"[QUOTE]["All they care about is pleasing there stockholders."

[The Grumpy Celt]

Actually, the system is designed – from an evolutionary, “survival of the fittest,” standpoint – to generate situations like Enron and WorldCom and maybe Xerox.

The major shareholders and the company executives have the most power. They will do what is in their best interests. It is in their best interests to get as much as they can for as little effort as possible. It takes more effort to run a company than to cannibalize a company. As such it is in their best interests to dismember the company in return for massive personal profits. If this process victimizes an individual – such as an employee – then they are being victimized by economic evolution in action. Period. End of meaningful discussion.

If happened with Enron. It happened with WorldCom. It may be happening with Xerox. Years ago it happened with the airline “Eastern,” which differed from Enron and WorldCom in that the corporate leaders of the airline took their time and made no bones about what they are doing.
Further, the stock market always takes a hit when ever the minimum wage goes up. Why? Because it is not in the best interests of the powerbrokers of Wall Street for the employees to have more money. Their own spending powers decreases by comparison, even if only slightly.

Originally posted by Lady Dragon
All they care about is pleasing there stockholders.

This is past being an issue. Its like debating about the color of the sky. It is pointless.

More interesting is;
-What happens if Hasbro goes to way of Enron or WorldCom?
-What happens if Hasbro dismembers WotC, selling off components (Pokemon, D&D, MtG, Star Wars, etc.) to different organizations?
-What happens if Hasbro dismembers D&D, selling off components (Forgotten Realms, Grayhawk, Dragon Lance, the dice line, the minis line, the magazines... oh wait…) to different organizations?

 

[apsuman]

The major shareholders and the company executives have the most power. They will do what is in their best interests. It is in their best interests to get as much as they can for as little effort as possible. It takes more effort to run a company than to cannibalize a company. As such it is in their best interests to dismember the company in return for massive personal profits. If this process victimizes an individual – such as an employee – then they are being victimized by economic evolution in action. Period. End of meaningful discussion.

If happened with Enron. It happened with WorldCom. It may be happening with Xerox. Years ago it happened with the airline “Eastern,” which differed from Enron and WorldCom in that the corporate leaders of the airline took their time and made no bones about what they are doing.
Further, the stock market always takes a hit when ever the minimum wage goes up. Why? Because it is not in the best interests of the powerbrokers of Wall Street for the employees to have more money. Their own spending powers decreases by comparison, even if only slightly.

Well, the market takes a hit when the minimum wage goes up because:

- labor unions (that get paid much more than minimum wage) have in their contracts that their wages are tied to the minimum wage, when it goes up so do their wages.
- business have to re-evaluate every labor process to see if automation is now cheaper than hiring a person.
- minimum wage workers are unskilled and make the least complex items. These simple items have a large part of their cost in labor which causes those costs to go up. So everyone that does not make minimum wage takes the hit.
- the minimum wage is artificial and prevents some jobs from being created.

In short an increase in the minimum wage makes labor more expensive across the spectrum. It hampers job creation, and lowers the buying capacity of everyone else. It's not like the effects are invisible. The next time there is a minimum wage hike watch the menus at all the fast food (and non fast food) restaurants change. Everything will cost more. Too bad for me as my two kids love to go to McDonald's and I will not be able to take them.

If a minimum wage worked why not just say that the minimum wage is $20 an hour? A Big Mac would cost $12 and there would be no employees at an fully automated McDonald's. Too bad I couldn't afford it.

g!

 

[Henry]

...It is in their best interests to get as much as they can for as little effort as possible. It takes more effort to run a company than to cannibalize a company. As such it is in their best interests to dismember the company in return for massive personal profits.

The problem is that it isn't always this simple. If this were the case, EVERYONE would be buying up companies just to break them up and sell them - this only works in a case where the company is not profitable in the first place.

Now, if a company is healthy, and profits are strong, then bottom lines are not that big an issue. If the company products are not selling well, or if other divisions of said company are doing poorly and dragging the profitable divisions with it, then you have to do what the bottom line tells you. If the bottom line says it is cheaper to sell than to run, then the choice is moot.

There ARE businesses whose main means of profit is to buy out flagging businesses, and break them apart to sell them for more than they are worth at market value. But not all corporations ore composed of boards of directors who are just slavering to break up their businesses so they can trade in their stock options. That's not only a bad way to do business, it runs against practical sense to make a company as strong as possible, so that its stock will be strong anyway, rather than "artificially" inflating it. That would be the exception rather than the rule.

The majority of company executives are generally straightforward businessmen who want to do well, afford nice things, and come in to work the next day. It's the occasional scuzzbuckets you must watch out for, who jumped into a job they had no business getting, made an administrative mess of things, and then tried to sell out before the bottom fell out.

Corporate shills are good people, too. Have a nice day, all.

 

[Yuan-Ti]

Self-interest and greed often get lumped together, because on the surface they act the same way. All humans will be self-interested; to a certain extent, all humans will be greedy. It is human nature that must be prepared for, and it is the equation where many economic and social theories fail.

