33 minutes ago, rambo said:

COGS will catch up and margins will return to normal levels.  Selling products manufactured pre-inflation will do that.  Gives them wiggle room.  Their costs will increase across the board too from raw materials, wages and overhead.  They're creating wiggle room and as always have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize shareholders investment.

FIFO accounting FTW. 

48 minutes ago, rambo said:

They're creating wiggle room and as always have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize shareholders investment.

 

They've got more than enough wiggle room, and of course they are trying to maximize dividends. But it is at least somewhat disingenuous to act like there is not some degree of cunning profiteering at work here, and when you have only a handful of companies controlling entire industries, they're at liberty to basically put the country over a barrel for basic goods and services to the point that it drives recession and unrest. The question is whether it is good and necessary to do it to this extent, of whether it will produce negative repercussions in the long-term for our economic health. There's a tendency in here to deny even the possibility of nefarious or at least untoward or distasteful behavior on the part of our corporate overlords. Blaming it all on gouging or profit motive is off-base, but acting like there's nothing shady or at least mildly reprehensible occurring among the barons of industry here is B.S.

1 hour ago, rambo said:

2 months and still no dishwasher.  Get your crap together Biden.

I went to Lowe’s the other night with my wife.  She spent like an hour picking out a washer and dryer.  Then when we went to pay they were like we won’t have those in stock until May 15th.  So we picked another set.  They said that one we have the washer, but not the dryer.   

11 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

They've got more than enough wiggle room, and of course they are trying to maximize dividends. But it is at least somewhat disingenuous to act like there is not some degree of cunning profiteering at work here, and when you have only a handful of companies controlling entire industries, they're at liberty to basically put the country over a barrel for basic goods and services to the point that it drives recession and unrest. The question is whether it is good and necessary to do it to this extent, of whether it will produce negative repercussions in the long-term for our economic health. There's a tendency in here to deny even the possibility of nefarious or at least untoward or distasteful behavior on the part of our corporate overlords. Blaming it all on gouging or profit motive is off-base, but acting like there's nothing shady or at least mildly reprehensible occurring among the barons of industry here is B.S.

Keep in mind, not on the profit margin aspect, but book bottom line, a lot of manufacturers are showing PPP loan forgiveness as revenue this year as opposed to a liability when they got it.  It got them through lean times and kept people employed while they continued to keep production up while sales lagged.  So they essentially stockpiled inventory and were able to somewhat meet bent up demand as things opened up.  There are so many aspects that go into the machine.  They were covering their ass.  I've seen it first hand with manufacturing clients.

23 minutes ago, rambo said:

Keep in mind, not on the profit margin aspect, but book bottom line, a lot of manufacturers are showing PPP loan forgiveness as revenue this year as opposed to a liability when they got it.  It got them through lean times and kept people employed while they continued to keep production up while sales lagged.  So they essentially stockpiled inventory and were able to somewhat meet bent up demand as things opened up.  There are so many aspects that go into the machine.  They were covering their ass.  I've seen it first hand with manufacturing clients.

Please don’t complicate his narrative with actual facts. 
 

I really like the part where companies should be castigated for maximizing profits. If they are actually raising prices beyond cost inflation and customers are paying, then THEY ARE DOING THEIR FRIGGIN JOBS. 
 

The lack of basic financial understanding is staggering. 

6 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

The lack of basic financial understanding is staggering. 

 

It's not a lack of understanding af all. I understand full well that some people care about literally nothing other than money and self-aggrandizement, even when they already have plenty of it. What I'm advancing here is a basic question of when profit motives should be at least partially tempered by concern for our national interests.

 

I've tried to be clear, though, that I definitely place some blame on consumers here. If they're going to just keep mindlessly consuming the same goods from the same producers at the same volume, what else can they expect? Take gas, for example. The lines have never been longer at the pump. Demand for air travel has never been higher. There's no way these people are only driving or flying for essentials, yet they b**ch and moan about gas prices as if they have no choice, all the while driving the demand that sustains high prices. I guess what I'm really trying to say here is...I hate everyone.

7 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

It's not a lack of understanding af all. I understand full well that some people care about literally nothing other than money and self-aggrandizement, even when they already have plenty of it. What I'm advancing here is a basic question of when profit motives should be at least partially tempered by concern for our national interests.

You just proved you don’t understand it. Corporate executives have a fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder value, and derivatively, profits. They can’t consider national interests, or how much is "enough.” They are obligated to make every dollar of profit possible, and if they don’t, they will be fired. 
 

If one of my CEOs said we shouldn’t raise prices because of "national interests,” I’d fire his ass immediately. 

2 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

You just proved you don’t understand it. Corporate executives have a fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder value, and derivatively, profits. They can’t consider national interests, or how much is "enough.” They are obligated to make every dollar of profit possible, and if they don’t, they will be fired. 
 

If one of my CEOs said we shouldn’t raise prices because of "national interests,” I’d fire his ass immediately. 

 

I'm looking down the line and considering things in a utilitarian sense. Does it do more harm than good? Let's just take the extreme example of economic depression where there is extreme social unrest, potentially leading to widespread violence and maybe even civil war. Was it worth it?

Just now, EaglesRocker97 said:

I've tried to be clear, though, that I definitely place some blame on the consumers here. If they're going to just keep mindlessly consuming the same goods from the sam producers at the same volume, what else can they expect? Take gas for example. The lines have never been longer at the pump. There's no way these people are only driving for essentials, yet they b**tch and moan about gas prices as if they have no choice, all the while driving the demand that sustains high prices. I really do hate everybody.

Honestly, I find the gas prices thing kind of funny. I mean of all the things to complain about are we really worried about something that most people are paying $5 or $10 a week more for?  Of course if you drive a giant SUV (that cost $50k) then maybe it’s a bigger difference.

As for margins, here’s a personal example. 
 

We own a company that I guess you could call a gig economy company. We don’t have employees but rather independent contractors (think like drivers for Uber). We take a percentage. Well, we raised prices twice in the last year. Have our costs gone up? Barely. But the costs to our contractors has, and raising our price gives them more pay. We keep the same percentage, so gross margins are the same with higher gross profit dollars. Since the fixed costs are the same, our net profit margins are higher. PRICE GOUGING!!!

1 minute ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

I'm looking down the line and considering things in a utilitarian sense. Does it do more harm than good? Let's just take the extreme example of economic depression where there is extreme social unrest, potentially leading to widespread violence and maybe even civil war. Was it worth it?

Corporations. Can’t. Do. That. They aren’t people with morals. They exist to maximize value. 
 

what part of this don’t you understand?

If you invest in a 401K, IRA or are expecting a pension, why the hell wouldn't you want publicly traded companies maximizing profits? 

12 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

what part of this don’t you understand?

 

I guess what I don't understand is the extremism where people are seemingly willing to sacrifice the republic itself for the almighty dollar. I mean, even if your concerns are purely financial, you necessarily have an interest in economic sustainability so that you can keep making money interminably. The ability to be an affluent American is predicated on the relative stability of our socioeconomic conditions. When that collapses, both the rich and the poor are f***ed. Not that I think it's really the business class' prerogative to rein themselves in. That's the federal government's job in times of crisis.

 

12 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

They aren’t people with morals.

 

Bingo!

8 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

I'm looking down the line and considering things in a utilitarian sense. Does it do more harm than good? Let's just take the extreme example of economic depression where there is extreme social unrest, potentially leading to widespread violence and maybe even civil war. Was it worth it?

Companies are not social constructs

2 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

I guess what I don't understand is the extremism where people are seemingly willing to sacrifice the republic itself for the almighty dollar. I mean, even if your concerns are purely financial, you necessarily have an interest in economic sustainability so that you can keep making money interminably. I mean, the ability to be an affluent American is predicated on the relative stability of our socioeconomic conditions. When that collapses, both the rich and the poor are f***cked. Not that I think it's the really business class' prerogative to rein themselves in. That's the federsal government's job in times of crisis.

