If a corporation charges enough to have lots of extra money to give away in charitable donations, then it's really the customer who's subsidizing the charity. That comes out of whatever the corporation charges the customer for its products or services.
Of course, a corporation can overcharge for other reasons.
The definition is implicit in the example. The company is charging more than it needs to to cover production/marketing expenses, pay its employees, plow the rest into R&D.
Of course, that's a circular appeal. And you're dodging the underlying point that a company could charge less for its products and services if it gave less to charity. That boils down to the customer making an involuntary contribution to the charity via corporate sponsorship.
Well, considering the "charitable" things like supporting vaccination programs to depopulate, I don't know that I want so much charity from them. Population control through deceit is bad.
Just one example from a quick Google search: http://www.chroniclewatch.com/2011/01/08/bill-gates-vaccinate-to-depopulate-say-what/
Why is having more than “it needs to cover production/marketing expenses, pay its employees, plow the rest into R&D” considered “overcharging”? That sounds like the rhetoric of a politician.
Overcharging is subjective. If you feel as though you received less benefit than the cost, then you’ve been overcharged. For all the benefits I’ve received from Microsoft and Apple products, I think I’ve been “undercharged.”
Just as a follow-up, do you advocate some sort of price controls or restrictions on what a company can do with profits so that consumers aren’t, in your opinion, “overcharged”?
One way the Lord illustrates the "Corporate charity" ruse is here:
Mar 12:38 And in his teaching he said, "Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around in long robes and like greetings in the marketplaces Mar 12:39 and have the best seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at feasts, Mar 12:40 who devour widows' houses and for a pretense make long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation." Mar 12:41 And he sat down opposite the treasury and watched the people putting money into the offering box. Many rich people put in large sums. Mar 12:42 And a poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which make a penny. Mar 12:43 And he called his disciples to him and said to them, "Truly, I say to you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the offering box. Mar 12:44 For they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, all she had to live on."
There is a place for applying Godly wisdom to making a "good" profit by our good works. But making more profit than you should, so that you appear to be a charitable giver, becomes nothing more than giving from the abundance taken out of the costs you charged your customers and they paid when doing a good work for them or providing them a good service. That isn't really godly or considered charitable giving.
Do you see what Christ is teaching the children of Light, then and now charity is?
In that nuanced case, profiteering, ["overcharging"], as has been said above, the customer, the customer is really the one subsidizing the charity, not the one giving to the charity.
At the end of the day, these things will be found true:
Psa 9:15 The nations have sunk in the pit that they made; in the net that they hid, their own foot has been caught. Psa 9:16 The LORD has made himself known; he has executed judgment; the wicked are snared in the work of their own hands. Higgaion. Selah Psa 9:17 The wicked shall return to Sheol, all the nations that forget God. Psa 9:18 For the needy shall not always be forgotten, and the hope of the poor shall not perish forever.
A New Testament anecdote for doing right and proper charitable giving can be found at Acts 20, cited below:
Act 20:32 And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified. Act 20:33 I coveted no one's silver or gold or apparel. Act 20:34 You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my necessities and to those who were with me. Act 20:35 In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'"
"Why is having more than 'it needs to cover production/marketing expenses, pay its employees, plow the rest into R&D' considered 'overcharging'? That sounds like the rhetoric of a politician."
And you sound like you're playing dumb.
"Overcharging is subjective."
I supplied an objective definition.
"Just as a follow-up, do you advocate some sort of price controls or restrictions on what a company can do with profits so that consumers aren’t, in your opinion, 'overcharged'?"
Yes, and your definition is absurd. By your definition, any corporation that has retained earnings is “overcharging” its customers.
“Irrelevant to my argument.”
That’s why I called it a “follow-up.” And it goes to the question of what you think should be done about what you believe to be “overcharging" customers. Do you have a theory of “just price” that you adhere to?
Well put. That's what good competition is supposed to do is keep overcharging down. Corporations must also make sure that their stockholders are confident in seeing some returns. I could be wrong, but I don't think auditors see charitable giving as a marketing expense.
"Yes, and your definition is absurd. By your definition, any corporation that has retained earnings is 'overcharging' its customers."
No, that doesn't follow from my definition. You're arguing in bad faith.
You sound like some hysterical libertarian who takes any criticism of business as a wholesale endorsement of the welfare state. Try to acquire a scintilla of sophistication.
Are you saying that Microsoft overcharges, whereas Apple doesn't necessarily overcharge for its products?
ReplyDeleteIf a corporation charges enough to have lots of extra money to give away in charitable donations, then it's really the customer who's subsidizing the charity. That comes out of whatever the corporation charges the customer for its products or services.
ReplyDeleteOf course, a corporation can overcharge for other reasons.
Define "overcharge."
ReplyDeleteThe definition is implicit in the example. The company is charging more than it needs to to cover production/marketing expenses, pay its employees, plow the rest into R&D.
ReplyDeleteDon't you think that a company's charitable giving can be an effective marketing tool?
ReplyDeleteOf course, that's a circular appeal. And you're dodging the underlying point that a company could charge less for its products and services if it gave less to charity. That boils down to the customer making an involuntary contribution to the charity via corporate sponsorship.
ReplyDeleteZING HAHAHAH nice.
ReplyDeleteWell, considering the "charitable" things like supporting vaccination programs to depopulate, I don't know that I want so much charity from them. Population control through deceit is bad.
ReplyDeleteJust one example from a quick Google search:
http://www.chroniclewatch.com/2011/01/08/bill-gates-vaccinate-to-depopulate-say-what/
Why is having more than “it needs to cover production/marketing expenses, pay its employees, plow the rest into R&D” considered “overcharging”? That sounds like the rhetoric of a politician.
ReplyDeleteOvercharging is subjective. If you feel as though you received less benefit than the cost, then you’ve been overcharged. For all the benefits I’ve received from Microsoft and Apple products, I think I’ve been “undercharged.”
Just as a follow-up, do you advocate some sort of price controls or restrictions on what a company can do with profits so that consumers aren’t, in your opinion, “overcharged”?
One way the Lord illustrates the "Corporate charity" ruse is here:
ReplyDeleteMar 12:38 And in his teaching he said, "Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around in long robes and like greetings in the marketplaces
Mar 12:39 and have the best seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at feasts,
Mar 12:40 who devour widows' houses and for a pretense make long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation."
Mar 12:41 And he sat down opposite the treasury and watched the people putting money into the offering box. Many rich people put in large sums.
Mar 12:42 And a poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which make a penny.
Mar 12:43 And he called his disciples to him and said to them, "Truly, I say to you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the offering box.
Mar 12:44 For they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, all she had to live on."
There is a place for applying Godly wisdom to making a "good" profit by our good works. But making more profit than you should, so that you appear to be a charitable giver, becomes nothing more than giving from the abundance taken out of the costs you charged your customers and they paid when doing a good work for them or providing them a good service. That isn't really godly or considered charitable giving.
Do you see what Christ is teaching the children of Light, then and now charity is?
In that nuanced case, profiteering, ["overcharging"], as has been said above, the customer, the customer is really the one subsidizing the charity, not the one giving to the charity.
At the end of the day, these things will be found true:
Psa 9:15 The nations have sunk in the pit that they made; in the net that they hid, their own foot has been caught.
Psa 9:16 The LORD has made himself known; he has executed judgment; the wicked are snared in the work of their own hands. Higgaion. Selah
Psa 9:17 The wicked shall return to Sheol, all the nations that forget God.
Psa 9:18 For the needy shall not always be forgotten, and the hope of the poor shall not perish forever.
A New Testament anecdote for doing right and proper charitable giving can be found at Acts 20, cited below:
Act 20:32 And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified.
Act 20:33 I coveted no one's silver or gold or apparel.
Act 20:34 You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my necessities and to those who were with me.
Act 20:35 In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'"
Yep. "I give 1/10 of All that I own!"-Religious elite.
ReplyDeleteThis boasting can be made to look righteous can't it. And greed is there in that same heart, there can be no doubt. Good word.
FWIW SAID:
ReplyDelete"Why is having more than 'it needs to cover production/marketing expenses, pay its employees, plow the rest into R&D' considered 'overcharging'? That sounds like the rhetoric of a politician."
And you sound like you're playing dumb.
"Overcharging is subjective."
I supplied an objective definition.
"Just as a follow-up, do you advocate some sort of price controls or restrictions on what a company can do with profits so that consumers aren’t, in your opinion, 'overcharged'?"
Irrelevant to my argument.
“I supplied an objective definition.”
ReplyDeleteYes, and your definition is absurd. By your definition, any corporation that has retained earnings is “overcharging” its customers.
“Irrelevant to my argument.”
That’s why I called it a “follow-up.” And it goes to the question of what you think should be done about what you believe to be “overcharging" customers. Do you have a theory of “just price” that you adhere to?
Well put. That's what good competition is supposed to do is keep overcharging down. Corporations must also make sure that their stockholders are confident in seeing some returns. I could be wrong, but I don't think auditors see charitable giving as a marketing expense.
ReplyDeleteFWIW SAID:
ReplyDelete"Yes, and your definition is absurd. By your definition, any corporation that has retained earnings is 'overcharging' its customers."
No, that doesn't follow from my definition. You're arguing in bad faith.
You sound like some hysterical libertarian who takes any criticism of business as a wholesale endorsement of the welfare state. Try to acquire a scintilla of sophistication.