But I don't think they should be lumped together. I think self-interest is fine, even if taken to wanting something better, but greed goes too far--you want FAR more than you need, and you will do whatever it takes at the expense of ALL others. I agree it is a subtle distinction, but I think a useful one. Capitalism works with self-interest, but if we all accept that greed is what makes capitalism work, then we will see a lot more Enrons in the future.

Greed is not irregular; it is the norm, and any system that is to work must take it into account and work with it. Our economic system works, and surprisingly well. If it did not, Enron/Worldcom would be a regular sight, and not make so big a splash as it did.

I am not convinced Enron/Worldcom are exceptional. Maybe exceptional in the degree to which greed was taken, but there are probably similar stories at all major corporations. Even WotC has had some irregularities...

 

[Storminator]

The problem is that it isn't always this simple. If this were the case, EVERYONE would be buying up companies just to break them up and sell them - this only works in a case where the company is not profitable in the first place.

I'll go one further. This only works on unprofitable businesses with a large capital base. If there is a big chunk of money (large capital base) devoted to NOT making money (unprofitable business) it makes a great deal of sense to buy the company for its low stock price, and sell off its capital for its true value.

As Michael Douglass said in Wall Street, "I don't destroy businesses, I liberate them."

This is a very different model than Enron. Enron stock went down so far because the company doesn't own anything. There's nothing to break up and sell off. Enron's profits were allegedly based on brokering energy transactions, and were actually based on fraud. The real issue there was allowing the accounting firm to be hired as a consultant, creating an enormous conflict of interest.

None of that is standard business (well, I may be wrong there ), and is so far from anything that might happen with D&D the comparison isn't warranted. D&D will either make money for Hasbro, or they will sell the rights and it will make money for someone else. In either case, it won't make a great deal of money.

PS

 

[Yuan-Ti]

Now, if a company is healthy, and profits are strong, then bottom lines are not that big an issue.

Doesn't "strong profits" suggest all is well with the "bottom line"?

The majority of company executives are generally straightforward businessmen who want to do well, afford nice things, and come in to work the next day.

I agree completely. As I stated earlier, I think there has become a bit of a "greed culture"--by which I mean executives are more interested in keeping stock share price high and making profits LOOK large in order to pad their own pockets--in the corporate world, BUT there has to be the caveat that not only is not everyone like that but the majority are not.

However, if absolute power corrupts absolutely, then we would expect this to be prevalent at the highest levels of the corporate ladder...

Edit: ladder not "latter"

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

The problem is that most companies (and individuals) in America seem to be addicted to the quick money fix. High turnovers are all they want. Generating steady money for a long time is seen as unattractive.

Perfect example is cars. I've been dutifully buying American all my life. But American car companies are building the cars to last for shorter and shorter times before major work is needed. It's called planned obsolescence. Example: Chrysler cars no longer have grease cups. Used to be, with regular maintenance, your struts could last the life of the car. Now, you can't do ANY maintenance on them. You have to drive until they break and then replace them for absurd amounts of money. The only reason to design this way is to get money from the consumer sooner. My grandfather routinely made cars last 15-20 years or more with very little outlay of money. If engineering and technology keep improving, shouldn't cars be lasting longer and longer? Instead, modern cars are built to be terminal as soon as it's no longer suspicious. And the cars are getting harder and harder for people to work on in even the smallest way without the dealer's equipment. All of this is to keep American investors happy with artificially inflated income. And they're counting on the consumers to be too dumb to notice. Sadly, they're right.

D&D may well get cut loose for these reasons. The fact that it will generate steady income indefinitely doesn't impress people. They want big numbers NOW. Hence the setting submission contest. They're generating interest. It's unbelievable free advertising. When the new setting comes out, there will be all kinds of buzz about it because we were all sitting around speculating about it for a long time, wondering what beat our submissions, hoping for a gaming renaissance. "For the players, by the players"...etc. They'll sell a lot of books/cards/whatever for a while, and the investors will be temporarily sated. Then the novelty of the new setting will wear off, sales will drop, and the grumbling of the parent company will begin anew.

 

[Staffan]

But I don't think they should be lumped together. I think self-interest is fine, even if taken to wanting something better, but greed goes too far--you want FAR more than you need, and you will do whatever it takes at the expense of ALL others. I agree it is a subtle distinction, but I think a useful one.

IMO, the difference between self-interest and greed is one of scale, not of nature. Greed is just being *more* self-interested.

 

[Mouseferatu]

If White Wolf were to own D&D, we should then expect to see a new edition/revision every two years or so...

You know, that's the second time you've said that. What's the basis?

White Wolf's major World of Darkness games are on their third iteration. That's more frequently than D&D was revised, granted, but it's hardly "every two years."

To say nothing of the fact that D&D had a lot longer to work out the bugs. Once could argue that D&D went through quite a few "editions/revisions" during its early years. As I recall, even the red box basic set was far from the earliest incarnation.

D&D3E works just fine as is; every WW game has been revised because the people involved thought the rules and setting needed revision. They don't revise just for the hell of it, and it'll be some time before 3E needs a major revision.

So really, what you basing this on? I happen to think that, given WW's attitude toward their games, this would be the best thing that could happen to D&D.

 

[Yuan-Ti]

IMO, the difference between self-interest and greed is one of scale, not of nature. Greed is just being *more* self-interested.

IMO, greed is being *too* self-interested.