the relative merits, or demerits, of one corporation versus another. Some are definitely better public citizens than others, and there are different ways of assessing that. It's never as simple as "all corporations are good" (Brandon) or "all corporations are bad" (some green types.)
It could have been interesting, until Brandon jumped in with his ideological, reality-deprived douchery.
I don't understand why anyone's opinion would keep you or anybody else wishing to discuss this topic from now to eternity. I guess that's the douchebag Libertarianism in me you seem to despise so.
Funny how humans have different opinions and philosophies. Funnier still, is how far under the skin of some people it gets when people think different than they do. The horror.
For the record, I think alot of it has been interesting. Why you or others haven't chimed in more on what you wanted to say is a puzzle to me.
-
Originally posted by SPARX:
I don't understand why anyone's opinion would keep you or anybody else wishing to discuss this topic from now to eternity.
I agree. If we all had the same opinions this would be a very short discussion.
-
Originally posted by Erinaceous Sonickus:
If you refuse to to believe that sometimes a company gets ahead in the marketplace by shorting customers, stealing competitors ideas/marketing plans/trade secrets or providing less than desirable working condition and/or customer service on a regular basis, than theres no point in even discussing this with you.
This is pretty funny coming from a guy who publicly admitted to routinely stealing from one of his employers (record store). I guess you expect that the rest of the world should have the morals that you don't.
As for the other arguments in this thread:
I will agree that Comcast sucks. Not only do they provide crappy service, they do so under government approved monopoly conditions.
WalMart, paypal, eBay, etc... If you don't like them, don't patronize them. It really is that simple.
There are plenty of people who hold their nose while shopping at WalMart; but just by shopping there they are showing what their real priorities are. You can hate everything WalMart stands for, but your beef isn't really with WalMart, it's with your fellow Americans (and Chinese, and Mexicans, and...).
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
This is pretty funny coming from a guy who publicly admitted to routinely stealing from one of his employers (record store). I guess you expect that the rest of the world should have the morals that you don't.
careful!!! I never stole anything that was actually for sale at the store. Promo material that was already displayed then taken down to go "back to the label" was all i ever took.
i admit it was stealing but lets make sure we're clear....this was not cutting into the record store OR the record labels profits (as i never actually sold any of the merch).
and actually, yes, businesses should be held to some higher standards than $7/hr workers. mostly.
-
Originally posted by Brandon Brendall, the thief:
But under this reasoning, can't we say that just because you know of a few examples where PayPal has harmed some consumers, it doesn't mean that they are "harmful" in the grand scheme of things?
I already agreed with you on this point. And i already pointed out that you're taking that list a BIT too seriously.
It seems that you are the one who is refusing to ackowledge that, despite the misgivings that come from the basic fact that no one is perfect, these companies have done far more good for all of our lives than they have done harm. I mean if PayPal or eBay have done more harm, then they simply wouldn't exist.
Ohhh, so under this logic than no bad companies exist! Because any company that does bad stuff ceases to exist?
Thats very "rose colored glasses" of you. and you know what. I like that way of thinking. I try to be positive about most stuff too. Its really just a damn internet list by a bunch of griping consumers! But then again, i'm a socialist Canadian so i hate capitalism in the first place.
-
Is that why poor people smell like sour milk? Because they don't have running water to be able to wash?
Hussein Obama - give the poor electricity, water and cable then send the bill to the rich.
McCain - What poor people?
-
yes
-
Originally posted by Erinaceous Sonickus:
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
This is pretty funny coming from a guy who publicly admitted to routinely stealing from one of his employers (record store). I guess you expect that the rest of the world should have the morals that you don't.
careful!!! I never stole anything that was actually for sale at the store. Promo material that was already displayed then taken down to go "back to the label" was all i ever took.
i admit it was stealing but lets make sure we're clear....this was not cutting into the record store OR the record labels profits (as i never actually sold any of the merch).
and actually, yes, businesses should be held to some higher standards than $7/hr workers. mostly. [/b]
You weren't stealing it...you were "sharing" it. :roll:
-
no ADM in this game? huh?
-
Originally posted by Erinaceous Sonickus:
Paypal is a terribly shady company....they deserve to be on that list. Ebay does too.
I agree. In October I sold an item on ebay. The buyer paid for it on paypal then picked it up and left positive feedback. 6 months later paypal notifies me that there is a dispute from the buyer who denied ever getting the item and I only had 1 day to get my "proof" to them. I sent the positive feedback and that wasn't good enough since I didn't have good proof of delivery. The next day $520 was missing from my bank account and the buyer got the money back. When I called paypal (and ebay) they just said they couldn't help. I had to dispute it with my bank and finally got it back from my bank (which took about 2 weeks of not knowing whether I'd be out the money). So moral of the story, make sure you get a signature or proof of delivery if you're the seller, or if you're the buyer just go ahead and buy that big ticket item then dispute it 6 months from now.
-
Originally posted by 6949:
or if you're the buyer just go ahead and buy that big ticket item then dispute it 6 months from now.
Thank you for the idea; I will.
But seriously, I had a similar incident but nowhere near 6 months time and significantly less money, but still, paypal seemed a bit pedantic in their handling of the entire situation.
-
Microsoft doesn't belong in that list imho
-
what about jesus and the catholic church? they really belong on that list.
still transparent?
-
Shouldn't the US Government be winning this hands down?
-
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
Shouldn't the US Government be winning this hands down?
re-read before you post.
-
Originally posted by walkonby:
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
Shouldn't the US Government be winning this hands down?
re-read before you post. [/b]
I have no time for research or fact checking. Who do you think I am, MSNBC?
-
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
Originally posted by walkonby:
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
Shouldn't the US Government be winning this hands down?
re-read before you post. [/b]
I have no time for research or fact checking. Who do you think I am, MSNBC? [/b]
let's go share peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.
-
Originally posted by walkonby:
let's go share peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.
I'll bring the bread, you bring the toppings.
-
i've worked for a few of those companies, and at the moment i work for a fruit flavoured computer company, and it is disgustingly corrupt to the point that my 'fuck you' letter when i leave the company is going to be sent all the way to the top.
oh, and if anyone from work sees this it can be considered grounds for termination. :roll: