Liberal Attitudes
KC 2.0 --faster than before
"Liberals may think of themselves as people who believe in certain
principles but, if you observe their actual behavior, you are likely to
discover that most liberals have a certain set of attitudes, rather than
principles.
"Liberals may denounce "greed," for example, but in practice it all
depends on whose greed. Nothing the government does is ever likely to be
called "greed" by liberals.
"Even when the government confiscated more than half the income of some
people in taxes, that was not greed, as far as the left was concerned. Nor
is it greed in their eyes when local politicians across the country
bulldoze whole working class neighborhoods, destroying homes that people
spent a lifetime sacrificing to buy, and paying them less than the market
value of those homes through legal chicanery.
"Even when the land seized under "eminent domain" laws are turned over
to casinos, hotels, or shopping malls -- places that will pay more taxes
than working class homeowners -- liberals can never seem to work up the
outrage that they display when denouncing "greed" on the part of
businesses whose prices are higher than liberals think they should be.
"It is not the principle of sacrificing other people's economic
interests to your own that causes liberals to denounce greed. It is a
question of who does it and what the liberals' attitudes are to those
segments of the population."
...
'Liberal attitudes' by Thomas Sowell (Apr 5 2005) at
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20050405.shtml
Scratch
Yep they love those taxes. If they had to actually work and NOT depend
on the government, NEA what ever, they would cry like babies. Long as
they have their hand in your pocket they are happy.
ray
Excellent post KC, and this guy is on to something here. When I get
into arguments with liberals here about VIP's getting million dollar
bonuses and how they and Corporate America are pigs, I like to bring up
Hollywood.
If a person gets an education, moves up in the business world, makes
connections in business and politics and eventually is able to earn such
money, he/she is a pig because they are earning money off the backs of
the labor force. On the other hand, if Goldie Hawn and the likes of her
get 10 million bucks to make a movie, drive up the cost of video
rentals, movie theaters and commercial or Cable T.V. it's quite OK.
So when middle and lower class have to pay ridiculous prices at sports
arenas, theaters, concerts, cable television etc,etc so that these
people can earn such money, they have no problem with that. No problem
when a family wants to go out and have to spend $6.00 for a bag of
popcorn, $5.00 for a small cup of soda or $8.00 for a cup of warm stale
beer. But God forbid when their electric bill goes up $3.00 per month
and they find that the electric company paid some guy a 2 mil bonus at
Christmas.
Don Homuth
>Excellent post KC, and this guy is on to something here. When I get
>into arguments with liberals here about VIP's getting million dollar
>bonuses and how they and Corporate America are pigs, I like to bring up
>Hollywood.
Why just Hollywood? Why not professional athletes too?
They are both paid for their Star Power, which translates directly
into ticket sales and television revenues.
Those folks have No comparison with those in the bidniss world, save
for the amounts of money they get paid.
>If a person gets an education, moves up in the business world, makes
>connections in business and politics and eventually is able to earn such
>money, he/she is a pig because they are earning money off the backs of
>the labor force.
When one finds that their Labor Force -- which is the source of their
money -- is given short shrift in the proceeds, then yeah -- that's
not a bad discussion to have. The folks in Hollywood may make a lot,
but the studio execs make a lot as well. Therein is a world of
difference.
> On the other hand, if Goldie Hawn and the likes of her
>get 10 million bucks to make a movie, drive up the cost of video
>rentals, movie theaters and commercial or Cable T.V. it's quite OK.
Goldie gets $10m because the studios willingly pay her to do it. She
has no direct effect on the costs of videos, movie theaters or
television. Those are paid elsewhere.
>So when middle and lower class have to pay ridiculous prices at sports
>arenas, theaters, concerts, cable television etc,etc so that these
>people can earn such money, they have no problem with that.
The costs of the Stars has essentially no effect on the price
moviegoers pay to attend. In fact, it isn't even close.
> No problem
>when a family wants to go out and have to spend $6.00 for a bag of
>popcorn, $5.00 for a small cup of soda or $8.00 for a cup of warm stale
>beer.
Those are Captive Prices, set by the movie chains, and they have
little to do with the salaries paid to movie stars. In fact, you'll
find that movie chains tend to use the pictures themselves as Loss
Leaders and make most of their money off the concession revenues.
