Kodak to stop making digital cameras

On 2/12/2012 6:39 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
Eric Stevens writes:

A company can't be profitable if it isn't productive.

Sure it can. You can sell the same junk that everyone else sells and make a
profit. You just aren't contributing anything useful to society.

But wasn't that the objective of the original shareholders?

Yes, but it damages society as a whole.

How.
I suppose the "junk" just appears out of thin air. It is never manufactured?

--
Peter

On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 00:38:05 +0100, Mxsmanic
wrote:

PeterN writes:

And?

And society (as well as the companies in question) suffers from the emphasis
on profit alone.

So what's wrong with that? It means they are better off at the end of
what they were doing than at the start.

And are providing employment, pumping money back into the economy, while
generating profits.

But they are not doing anything productive.

What on earth do you 'productive' if its not not making
bejeezelwackers, providing employment, pumping money back into the
economy, while generating profits?

Some even are doing research to provide future growth and even more profits.

Only a very small minority. R&D does not improve the bottom line, at least in
the eyes of those who cannot see beyond the current quarter.

That seems to include you. It doesn't include most of the motor
industry or electronics or pharmaceuticals, to name just a few.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 00:39:17 +0100, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Eric Stevens writes:

A company can't be profitable if it isn't productive.

Sure it can. You can sell the same junk that everyone else sells and make a
profit. You just aren't contributing anything useful to society.

You seem to use words in a different way from most of the rest of us.
What do you mean by 'productive'?

But wasn't that the objective of the original shareholders?

Yes, but it damages society as a whole.

How?

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:54:24 +0100, Mxsmanic
wrote:

PeterN writes:

So you are saying that profits are not the first step in promoting
corporate growth?

Not when you distribute them to shareholders instead of reinvesting them in
the company.

So you are really saying not distributing all the profits is the first
step in promoting corporate growth.

So providing employment and stimulating the economy is never productive?

Not nearly as productive as providing a useful product or service at a
reasonable price.

Is it possible to make profits without providing a useful product or
service at a reasonable price

Companies need to have a purpose other than making maximum profit for
shareholders in order to be truly productive.

What industries, in what country are you talking about.

All of them. Nobody wants to invest in something that won't produce a
substantial return by the end of the next quarter.

That's not correct. There are a number of companies with a 'no
dividend' policy. Most companies only pay limited dividends.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:54:57 +0100, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Eric Stevens writes:

What on earth do you 'productive' if its not not making
bejeezelwackers, providing employment, pumping money back into the
economy, while generating profits?

Providing useful products and services at reasonable prices.

You have to do that to stay in business. The failure to meet that
objective is why Kodak is in the state it is now.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:57:12 +0100, Mxsmanic
wrote:

PeterN writes:

How.

It eliminates products and services that are not highly profitable, no matter
how useful or essential they are to society.

For example, a certain large oil company bought out a slightly smaller oil
company. The smaller company had long taken pride in producing special
lubricants for extremely narrow niche markets, such as NASA. When it was
absorbed by the larger company, all of these special lubricants were
discontinued, not because they were unprofitable, but because they were not
profitable _enough_. This left all the customers who required the lubricants
dead in the water, since there were no other sources for them. But all the oil
company cared about was maximizing profits.

So all those who really needed the special lubricants would be able to
get them if they were prepared to pay more.

Those who didn't really need the special lubricants would be able to
get by, by re-engineering their products so that they didn't need the
special products. In fact, my experience is that if you can no longer
get product 'A' there is always a product 'B' which will do the same
job even though it may be more expensive.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 15:17:19 -0500, tony cooper
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:00:46 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:54:57 +0100, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Eric Stevens writes:

What on earth do you 'productive' if its not not making
bejeezelwackers, providing employment, pumping money back into the
economy, while generating profits?

Providing useful products and services at reasonable prices.

You have to do that to stay in business.

That's somewhat debatable. All a company has to do is convince some
of the public that the product is useful or desirable and offered at a
reasonable price.

Most of us own or have purchased something that turned out not to be
useful or desirable and over-priced for what we got.

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people
some of the time but not all of the people all of the time. In other
words, the word gets around if you make overpriced junk and people
resist buying from you. As I am about to say, that's why Kodak is in
the state it is now.

The failure to meet that
objective is why Kodak is in the state it is now.

I think that Kodak made useful products and priced them reasonably,
but competitors made products that were more useful or more reasonably
priced. A Kodak camera is useful and they were reasonably priced.

... and reasonably unattractive. Hence people bought other cameras.

Sales didn't bring in enough revenue to support the costs.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

"tony cooper" wrote in message
news
Providing useful products and services at reasonable prices.

You have to do that to stay in business.

That's somewhat debatable. All a company has to do is convince some
of the public that the product is useful or desirable and offered at a
reasonable price.

"Reasonable price" has nothing to do with it! The biggest profits are made
by selling products at *unreasonable* prices to suckers. Some companies can
do that for decades. Others only a short time.

Trevor.

"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
...
You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people
some of the time but not all of the people all of the time.

And as every politician knows, you can fool most of the people most of the
time, and that is enough!

Trevor.

On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:05:58 +1100, "Trevor" wrote:


"tony cooper" wrote in message
news
Providing useful products and services at reasonable prices.

You have to do that to stay in business.

That's somewhat debatable. All a company has to do is convince some
of the public that the product is useful or desirable and offered at a
reasonable price.

"Reasonable price" has nothing to do with it! The biggest profits are made
by selling products at *unreasonable* prices to suckers. Some companies can
do that for decades. Others only a short time.

You sound like a cynic telling yourself that all those other people
are suckers to buy 'that' thing at 'that' price.

Regards,

Eric Stevens