November 29, 2009

PROFIT LOGIC

A good blog post via Amritas about how there's no logic to profit-based hatred:

while politicians routinely attack BIG oil for its high profits, the same politicians are silent about the highER profit margins of Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo. For every dollar Exxon keeps after paying their bills, Google keeps $3. Exxon is attacked because they sell more units than Google, but in reality, Google is keeping more of the customer’s money. Politicians don’t concern themselves with this kind of stuff, because Google is very popular with the electorate, and oil companies are not.

Read the whole thing, and see if you can guess ahead of time how much profit medical insurance companies make.

Posted by: Sarah at 09:59 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 117 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I totally agree and have been blasting liberals with this fact for years. Trust me, it's gets em every time. Next time you hear someone ranting about profits, ask them if they know what the profit margin is? Most don't which is the sad part. Thank you, Neal Boortz, for pointing this out to me because I too used to believe in the profit-bashing "logic."

The idea that Exxon produces a 3 - 10% profit margin and Google has around a 45% profit margin, yet all we hear is how "evil" Exxon is to the consumming public is such a double standard if there ever was one. In fact, in the Search Engine Marketing arena Google owns about 70% of the market share. To put it in perspective, around $20 billion is earned across all SEM annually, 70% of that would be around 14 billion to put it in perspective (just an estimation though). And we're not even talking about an industry that requires the overhead/operational expenses likes the oil industry.

Yet you don't hear a peep from Democrats about the near monopoly and out-of-control profits when it comes to Google.  Good grief, I'm getting pissed off just writing about it. 

Posted by: BigD78 at November 30, 2009 01:30 PM (W3XUk)

2

Google also has the advantage that its infrastructure is relatively unobtrusive: no pipelines, rail lines, foundries, etc.

If all our politicians permit to exist is businesses of this type, though, we will soon find ourselves starving and freezing in the dark.

I'm not sure the Google founders have sufficient intellectual depth to understand how the well-being of their own business is linked to the well-being of the so-called "industrial age" businesses.

Some vaguely-related thoughts at my post myths of the knowledge society.

 

 

 

 

 

Posted by: david foster at November 30, 2009 01:35 PM (kpkkH)

3 Sarah,

there's no logic

There is a logic. Against each according to his unpopularity among the 'in' crowd. If given a choice to attack Apple or Microsoft, Leftists will choose the latter, even if Apple has a higher profit margin, because Windows is eeeevil and Macs Never Crash™.

I don't know what Apple's profit margin is. The point is that profit margins are irrelevant to Leftist targeting. And no, I wouldn't be happy if Leftists started obsessing over profit margins. The real problem is the Leftist anti-profit mindset. Even if profit margins were slashed to 0.0001%, it's not fair that those greedy monsters keep anything, unlike oh-so-noble Obama. Waaaahhhh!

Ever notice that Leftists never go berserk about Michelle Obama's old salary? Note the words in bold:

How much does she make? $325,000 a year last I heard. I break that down as follows:

$50,000 a year for being a Princeton/Harvard Law grad who no longer practices law—that is, what she would make if she were white

$120,000 a year for combining black skin with preppy pearls and vocabulary

$155,000 a year for being celebrity Barack Obama’s wife

Profits earned without fraud are the product of merit. Leftism, on the other hand, is obsessed with prestige, not merit. Michelle Obama has all the proper aristocratic traits, so of course she 'deserves' $325,000. Conversely, Sarah Palin lacks all those traits, so of course she 'deserves' contempt, just like Sam Walton. John T. Reed sums up this aspect of the Leftist mindset (emphasis his):

They hate capitalism because it lets the “wrong” people win [...]

The left does not want maximum prosperity for all. They want all [uncool] rich people who disagree with them to be stripped of their money. [But cool rich people like Obama and St. Gore can keep their money.] They understand that this will impoverish all but the government apparatchiks. That is what they want. They plan to be government apparatchiks. The left wants to wipe off the face of the earth anyone of whom their side is envious.

BigD78,

Yet you don't hear a peep from Democrats about the near monopoly and out-of-control profits when it comes to Google. [Emphasis mine.]

Nope. Not a single demand for the eeeevil monopoly of Google to break up. (Not that I want a broken Google.  I love Google. I just hate hypocrisy.)

I wonder how much Exxon contributes to the Democrats. Possibly more than Google?

david,

I'm not sure the Google founders have sufficient intellectual depth to understand how the well-being of their own business is linked to the well-being of the so-called "industrial age" businesses.

Most people, including successful businessmen, are tunnelers - experts in their narrow field who are wholly unaware of the big picture. Leftists can fool them into applauding the destruction of the businesses they depend on outside their 'tunnel'. "See, you'll do just fine, unlike those losers over there who 'deserve' the full statist treatment." But coolness doesn't last forever, and those who fall out of fashion may be new targets of the infinitely envious.

Posted by: Amritas at November 30, 2009 03:39 PM (+nV09)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
48kb generated in CPU 0.04, elapsed 0.2254 seconds.
49 queries taking 0.1999 seconds, 200 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.