> But God forbid when their electric bill goes up $3.00 per month
>and they find that the electric company paid some guy a 2 mil bonus at
>Christmas.
Well, when PGE collects millions in the form of Taxes from ratepayers,
then doesn't pay the taxes, then pays some exec a $2M Bonus, there's
certainly something pretty smelly going on.
(Note that I didn't even Mention the Enron fiasco -- though that would
be open for discussion as well.)
Dave Thompson
"ray" <xxxr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:xxxrayted-8B936...@news.newsguy.com...
Oh ya do? How special.
I like to bring up mega churches and their preachers like Robertson,
Fallwel, Dobson, et al.
But we both know that's not a fair comparison, now is it?
I mean, Hollywood is making money on something that's really important that
people take really seriously, you know, entertainment. The Mega preachers
are just some guys screwing people over for billions on something as trivial
as morality, the after life, and saving souls, so that they can live the
good life and leverage politics.
Hollywood really is duping people and screwing them over, huh?
Ray responds: (crickets chirping, big fat arrogant conservative yapper
slapped to silence).
ray
Don Homuth <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 19:59:33 -0400, ray <xxxr...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Excellent post KC, and this guy is on to something here. When I get
> >into arguments with liberals here about VIP's getting million dollar
> >bonuses and how they and Corporate America are pigs, I like to bring up
> >Hollywood.
>
> Why just Hollywood? Why not professional athletes too?
>
> They are both paid for their Star Power, which translates directly
> into ticket sales and television revenues.
>
> Those folks have No comparison with those in the bidniss world, save
> for the amounts of money they get paid.
>
> >If a person gets an education, moves up in the business world, makes
> >connections in business and politics and eventually is able to earn such
> >money, he/she is a pig because they are earning money off the backs of
> >the labor force.
>
> When one finds that their Labor Force -- which is the source of their
> money -- is given short shrift in the proceeds, then yeah -- that's
> not a bad discussion to have. The folks in Hollywood may make a lot,
> but the studio execs make a lot as well. Therein is a world of
> difference.
Well if you do understand how business works in this country, you will
find that most CEO''s get paid because of their talent and not because
they hit a good back 9 on the Golf Course as most liberals would
believe. They like to point out the labor aspect of it all, but fail to
believe that there may be no jobs at all if not for the talents of the
bigwigs. Therefore, really no difference at all. People get paid what
they are worth regardless what somebody else in the company makes.
> > On the other hand, if Goldie Hawn and the likes of her
> >get 10 million bucks to make a movie, drive up the cost of video
> >rentals, movie theaters and commercial or Cable T.V. it's quite OK.
>
> Goldie gets $10m because the studios willingly pay her to do it. She
> has no direct effect on the costs of videos, movie theaters or
> television. Those are paid elsewhere.
Then if that statement were true,you would have to debate that with the
entertainment outlets. For instance, cable television companies pointed
out that the premium channels went up because of the cost that Hollywood
sells their product for. It's like any other business. You produce a
product for X amount of dollars. You charge X amount of dollars because
of all the cost that goes into producing that product.
> >So when middle and lower class have to pay ridiculous prices at sports
> >arenas, theaters, concerts, cable television etc,etc so that these
> >people can earn such money, they have no problem with that.
>
> The costs of the Stars has essentially no effect on the price
> moviegoers pay to attend. In fact, it isn't even close.
Really? Then they get this money to pay these people how?
> > No problem
> >when a family wants to go out and have to spend $6.00 for a bag of
> >popcorn, $5.00 for a small cup of soda or $8.00 for a cup of warm stale
> >beer.
>
> Those are Captive Prices, set by the movie chains, and they have
> little to do with the salaries paid to movie stars. In fact, you'll
> find that movie chains tend to use the pictures themselves as Loss
> Leaders and make most of their money off the concession revenues.
Well if they are losing money, how is that possible? The only way it is
possible is if the price of the movie exceeds ticket revenue. For
instance, let's say that a movie draws in 1000 customers at one theater
during its run. The amount collected would (at $7.00 per head) then be
$7,000.00. By your own statement, that movie costs the theater over
$7,000.00. To make up the loss of that movie, they have to charge
ridiculous prices on goods to make up the cost.
Now, Goldie Hawn may not get a cut off each bag of popcorn, but the
prices of goods at the theater are set high enough to pay for the price
loss of that film. Indirectly, the price of theater goods are that high
because of the cost of manufacturing that movie which includes the cost
of the stars. How could it not? Earlier you used the word "direct" and
you are correct. But, these costs are "indirect" and the price of what
you pay people are included in the price of the product.
> > But God forbid when their electric bill goes up $3.00 per month
> >and they find that the electric company paid some guy a 2 mil bonus at
> >Christmas.
>
> Well, when PGE collects millions in the form of Taxes from ratepayers,
> then doesn't pay the taxes, then pays some exec a $2M Bonus, there's
> certainly something pretty smelly going on.
>
> (Note that I didn't even Mention the Enron fiasco -- though that would
> be open for discussion as well.)
True. But what usually isn't mentioned is that these bigwigs don't work
at an hourly rate or even salary. They are under contract. If a person
has a contract with a guarantee of a 2 mil bonus within 3 years and the
company takes a nose dive, they still have to honor the contract of the
person they hired. Now, you can blame the company for making a bad
move, but you can't blame the person who filled the position. They are
(by contract) entitled to that bonus no matter what.
Fenris
Not all corporate bonuses bother me. What bothers me is reading about CEO
taking obscene bonus while the company is losing money. It is also a fact
that corporate bonuses to upper management have gotten totally out of
proportion to what everyone else is making. There have been several studies
documenting exactly that trend. Its not the laborers that are getting
ripped off, it's the shareholders. Unrestrained greed has become the norm
for many at the top of the corporate ladder.
On the other hand, if Goldie Hawn and the likes of her
> get 10 million bucks to make a movie, drive up the cost of video
> rentals, movie theaters and commercial or Cable T.V. it's quite OK.
>
> So when middle and lower class have to pay ridiculous prices at sports
> arenas, theaters, concerts, cable television
Nobody has to pay for any of these things. They are all discretionary
spending. Its called entertainment.
etc,etc so that these
> people can earn such money, they have no problem with that. No problem
> when a family wants to go out and have to spend $6.00 for a bag of
> popcorn, $5.00 for a small cup of soda or $8.00 for a cup of warm stale
> beer.
All discretionary spending, and where are they spending this kind of money?
But God forbid when their electric bill goes up $3.00 per month
> and they find that the electric company paid some guy a 2 mil bonus at
> Christmas.
How do you feel about management bonuses for companies that are losing
money? Its actually quite common.
Fenris
"Don Homuth" <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:dgro519u46ucau8pp...@4ax.com...
You are delerious, Don. Where do you think the money to pay the Stars comes
from?
ray
"Dave Thompson" <ab...@thedoor.com> wrote:
Really? Well for your information, I believe that all churches should
be taxed. I also believe that many of these religious leaders are in it
for the money. But, I won't be the fire calling the kettle black.
I most certainly am open to the fact that support groups from both sides
of the political ally do it. But you will never hear (or read) me say
that it's the Democrats or Liberals that are doing it alone. They both
do it. I defend myself with the Hollywood industry to point out that
there is a similarity between "screwing" the poor and middle-class when
somebody tells me that Right-Winged Corporations are screwing the little
guy. It's not like your people don't do it too!!!
chainsaw
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 19:59:33 -0400, ray <xxxr...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Excellent post KC, and this guy is on to something here. When I get
>>into arguments with liberals here about VIP's getting million dollar
>>bonuses and how they and Corporate America are pigs, I like to bring up
>>Hollywood.
>
>
> Why just Hollywood? Why not professional athletes too?
Because most athletes have the common sense to stick to their chosen
craft, and not fancy themselves latter day propagandists!
chainsaw
> Not all corporate bonuses bother me. What bothers me is reading about CEO
> taking obscene bonus while the company is losing money.
So if their contract was inked earlier the board should reneg?
Can you say - lawsuit?
Fenris
What rational business would guarantee a bonus to its exec whether the
company made money or not? Bonuses are supposed to be an incentive. How is
it an incentive if he(or she) gets the bonus no matter what?
Clave
news:MT07e.180$u95...@twister.socal.rr.com...
<...>
> What rational business would guarantee a bonus to its exec whether the company
> made money or not? Bonuses are supposed to be an incentive. How is it an
> incentive if he(or she) gets the bonus no matter what?
It's an incentive to take the job in the first place.
Jim
Jim Lovejoy
news:7s07e.4228275$Zm5.6...@news.easynews.com:
Try reading for comprehension.
The key word is "bonus".
If the contract calls for a bonus for poor results, the contract writer
should be fired. However, since the people who set the salary, and the
people who get it, are in an incestuous relationship, nothing of the sort
will happen.
ray
"Fenris" <ho...@themoon.com> wrote:
> > If a person gets an education, moves up in the business world, makes
> > connections in business and politics and eventually is able to earn such
> > money, he/she is a pig because they are earning money off the backs of
> > the labor force.
>
> Not all corporate bonuses bother me. What bothers me is reading about CEO
> taking obscene bonus while the company is losing money. It is also a fact
> that corporate bonuses to upper management have gotten totally out of
> proportion to what everyone else is making. There have been several studies
> documenting exactly that trend. Its not the laborers that are getting
> ripped off, it's the shareholders. Unrestrained greed has become the norm
> for many at the top of the corporate ladder.
When a company pays out money to anybody, they do so to make a profit.
Now, if the shareholders are getting ripped off, it should be reported
and investigated by the S.E.C. but in most cases, corporations are doing
nothing illegal regardless of whom they steer those profits to.
> On the other hand, if Goldie Hawn and the likes of her
> > get 10 million bucks to make a movie, drive up the cost of video
> > rentals, movie theaters and commercial or Cable T.V. it's quite OK.
> >
> > So when middle and lower class have to pay ridiculous prices at sports
> > arenas, theaters, concerts, cable television
>
> Nobody has to pay for any of these things. They are all discretionary
> spending. Its called entertainment.
But is it not also greed? Why is it greed when a company hires a C.E.O.
to run an organization for profit and yet, greed is not a word spoken by
those in Hollywood? I understand that "trickle down" doesn't agree with
those on the left, but the truth is, trickle down is the nature of all
financial activity in this country.
So is it not "discretionary" when people purchase products from a
company that gives out such bonuses? With the exception of Government
programs, isn't all spending "discretionary?" After all the flack with
WallMart, why are they still successful? Discretionary?
> etc,etc so that these
> > people can earn such money, they have no problem with that. No problem
> > when a family wants to go out and have to spend $6.00 for a bag of
> > popcorn, $5.00 for a small cup of soda or $8.00 for a cup of warm stale
> > beer.
>
> All discretionary spending, and where are they spending this kind of money?
Well I can't speak for every entertainment outlet, but where I live,
that kind of spending goes on in most of the popular entertainment
fields.
A few years ago, a friend of mine took his young son to a baseball game.
He was raped by the price of parking and tickets. Once inside, he told
me that he had 4 beers that cost him close to $30.00. His son of course
couldn't help but stop every vendor in the place. Hot Dogs, Pop,
Popcorn etc,etc. By the time he and his son left the ball field, he
spent over $150.00 for a afternoon out with his son at his first major
league ball game.
Of course, they have to charge these prices to pay these ball players
millions of dollars per year. Why is this not greed by the athletes?
> But God forbid when their electric bill goes up $3.00 per month
> > and they find that the electric company paid some guy a 2 mil bonus at
> > Christmas.
>
>
> How do you feel about management bonuses for companies that are losing
> money? Its actually quite common.
Yes it is, but what isn't considered is that many of these people get
hired under contract and not performance. It's under their contract
that they get these bonuses regardless of the outcome of the company.
Also people don't want to consider the possibility of that same company
going under sooner years before it happened. In many cases, it's that
C.E.O. that got the company a year or two of life that they normally
wouldn't have had.
If you take a look at the Wallstreet Journal, you will see an exchange
of C.E.O.s all the time. Even in your local business papers you can see
these people getting hired and fired. You might be upset with the fact
that a person who receives such bonuses allowed a company to go under,
but do you have the same feelings about a Union worker that doesn't
perform yet keeps his or her job?
ray
"Clave" <ClaviusNo...@CableSpeed.com> wrote:
Thank you. You saved me the time to answer that :)
Dave Thompson
Fire?
>
> I most certainly am open to the fact that support groups from both sides
> of the political ally do it. But you will never hear (or read) me say
> that it's the Democrats or Liberals that are doing it alone. They both
> do it. I defend myself with the Hollywood industry to point out that
> there is a similarity between "screwing" the poor and middle-class when
> somebody tells me that Right-Winged Corporations are screwing the little
> guy. It's not like your people don't do it too!!!
My people?
Magnulus
> Well if you do understand how business works in this country, you will
> find that most CEO''s get paid because of their talent and not because
> they hit a good back 9 on the Golf Course as most liberals would
> believe.
Hogwash. Detroit, as an example, is full of no-talent shits for CEO's,
people who are out-of-touch and lack vision, who only measure success by how
their short-term profits are doing. The United Auto Workers should stop
blaming the Japanese and start blaming Americans for their woes.
European and Asian car companies do not work that way. They measure
success in terms of market share, product innovation, and servicing the
needs of their customers, not in how their stocks are doing or how much
money they raked in. Toyota is already set to be the second or third
largest car company selling to the US, and Volkswagen is Europe's largest
carmaker and one of the largest globally (half of all foreign cars sold in
China for instance are VW's, this is a huge emerging market- VW also has
huge market share in Latin America), even though the brand has taken a
slight beating in the US.
> Well if they are losing money, how is that possible? The only way it is
> possible is if the price of the movie exceeds ticket revenue. For
> instance, let's say that a movie draws in 1000 customers at one theater
> during its run.
Hollywood makes about half their money off theater tickets, sometimes
less. The other half they make off DVD sales.
The price of popcorn is unrelated to how much an actress gets. The
popcorn is there to basicly subsidize the theater so they can have the
tickets at 8 dollars instead of 16 dollars. The theater charges the same
amount of money for a movie at a given time, regardless of how much money
the movie cost to make.
And why picking on Hollywood as a bastion of liberalism? Most Hollywood
CEO's are capitalists and some are Republicans. They are in it for the
money, first and foremost, not the ideology. Bashing Hollywood is the
favorite Republican phoney populist tactic, of course, it's a cheap tactic.
Talk is cheap. One can say the moon is made of green cheese, at no cost,
but that doesn't make it so.
> True. But what usually isn't mentioned is that these bigwigs don't work
> at an hourly rate or even salary. They are under contract. If a person
> has a contract with a guarantee of a 2 mil bonus within 3 years and the
> company takes a nose dive, they still have to honor the contract of the
> person they hired.
That's the old theory, and doesn't seem to work out in the real world.
Plenty of loser CEO's see their companies as a sinking ship over which they
have no care, therefore, its less an incentive than a feeding frenzy.
Magnulus
> But is it not also greed? Why is it greed when a company hires a C.E.O.
> to run an organization for profit and yet, greed is not a word spoken by
> those in Hollywood?
Are you trying to tell me Michael Eisner is not a capitalist (I guess
Eisner is stepping down now as CEO of Disney)? Could have fooled me.
> I understand that "trickle down" doesn't agree with
> those on the left, but the truth is, trickle down is the nature of all
> financial activity in this country.
Not true. Trickle down is an economic theory, one that is bankrupt. If
you want to see the apotheosis of "trickle down economics", crack open a
history book on "the Middle Ages". Serfdom is the endpoint of the masses
for laissez-faire capitalism.
Haven't you heard about the new "credit responsability act", or whatever
Orwellian double speak the Republicans are using. It's designed to ensnare
even more poor and middle-class people into perpetual credit card debt, or
worse, financial destruction. There's Trickle Down for you! Open up all a
persons assets to seizure, no matter what dire economic circumstances they
are in. Hey, if you gotta buy your meds with a credit card because you
can't afford healthcare- too bad. You lose your house!
>
> So is it not "discretionary" when people purchase products from a
> company that gives out such bonuses? With the exception of Government
> programs, isn't all spending "discretionary?" After all the flack with
> WallMart, why are they still successful? Discretionary?
Wal-Mart is successful because of predatory practices, not because they
actually have a quality product. Sam Walton used the same tricky snake oil
that every other low-end retailer has used for years. He was just ruthless
with competition and labor. (here's a hint, Wal-Mart's prices are not
necessarily really low, they just make it look that way by the way they
position certain products in the store, usually the cheapest ones they can
get- often from China.)
>
> Of course, they have to charge these prices to pay these ball players
> millions of dollars per year. Why is this not greed by the athletes?
If you don't like it, you don't have to go see the games. What really
jacked up salaries for most sports was TV exposure. Advertising created a
big stream of revenue for everybody involved that was not there before.
>
> but do you have the same feelings about a Union worker that doesn't
> perform yet keeps his or her job?
The union worker is producing more for the economy than the lame CEO. The
union worker buys actual products with his money, not dumping it into
speculative stocks or real-estate.
Here's a hint, all that money being taken away from the dot-com collapse
is wrecking havoc in the buyer's market for housing and rent, and also on
the price of oil (rampant speculation). Sometimes, too much money prices
everybody else out of the market by overvaluation.
Don Homuth
>In article <dgro519u46ucau8pp...@4ax.com>,
> Don Homuth <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 19:59:33 -0400, ray <xxxr...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >If a person gets an education, moves up in the business world, makes
>> >connections in business and politics and eventually is able to earn such
>> >money, he/she is a pig because they are earning money off the backs of
>> >the labor force.
>>
>> When one finds that their Labor Force -- which is the source of their
>> money -- is given short shrift in the proceeds, then yeah -- that's
>> not a bad discussion to have. The folks in Hollywood may make a lot,
>> but the studio execs make a lot as well. Therein is a world of
>> difference.
>
>
>Well if you do understand how business works in this country, you will
>find that most CEO''s get paid because of their talent and not because
>they hit a good back 9 on the Golf Course as most liberals would
>believe.
Most libruls Never discuss golf scores. That's a predisposition of
the Right types.
But what Most CEO's get paid for is open to considerable conjecture.
Most run their own firms. What gets noticed is those who come in,
outsource the employment, run the company into the ground, then walk
away with a multi-million severance package that they themselves
negotiated Before their employment as a hedge against their own
incompetence.
Does that fromage folks deeply? You bet it does!
> They like to point out the labor aspect of it all, but fail to
>believe that there may be no jobs at all if not for the talents of the
>bigwigs.
After experiencing the "talents of the bigwigs" they oftimes find
that indeed, there are no jobs at all. Just part of the problem.
> Therefore, really no difference at all.
Nonsense!
> People get paid what
>they are worth regardless what somebody else in the company makes.
Also nonsense. People get paid what they negotiate, regardless of
what somebody else in the company makes. Part of the blame also
devolves to incompetent BoD types as well -- but they're just part of
the same club.
>> Goldie gets $10m because the studios willingly pay her to do it. She
>> has no direct effect on the costs of videos, movie theaters or
>> television. Those are paid elsewhere.
>
>Then if that statement were true,you would have to debate that with the
>entertainment outlets. For instance, cable television companies pointed
>out that the premium channels went up because of the cost that Hollywood
>sells their product for.
What's astonishing is that You believe them.
> It's like any other business. You produce a
>product for X amount of dollars. You charge X amount of dollars because
>of all the cost that goes into producing that product.
No -- if you understand Pricing, you find that Price is a function of
Market, and not of Costs.
>> The costs of the Stars has essentially no effect on the price
>> moviegoers pay to attend. In fact, it isn't even close.
>
>Really? Then they get this money to pay these people how?
Re-read for content and comprehension.
>> > No problem
>> >when a family wants to go out and have to spend $6.00 for a bag of
>> >popcorn, $5.00 for a small cup of soda or $8.00 for a cup of warm stale
>> >beer.
>>
>> Those are Captive Prices, set by the movie chains, and they have
>> little to do with the salaries paid to movie stars. In fact, you'll
>> find that movie chains tend to use the pictures themselves as Loss
>> Leaders and make most of their money off the concession revenues.
>
>Well if they are losing money, how is that possible?
Apparently you are not familiar with the concept of Loss Leader? A
graduate course in Marketing might help, along with a graduate course
or two in Pricing Theory. The two go together.
> The only way it is
>possible is if the price of the movie exceeds ticket revenue.
That is indeed possible, and it does happen. Some movies just bomb
when it comes to ticket sales. But the theater chains still make
concession revenue withal.
> For instance, let's say that a movie draws in 1000 customers at one theater
>during its run. The amount collected would (at $7.00 per head) then be
>$7,000.00. By your own statement, that movie costs the theater over
>$7,000.00. To make up the loss of that movie, they have to charge
>ridiculous prices on goods to make up the cost.
Heh! No -- they charge those ridiculous prices on concessions not
because they Must, but because they Can. If you sneak a chocolate bar
into the theater and are caught with the candy contraband, you can be
tossed out summarily for the offense.
The economics of theaters seem to elude your comprehension. Talk with
someone in the industry, sometime.
>Now, Goldie Hawn may not get a cut off each bag of popcorn,
Assuredly she does not.
> but the
>prices of goods at the theater are set high enough to pay for the price
>loss of that film.
Nope. The costs remain the same Regardless of the profit/loss on the
film. Those are captive prices -- not competitive prices.
> Indirectly, the price of theater goods are that high
>because of the cost of manufacturing that movie which includes the cost
>of the stars. How could it not?
That's how concessisons are priced, Regardless of whether or not the
films themselves are profitable. It simply doesn't matter.
> Earlier you used the word "direct" and
>you are correct. But, these costs are "indirect" and the price of what
>you pay people are included in the price of the product.
Not even close! The economics of films no longer discuss only the
profitability of ticket sales, but followup DVD sales, rental
commissions and television syndications and re-runs. Those prices
seem also likewise not to be affected at all by the wages paid to the
talent. They are set not as a function of Cost, but as a function of
What The Market Will Bear.
That's how The Market actually works. Costs don't drive Price.
>> > But God forbid when their electric bill goes up $3.00 per month
>> >and they find that the electric company paid some guy a 2 mil bonus at
>> >Christmas.
>>
>> Well, when PGE collects millions in the form of Taxes from ratepayers,
>> then doesn't pay the taxes, then pays some exec a $2M Bonus, there's
>> certainly something pretty smelly going on.
>>
>> (Note that I didn't even Mention the Enron fiasco -- though that would
>> be open for discussion as well.)
>
>True. But what usually isn't mentioned is that these bigwigs don't work
>at an hourly rate or even salary. They are under contract.
So what? They get paid a Ton of cash for being incompetent, unethical
and predatory regardless of whether or not they have a contract.
> If a person
>has a contract with a guarantee of a 2 mil bonus within 3 years and the
>company takes a nose dive, they still have to honor the contract of the
>person they hired.
Nice work, if you can get it. Meanwhile, those selfsame folks whine
Endlessly about Labor getting a contract, and try every which way to
break it if they can.
> Now, you can blame the company for making a bad
>move, but you can't blame the person who filled the position. They are
>(by contract) entitled to that bonus no matter what.
A "bonus no matter what."
Within that phrase is a pretty good summation of the entire nature of
the problem here. Read it again, several times, and you'll see it.
Don Homuth
Then it's a Signing bonus, not a performance bonus.
Call it what it really is.
Don Homuth
>
>"Don Homuth" <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:dgro519u46ucau8pp...@4ax.com...
>> The costs of the Stars has essentially no effect on the price
>> moviegoers pay to attend. In fact, it isn't even close.
>
>You are delerious, Don. Where do you think the money to pay the Stars comes
>from?
The price of movie theater tickets is Not a function of the salaries
paid to stars, or even the cost of the movie.
I didn't make that up. Really.
Don Homuth
I had to wander up to Portland and back to help edit some Horse video
stuff my wife is involved with. Now -- to continue our discussion:
>"Don Homuth" <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:dgro519u46ucau8pp...@4ax.com...
>> The costs of the Stars has essentially no effect on the price
>> moviegoers pay to attend. In fact, it isn't even close.
>
>You are delerious, Don. Where do you think the money to pay the Stars comes
>from?
You will find that Cost has a direct effect on Margin. If it's a
problem, then discuss it with a Management Accountant who's done some
professional work on such matters. Find one at an MBA level
preferably -- that's usually where such stuff is taught.
