patrick.net

Reality says

What exactly is wrong with profit? Profit means you are creating something of greater value to other people than the resources that you are consuming in order to produce it.

Profit as the end-all-be-all goal with nothing else even considered, seems to be the modern corporate mantra. One can "profit" for example by selling garbage CDO-squared and hey it's "sophisticated" investors it's their own lookout right? A lot of "profit" now is in services and financial sector in particular, where is the great value to society in that? Middlemen eat a crumb off each plate, they don't add to it.

Can we go bankrupt to skin our creditors and renegotiate the retirement fund & union contracts? Then not a second thought will be given about the matter it will be done. On the other hand if a citizen starts talking about walking away from their debts a great howl will arise from these same corporate types about "personal responsibility" for debts and promises made.

CL says

And if they can broker a deal with Amex, they could broker one with Visa, you'd think. But Amex is more of a business-card, so maybe that's their "in"?.

It is not just that they have a deal with Amex, but Costco also sponsors an Amex card:
https://www304.americanexpress.com/credit-card/costco-american-express

The Costco Amex card also doubles as your membership card.

robertoaribas says

I got $400 in costco bucks for using that card last year.

wth is Costco Bucks

Vicente says

Profit as the end-all-be-all goal with nothing else even considered, seems to be the modern corporate mantra. One can "profit" for example by selling garbage CDO-squared and hey it's "sophisticated" investors it's their own lookout right?

Wrong! You missed the crucial element in my previous post: non-coercively. Selling garbage CDO-squared being profitable is a distinct result of government coercive policies:

1. Central banking for money;
2. Bailouts of the big institutions when they bet wrong;
3. Government mandatory rating agencies.

A lot of "profit" now is in services and financial sector in particular, where is the great value to society in that?

You should direct the question to those in favor of central banking coercion by the government.

Middlemen eat a crumb off each plate, they don't add to it.

Middlemen have to add value in order to exist in a free market place, for example, the very titular company of this thread, Costco, is a Middlemen. It adds value moving things around because it can move products to the consumer at lower cost than almost anyone else. When it fails to deliver that value superiority, people shop elsewhere!

Government instituted bureaucratic middlemen however are a different story. They do indeed eat off the plates, not just crumbs but the bulk of the pie, and leave crumbs to the average Joes and Janes.

Can we go bankrupt to skin our creditors and renegotiate the retirement fund & union contracts? Then not a second thought will be given about the matter it will be done.

I'm sure plenty thoughts and calculations go into these decisions. The creditors were familiar with the risk therefore charging interest accordingly. As for the union, they can only survive by joining the monopolistic market position in a particular industry, feasting on the consumers. The sooner those monopolies cease to exist, the better.

On the other hand if a citizen starts talking about walking away from their debts a great howl will arise from these same corporate types about "personal responsibility" for debts and promises made.

Plenty individual people did and do walk from their debts. Laws were even passed to remove tax consequences when mortgage debts were forgiven. The hired corporate mouth pieces can yap all they want; it's when they make laws that adversely affect us that matters.

Reality says

Selling garbage CDO-squared being profitable is a distinct result of government coercive policies:

Horsehockey. Selling bad investment "products" to the rubes predates central banking. Your hypothesis is trivially disproven.

Vicente says

Reality says

Selling garbage CDO-squared being profitable is a distinct result of government coercive policies:

Horsehockey. Selling bad investment "products" to the rubes predates central banking. Your hypothesis is trivially disproven.

You missed the "being profitable" part of the sentence. Both Charles Ponzi and John Law were bankrupted very quickly. You were complaining about them the banksters nowadays somehow being able to recycle the same schemes over and over again. That we have the central banking bailouts to thank for.

Oxygen says

robertoaribas says

I got $400 in costco bucks for using that card last year.

wth is Costco Bucks

The Costco Amex gives a yearly voucher that you can spend at Costco. The size of the voucher depends on how much you spend on the Amex card.

Without bothering to look, I'm guessing that Walmart spends way more on advertising than Costco does. That's a considerable cost savings for Costco right there.

zzyzzx says

Without bothering to look, I'm guessing that Walmart spends way more on advertising than Costco does. That's a considerable cost savings for Costco right there.

Why should they? They depend on word of mouth. They have good people and a good return policy. Wallyworld makes up for how much they suck by trying to convince you otherwise. Advertising is brainwashing and lies.

Vicente says

Why should they?

I was not trying to imply that Costco should advertise more! I think of advertisements as a nuisance, and a waste of money in most cases.

Reality says

Dan8267 says

So Republicans, explain to me how the biggest tax that 99% of Americans pay isn't the "Employment Tax" that corporations impose on their employees?

Because the employee has the option to work somewhere else or even open his/her own shop if he/she so choose. It is not an "employment tax" but an Employment Opportunity!

Tell that to Tucker. Big business uses the government to prevent competition.

Reality says

What exactly is wrong with profit?

What exactly is wrong with clean drinking water? If you drink too much of it, you will die. Excessiveness, not water or profit, is what is wrong.