 

 

Bingo!

If you have to say its an existential threat to the republic, all you are putting forward is a weak appeal to emotion. A fallacy.

You seem to embrace a more japanese cultural model. 

11 minutes ago, iladelphxx said:

If you invest in a 401K, IRA or are expecting a pension, why the hell wouldn't you want publicly traded companies maximizing profits? 

Me thinks he should look where his pension fund is investing

18 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

I guess what I don't understand is the extremism where people are seemingly willing to sacrifice the republic itself for the almighty dollar. I mean, even if your concerns are purely financial, you necessarily have an interest in economic sustainability so that you can keep making money interminably. The ability to be an affluent American is predicated on the relative stability of our socioeconomic conditions. When that collapses, both the rich and the poor are f***ed. Not that I think it's really the business class' prerogative to rein themselves in. That's the federal government's job in times of crisis.

 

 

Bingo!

I will try one more time and then I give up. 
 

In a company with investors, there is no person with the legal authority to simply decide how much is enough. Management has a fiduciary duty to its investors to maximize value. It isn’t "extremism.” It is the foundation of capitalism and our economic system. 
 

You keep attacking the companies, but they serve the shareholders. Be mad at the large mutual funds, pension funds and endowments that own the stock. Of course, they get their money from regular people. So…basically, yell at yourself. You want the mutual fund with the best returns, you want the pension payments…well, this is how they get them. But the shareholders need to change, not management. 

24 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

Me thinks he should look where his pension fund is investing

Well if he's in PA 35% of his salary being put into the pension by taxpayers.  Yes the school district has to put in that amount to fund PSERS in addition to the salary  So for every dollar he's paid by tax money an additional 35% also has to fund their pension.  Defined benefit plans are a dinosaur that crushes a  school budget.

39 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

I will try one more time and then I give up. 
 

In a company with investors, there is no person with the legal authority to simply decide how much is enough. Management has a fiduciary duty to its investors to maximize value. It isn’t "extremism.” It is the foundation of capitalism and our economic system. 
 

You keep attacking the companies, but they serve the shareholders. Be mad at the large mutual funds, pension funds and endowments that own the stock. Of course, they get their money from regular people. So…basically, yell at yourself. You want the mutual fund with the best returns, you want the pension payments…well, this is how they get them. But the shareholders need to change, not management. 

 

Well, if you scroll up a few posts, I attack the consumers, too. So, yes, I also believe that the people should demand better and that they are capable of taking actions to combat inflation. They are not so completely helpless as they assume themselves to be. They can pressure and protest as consumers, but they're lazy.

I can accept that individuals and corporations are naturally inclined to act in their own self-interest at the expense of society. We should expect nothing less. But in that situation, you also need a federal government with the power to regulate the excess and indiscretion that threatens to wreck our national stability. Love of country and love of self are often mutually exclusive. We need safeguards.

For as much as people talk about the U.S. being a "young country," we're really not from a constitutional standpoint, and I have begun to have serious doubts as to whether this nation as I know it will endure through my lifetime. Capitalism is arguably our greatest source of strength, but we also can't ignore its self-destructive impulses and assume that the nation will continue to prosper without sensible interventions. We might be living on borrowed time.

Ultimately, let's just stop acting like the businesses are having no voluntary effect on inflation. Everyone has a hand in this shitshow.

Can't smoke weed and now I'm an angry drunk.  F off Lahey!

11 minutes ago, rambo said:

Can't smoke weed and now I'm an angry drunk.  F off Lahey!

There are really companies that still test for weed?

27 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

There are really companies that still test for weed?

Transportation and industrial jobs still do, which makes sense 

15 minutes ago, iladelphxx said:

Transportation and industrial jobs still do, which makes sense 

 

Hope they're testing for alcohol, too.