the Products are released, widget-mania strikes!
everyone wants a widget and the early Results have Mr.E with 60% Market share due to his Price advantage and blanket Marketing...Mr.M has 40% and considers that a solid base of very satisfied Customers who are quite Loyal to his Brand due to the higher Quality
both Companys decide it is time to go Public and prepare for their IPO in the Stock Market
as the Day comes the Market share has changed to 55% for "E" and 45% for "M"
due to a slight increase of Customers choosing to "buy American" and/or deciding on Quality from either the Marketing or word of mouth influences.
Mr.E has worked ceaselessly for this Day, his entire Business Plan was geared towards maximizing what he would make from this IPO and his own personal stock in the Market to come...he hires an Accounting firm to make the Books look as good as possible, stretching the Rules as far as possible to maximize the Bottom Line for the quarter...towards this Mr.E has spent some of the "windfall" from initial Profits to shore up the "numbers" as well as written the IPO in his own favor adding in a lucrative "Golden Parachute"...the Corporate Model coming from the supply side, "trickle" down", school of Economics
Mr.M has hired an outside Firm to audit his own Books to confirm their accuracy and to Certify that the results show a sustainable business Model with a very Respectable profit/cost ratio...the Corporate Model being the demand side, "rising tide lifts all boats", school of Economics...Workers and Management both share in the success of the Business.
end of IPO day has Mr.E with a significantly higher price for his Stocks, the Bulls just went charging after it, and Mr.E scored a fortune...Mr.M did well enough to celebrate and starts his Day with a Company wide announcement showing just how much each of them made from their own Stocks and what this influx of Capital will do to help the Company continue to prosper
some time later and Mr.E's widgets start to break while the higher Quality of Mr. M's last twice as long before needing replacement...now many Customers begin figuring out that the 10% higher price is well worth the double effective use
Article comments
1 - Temple Stark
Mine is that I'm glad you've joined on as an author rather than a long-winded - but mostly entertaining though too invested in the personalities of idiots - commentator.
- temple
Your parable read well. Thank you for not mentioning names, You forgot the celebrity spokesperson.
2 - gonzo marx
some might be Wondering the "significance" of my Book choice here...
the volume holds more than the two title "novellas", but it was mainly due to the Title tale that i chose it
Revolt in 2100 is a Story that speculates on the United States being taken over by a Theocracy, told form the viewpoint of a Beleiver..a West Point graduate who now serves as a soldier in the Prophet's own Guards.
Heinlein tells it far better than i could ever craft a synopsis, but i feel it helps to Illustrate both the subject of my Post as well as my own baseline Postulate of
hope that helps...
Excelsior!
3 - Aaman
So which is the 'faith-based' business then?
Welcome, gonzo - much hail!
4 - gonzo marx
Aaman sez...
*So which is the 'faith-based' business then?*
good Question! you obviously noticed that i left out some details...hopefully it gets the Reader to think a bit about where his/her own Faith and Values sit in relation to the two examples...and perhaps gets them to ponder where their own "organizations" fit in, be they corporate,fraternal,spiritual or secular
and thanx, Temple and Aaman for the welcome
long winded, am i?..bah..if you had more attention span than a tse tse fly on crack perhaps...
awwww...just kidding ya...
Excelsior!
5 - Damien Riley
A lot of that answer depends upon ones personality type. I must tell you that, in my exoerience, not everyone is interest in the "greater good" widget. I most assuredly am! that's why I teach, interpret music in bars, and write . . . :) Glad to meet you! Thank you.
6 - David Marshall
The ends justify the means?
“[ Footnote 4 ] The intelligence community believed that it was necessary "to conceal these activities from the American public in general," because public knowledge of the "unethical and illicit activities would have serious repercussions in political and diplomatic circles and would be detrimental to the accomplishment of its mission." Id., at 394 (quoting CIA Inspector General's Survey of the Technical Services Division, p. 217 (1957)).” See [Footnote 4 of IV] U.S. 709 U.S. Supreme Court 1987 STANLEY military experiment case. [3] The "Veterans Right to Know Act" to establish the Veterans' Right to Know Commission was proposed in the 2005 and H.R. 4259 [109th] 2006 Congress.[9] In accordance with the ongoing greater good necessity “to conceal these activities...” a veteran's right to get the U.S. Senate’s “designed to harm” needed for treatment, and experiment identifying, evidence never became law.
To-date rejected is the U.S. Senate 1994 Report’s, “The Feres Doctrine should not be applied for military personnel who are harmed by inappropriate human experimentation when informed consent has not been given.”[8] Despite the 16 of 66 year efforts of some, the U.S. Congress has failed to protect service personnel from “to harm” experiments. Therefore, do not the U.S. Senate’s reported Department of Defense (DOD) “EXPERIMENTS THAT WERE DESIGNED TO HARM” [8] continue?
Please have your members in the U.S. Congress give back to service personnel and veterans those rights that convicted rapists and murderers keep, e.g., “Written policy and practice prohibit the use of” [prison] “inmates for medical.....experiments.”! See page 13 of 14, REF: [6] The U.S. Supreme Court’s 1987 STANLEY [3] “to harm” DOD experiment is approved by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1950 FERES [1] ‘can do no wrong, ends justify the means’ Doctrine. The STANLEY case is one of the U.S. Senate’s 1994 “During the last 50 years, hundreds of thousands of military personnel” were subjected to “experiments that were designed to harm”, e.g., the reported biological and chemical agents, radiation exposure, hallucinogenic and investigational drugs, experimental vaccines and behavior modification projects.[8] It is a dereliction of duty in direct disobedience of the DOD Secretary's 26 February 1953 NO non-consensual, human experiments.[2] During the U.S. Senate’s reported past 50 years, most of the "to harm" service records were destroyed in a 1973 National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) fire. Congress’s 1974 Privacy Act censored experiment verifying witnesses from any surviving records!
After the 1987 STANLEY, Congress passed the 1988 Veterans’ Judicial Review Act (VJRA).[4] Established was the Legislative, Article I severely restricted, U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals. In 1994 its Chief Judge stated, "The Court simply identifies error made below by a failure to adhere, in individual cases, to the Constitution, statutes, and regulations which themselves reflect policy -- policy freely ignored by many initial adjudicators whose attitude is, "I haven't been told by my boss to change. If you don't like it -- appeal it."[7] Congress dictated that, "The court may not review the schedule of ratings for disabilities or the policies underlying the schedule."[4] Given to the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) is the Judicial Branch’s final authority on "the policies underlying the schedule" questions of law![5]
Each "to harm" experiment completes a Research and Development (R&D) process. Prior R&D is reviewed. The resulting Scope of Work defines what each experiment is "designed" to accomplish. The how, where, when and who is identified. The conducted RESEARCHED cause and effects are closely followed and recorded. From the results are DEVELOPED safe production, use, victim treatment and protection. Accordingly, at the time known are the recorded and withheld “designed to harm” resultant “schedule” disabilities with their identifying symptoms and treatment. Ignored by the U.S. Congress is the service personnel rights lost vs. prison inmate kept!
Overlooked by many in Congress is our “Pledge of Allegiance” “with liberty and justice for all" and the U.S. Supreme Court’s ignored own, carved in stone over its entrance, “EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW”!
REFERENCES:
[1] 1950 - Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135, 146 (1950). http://supreme.justia.com/us/340/135/case.html
[2] 1953 - DOD Secretary's 26 February 1953 NO non-consensual, human experiment’s Memo pages 343-345. George J. Annas and Michael A. Grodin, "The Nazi Doctors and the Nuremberg Code; Human Rights in Human Experimentation” (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992).
[3] 1987 - U.S. SUPREME COURT, JUNE 25, 1987, U.S. V. STANLEY , 107 S. CT.. 3054 (VOLUME 483 U.S., SECTION 669, PAGES 699 TO 710). http://supreme.justia.com/us/483/669/case.html
[4] 1988 - Veterans’ Judicial Review Act (VJRA), Pub. L. No. 100-687, Div. A, 102 Stat. 4105 (8 December 1988) DVA-Chapter 4 and http://law.jrank.org/pages/6784/Federal-Courts-Court-Appeals-Veterans-Claims.html#ixzz0MIKbF8ND
[5] "United States Code (USC) Title 38, 511. Decisions of the Secretary; finality." US CODE: Title 38511. Decisions of the Secretary; finality.
[6] 1994 - U.S. State Dept., "U.S. Report under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights July 1994, Article 7 - Freedom from Torture, or Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.” Electronic Research Collections (ERC)
[7] 1994 - Chief Judge and colleague statements, Court of Veterans Appeals, Annual Judicial Conference, Fort Meyer, VA., 17 & 18 October 1994. Chief Judge Frank Nebeker's Statement STATE OF COURT - - - URL: http://www.firebase.net/state_of_court_brief.htm
[8] 1994 - December 8, 1994 REPORT 103-97 "Is Military Research Hazardous to Veterans' Health? Lessons Spanning Half a Century." Hearings Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, 103rd Congress 2nd Session.
[9] 2005 & 2006 - "Veterans Right to Know Act" to establish the Veterans' Right to Know Commission was proposed in the 2005 and H.R. 4259 [109th] 2006 Congress. H. R. 4259.
7 - jeannie danna
gonzo,
There is an old saying: You get what you pay for...
All of this bait and switchstarted in the sixties, didn't it?
I still use an electric blender that my aunt bought in the fifties, I use a wooden ironing board that belonged to my cousins' grandmother(circa.1940s) and I used the iron that went with it for many years (manufacturing year unknown) the cloth cord finally gave out!
You might think me cheap, but I like to say, "We should respect our widgets as much as our environment."
JD- The end never justifies the means. End unethical-business practices
8 - gonzo marx
well well...looks like a couple of folks resurrected an olde rant...nice!
@David - an apropos screed, worthy of extensive articles in and of itself, find an outlet and rip them up on this one, get some vets involved, it IS important
@jeannie - yes you do indeed get what you pay for as well as "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch", both of those axiomatic statements are the gist of the article
would that all folks paid as much attention to their purchases as you obviously do, it would be a better place and our Market would work more as intended rather than the artificial skew that is induced by those only chasing the next quarter's inflated profits
as for "the ends never justify the means", i'd ask anyone who can to remind their "christian conservative" neighbors/families/friends that the exact Lesson you are talking about there is THE parable of the Passion
but i digress...