When those who control capital squeeze the wealth producing employees to barely above the poverty level, it prevents the wealth producer from enriching his life, becoming more productive, enabling his children to be more productive, and bettering the lot of all of society. A large population base trapped in a system where they can never get out of living paycheck to paycheck isn't good for society as a whole.

Everyone here does not seem to see the bad side of Costco.

When you buy things in bulk, you end up eating too much or stuff goes bad.

For example: if you buy four pounds of beef, you will need to eat it before it goes bad which probably means you will eat too much beef that week.

When you buy a bag of avocados, you will most likely not eat all of them before some of them go bad.

I still shop at Costco, but I am a lot more selective about what I buy.

treatmentreport says

Everyone here does not seem to see the bad side of Costco.

When you buy things in bulk, you end up eating too much or stuff goes bad.

I have never had this be a problem.

Food is the minority of my Costco purchases I think. People think of it for food but I don't particularly. 2 runs ago the majority of my receipt was a new mattress. Most recent one a printer dominated.

Oh, not to mention diapers, formula, etc.

For food stick to frozen items or things with a decent shelf life. But even in my house a bunch of cantaloupes or pineapple goes quickly with enough mouths to feed, so I've never had this problem.

treatmentreport says

For example: if you buy four pounds of beef, you will need to eat it before it goes bad which probably means you will eat too much beef that week.

I have a thing they call a "freezer" for that.

Channeling my inner Apocalysefuck...

Until I can buy a 300-count pack of AK-47s and bullets by the truckload at Costco I'm not renewing my membership. Why do these assholes hate the American way of life so much?

Dan8267 says

What exactly is wrong with clean drinking water? If you drink too much of it, you will die. Excessiveness, not water or profit, is what is wrong.

That's fine. Let the corporation die for their wrong decisions. I don't see anything wrong with it. Other corporations will learn from it and adjust. Or, do you think you need to prevent corporations from making mistakes as it somehow affects "society"?

Dan8267 says

Tell that to Tucker. Big business uses the government to prevent competition.

Who is Tucker? You actually know that big business uses the government to prevent competition? No kidding! What do you think the government is? The biggest monopolistic business there ever is!

Dan8267 says

Reality says

What exactly is wrong with profit?

What exactly is wrong with clean drinking water? If you drink too much of it, you will die. Excessiveness, not water or profit, is what is wrong.

Pointless analogy. Do you happen to think there should be a limit on personal liberty and freedom because excess is not good?

You only get to decide whether you are engaging in excess and should stop. You don't get to decide whether other people are engaging in excess.

In a free market place without coercion, there is no such thing as excess profit.

When those who control capital squeeze the wealth producing employees to barely above the poverty level,

How is that even possible if the employees have the freedom to work for someone else? In fact, government controlled by the big businesses (government itself being the biggest business) is the very instrument that makes the squeezing possible in places of socialist slavery.

it prevents the wealth producer from enriching his life, becoming more productive, enabling his children to be more productive, and bettering the lot of all of society. A large population base trapped in a system where they can never get out of living paycheck to paycheck isn't good for society as a whole.

What do you think the government central planning through central banking has produced? What do you think mortgages are? Exactly the instrument for making people strapped to a system and live paycheck to paycheck! In fact, any bureaucratic system that prevents wealth creation through entreprenuership effectively forces people live paycheck to paycheck.

Reality says

Pointless analogy. Do you happen to think there should be a limit on personal liberty and freedom because excess is not good?

I think there should be a limit to the exploitation of wealth producers by those who control capital and distribution channels. Something we used to have with anti-trust laws and fair, graduated taxes.

CL says

I have a thing they call a "freezer" for that.

So you pay $9 a pound for steak just to put it a freezer?

Dan8267 says

I think there should be a limit to the exploitation of wealth producers by those who control capital and distribution channels. Something we used to have with anti-trust laws and fair, graduated taxes.

So how much should the owners of the Kodak film production line (capital) be paid as their "fair return" on capital in your scheme?

The market says it's now ZERO!

Capital obsolescence happens all the time. Freedom to choose for whom to work is the most fundamental right and the most fundamental guarantee that workers can have! Locking workers to particular sets of capitals in some kind of government mandated "fair deal" like UAW did for the auto workers would only ensure that they would be latched to the specific set of capitals (like the GM production line) that will become obsolete some day.

The real beneficiaries of those government mandated "fair deals" are not the workers, but the political middlemen (like union bosses and the politicians that they are in cahoots with), who indeed create negative net value due to the coerciveness of the political business.

Reality says

Who is Tucker?

Your ignorance is exceeded only by your misplaced faith in robber baron capitalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preston_Tucker

Vicente says

Your ignorance is exceeded only by your misplaced faith in robber baron capitalism.

Both are quite exceeded by your blind faith in an earthly power that does not corrupt.

Reality says

Both are quite exceeded by your blind faith in an earthly power that does not corrupt.

If only that made sense. I am so sorry.

Vicente says

Reality says

Both are quite exceeded by your blind faith in an earthly power that does not corrupt.

