Lib Dems prove once again they are not fit to govern

[Robinho]

Closing of branches due unprofitability is not always the case. In many cases this is done for consolidation measures, i.e amalgamation of branches to increase profitability

If closing something increases profitability. That means that the thing that was closed was unprofitable.

However, I do believe that companies and institutions do have responsibilities for the communities that they operate in

Believe what you want to believe. They don't.

[Scoobos]

So then Rob,

What about public services, the ones that are free at point of use ? Should we get rid of all of them , as they can never be profitable without compromising quality.

[Robinho]

So then Rob,

What about public services, the ones that are free at point of use ? Should we get rid of all of them , as they can never be profitable without compromising quality.

Assertion.

[DodgyAgent]

Good point and one that personally moved me away from the right and believing that economical growth == an increase in the standard of living.

It's my understanding, that as a CEO or an MD; it is not THEIR money to play with - so they are legally bound to maximise profits.

Say a CEO decides to invest in the local community as a thanks to the workers (such as the oilfields of Alberta), unless it can be seen to increase productivity / profits it is theft for him to spend "shareholders money" on doing this.

If you want to do something "ethical" to put back into the world, you do it with your OWN money.

If you want to externalise costs to the environment, local community or whatever, then thats fine and the CEO is only held responsible if he acted in a way without consultation.

How then, can we trust our future and our strategy on what is essentially a beast that has to make profit, whatever the external costs, without the right for remorse or fair play?

Corporations were invented and formed to serve the public, but now the big ones seem to work against us, with our goverments backing. BP are shocking for example, really really shocking.

And how do we trust our future and our strategy on people who are motivated by anything other than profit. The reason why businesses conduct policies such as sponsoring local causes is because it is good PR . Both sides win here because no local will want to go and work for a bunch of hire and fire sharks.

This system works a lot better than any notion of altruism that airy fairy lefties would like to think that they prefer. And what is for sure no leftie policy ever enriches anyone except the lefties themselves.

As for BP if you are referring to their oil spill in the gulf they have poured a vast fortune in making amends and repairs for something that they stood up and took full responsibility for.

It was cooperatives that were set up to serve local communities not corporations. Corporations all started from small businesses they were not "set up", they evolved.

[DodgyAgent]

So then Rob,

What about public services, the ones that are free at point of use ? Should we get rid of all of them , as they can never be profitable without compromising quality.

What quality?

The public services should be run for the primary purpose of serving the people (which they are not). They should be reformed with removal of labour protection laws and where possible (education) the consumer should be empowered to be able to make choices.

[Scoobos]

As for BP if you are referring to their oil spill in the gulf they have poured a vast fortune in making amends and repairs for something that they stood up and took full responsibility for.

It was cooperatives that were set up to serve local communities not corporations. Corporations all started from small businesses they were not "set up", they evolved.

[sasguru]

And how do we trust our future and our strategy on people who are motivated by anything other than profit..

Given that the banks' motivation for profit has all but bankrupted the whole country, how can you still argue this?
You really are a prize cretin.

[cykophysh39]

If closing something increases profitability. That means that the thing that was closed was unprofitable.

Far from it. It just means that it is possible to Increase profits! You may need to take sometime to comprehend this.

Believe what you want to believe. They don't.

There in lies the root of the problem. Therefore you back up the unsustainable argument.

[Robinho]

Far from it. It just means that it is possible to Increase profits! You may need to take sometime to comprehend this.

Exactly, profits are increased, that means the thing that was cut was hindering total profits and thus, was unprofitable. If the thing that was cut was profitable, then profits would decrease when it was cut.

It's pretty basic maths.

[cykophysh39]

Exactly, profits are increased, that means the thing that was cut was hindering total profits and thus, was unprofitable. If the thing that was cut was profitable, then profits would decrease when it was cut.

It's pretty basic maths.

Yes, and unfortunately you just don't seem to grasp the simple equation.

1 + 1 = 2
1 != 2