If only that made sense. I am so sorry.

Haven't you heard of the expression "Power Corrupts"?

What do you think government power is? An earthly power wielded by human beings with the usual avarice and corruptibility.

The term "robber baron" used by big government advocates is very ironic: barons were feudal regional lords. They were the governments in their own regions. The government itself is the modern equivalent of baron; and its taxing power is the robber part. Trying to use the government to control corporate "robber baron" is akin to jumping out of the frying pan into the fire itself!

Reality says

Trying to use the government to control corporate "robber baron" is akin to jumping out of the frying pan into the fire itself!

And yet, it works better than handing the reins over to the robber barons and hoping for the best.

The period between the last Great Depression and this one, had STRICT government limits in the form of legislation like Glass Steagall Act. For many decades we had no megbanks and no economic calamity. When I was growing up there was nothing BUT regional banks. So we decide to UNLEASH the financiers because.... well because we forget....we think Grandma's just nuts and those old-timey people were stupid. And in a few short years we are in deep doodoo. History easily disproves your theories about government being MORE EVIL than corporations. Government has many goals and more transparency. Corporations have one goal only, maximum profits for the people at the top and SCREW everything else.

Vicente says

And yet, it works better than handing the reins over to the robber barons and hoping for the best.

And if not Government, who then would rein in corporate abuses? Who is large enough to even do battle with them? Teddy Roosevelt did it, and he has his face on Rushmore because of it.

That's why weakening Government power, directly or indirectly, would be counterproductive and not in citizens' interests.

treatmentreport says

So you pay $9 a pound for steak just to put it a freezer?

You said "beef"!! But in any case, sure. That is a different issue than your original though, where the food is left to rot due to buying in bulk.

It also seems to me that despite its reputation, there are many things you can buy at Costco that aren't truly bulk. I've bought two pound bags of coffee there, a bundle of socks (3-4 pair), --they have single TVs, printers, cell-phones, loaves of bread, pizzas...you name it. Not only the 20 gallon jugs of mayonnaise we all joke about.

Vicente says

Reality says

Trying to use the government to control corporate "robber baron" is akin to jumping out of the frying pan into the fire itself!

And yet, it works better than handing the reins over to the robber barons and hoping for the best.

"It" (using government to pretend to rein in the "robber barons") is exactly handing the reins over to the "robber barons" and there is no hope in there at all!

The biggest "robber barons" that Teddy Roosevelt railed against publicly were the Rockerfellers and Morgans . . . guess what? They subsequently formed the Federal Reserve!

Vicente says

The period between the last Great Depression and this one, had STRICT government limits in the form of legislation like Glass Steagall Act. For many decades we had no megbanks and no economic calamity.

Then you must be a neophyte or senile. The federal government went bankrupt with the shutting down of gold exchange in 1971. FannieMae was nearly bankrupt in the early 1970's. The term "stagflation" was coined in the 1970's to describe the economic calamity of low growth coupled with high inflation. Then the late 1980's saw the Savings&Loans debacle.

The primary reason why bubbles were not as prevalent in the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's was because the people who lived through and grew up during the Great Depression were still alive and in charge in most economic decisions.

The repeal of Glass-Stegall was an action taken by the government, reflecting the "new era" thinking of the people taking the baton from the Great Depression generation.

When I was growing up there was nothing BUT regional banks. So we decide to UNLEASH the financiers because.... well because we forget....we think Grandma's just nuts and those old-timey people were stupid. And in a few short years we are in deep doodoo.

See above. The repeal of restrictions is reflective of the generational difference. It's silly to think a government made up of human beings would be immune to those generational differences.

History easily disproves your theories about government being MORE EVIL than corporations. Government has many goals and more transparency. Corporations have one goal only, maximum profits for the people at the top and SCREW everything else.

Government has no goals, corporations have no goals. They are inanimate brain farts constructed according to government laws to shield the individuals controlling them from liabilities. Labor Unions are also corporations, as are non-profits and charities.

The real issue is not the form, but the market power that an institution wields. Power corrupts.

Reality says

Then you must be a neophyte or senile. The federal government went bankrupt with the shutting down of gold exchange in 1971. FannieMae was nearly bankrupt in the early 1970's. The term "stagflation" was coined in the 1970's to describe the economic calamity of low growth coupled with high inflation. Then the late 1980's saw the Savings&Loans debacle.

I am not senile, but thanks for worrying over my health.

The 1980's S&L is EXACTLY the deregulation problem I describe, in miniature. CEO types said hey let's try that AGAIN but let's do it with GLOBAL banks & trillions of dollars. KABLOOEY!

Stagflation as a "calamity". Please! Damp squib compared to either GD1.0 or 2.0. An ordinary recession. At the time we had a GROWNUP at the Fed who jacked up interest rates and we came out of that one fine.

Reality says

The repeal of Glass-Stegall was an action taken by the government, reflecting the "new era" thinking of the people taking the baton from the Great Depression generation.

So, are you indicting the Government for repealing a law that the Government instituted?