It has essentialy No effect on Price, however. The latter is a
function of The Market. A little time spent pondering why that is
true would be well spent.
Goods and services are not Priced according to what they Cost. That's
an elementary misperception that even my undergraduate BA students had
difficulty wrapping their heads around, but eventually most of them
came to see it.
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Don Homuth" <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1koq5116sn5kelo5h...@4ax.com...
>
> Goods and services are not Priced according to what they Cost. That's
> an elementary misperception that even my undergraduate BA students had
> difficulty wrapping their heads around, but eventually most of them
> came to see it.
When I was young, I worked for a small businessman. He summed up his
philosophy in five words: "All the traffic will bear."
Jeff Welch
"KC 2.0 --faster than before" <right...@reincarnate.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.58a.0504051731560.18103@uhunix2...
>"Nothing the government does is ever likely to be
> called "greed" by liberals.
Ah, how times have changed.
This statement describes the current batch of Bushie neocons and theocons to
a "t".
-Jeff
Fenris
So the cost of a product has no effect on its price? Where did you say you
learned this great wisdom? I assume you have heard about the theory of
supply and demand. Here's a hint, the cost of producing a movie affects the
supply side of the equation.
Fenris
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 03:02:28 GMT, "Fenris" <ho...@themoon.com> wrote:
>
> I had to wander up to Portland and back to help edit some Horse video
> stuff my wife is involved with. Now -- to continue our discussion:
>
>
>>"Don Homuth" <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:dgro519u46ucau8pp...@4ax.com...
>
>>> The costs of the Stars has essentially no effect on the price
>>> moviegoers pay to attend. In fact, it isn't even close.
>>
>>You are delerious, Don. Where do you think the money to pay the Stars
>>comes
>>from?
>
> You will find that Cost has a direct effect on Margin. If it's a
> problem, then discuss it with a Management Accountant who's done some
> professional work on such matters. Find one at an MBA level
> preferably -- that's usually where such stuff is taught.
>
> It has essentialy No effect on Price, however. The latter is a
> function of The Market. A little time spent pondering why that is
> true would be well spent.
>
> Goods and services are not Priced according to what they Cost. That's
You are insane. While customers don't care what it cost, suppliers, such as
the theater owners, have to. They are not going to sell it for less than
what it costs to supply the product, in this case, a movie. The price of
seeing a movie has to be driven by what it costs to provide. It is basis
market theory, prices will tend to move to some level that generates a
"normal" profit, whatever normal is for that business. You are just talking
a lot of crap that you obviously don't understand.
Fenris
"Baxter" <lbax02.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:115qsp4...@corp.supernews.com...
Yes, but that doesn't mean he can charge any price he wants to.
ray
"Magnulus" <magn...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Hollywood makes about half their money off theater tickets, sometimes
> less. The other half they make off DVD sales.
>
> The price of popcorn is unrelated to how much an actress gets. The
> popcorn is there to basicly subsidize the theater so they can have the
> tickets at 8 dollars instead of 16 dollars. The theater charges the same
> amount of money for a movie at a given time, regardless of how much money
> the movie cost to make.
Yes, it's called "net profit" Like any other business, there will be
profits and there will be loses. A successful company is one who's
profit exceeds the loss thus giving them a net gain. Seriously, ask
yourself, if these actors were to ask (and get) double of what they make
today that your theater tickets or DVD's would be the same price?
> And why picking on Hollywood as a bastion of liberalism? Most Hollywood
> CEO's are capitalists and some are Republicans. They are in it for the
> money, first and foremost, not the ideology. Bashing Hollywood is the
> favorite Republican phoney populist tactic, of course, it's a cheap tactic.
> Talk is cheap. One can say the moon is made of green cheese, at no cost,
> but that doesn't make it so.
It makes it so if it were Green Cheese. Tell me, who was it that came
out to support John Kerry? Who was it that sang for him and shot their
mouths off? That's right, the entertainment industry. It's far from a
stereotype, it's truth. Or, are we to expect a Hollywood movie that
bashes Bill Clinton as they did with Nixon and tried to do with Reagan?
Remember a guy named Mike Morecrap?
> > True. But what usually isn't mentioned is that these bigwigs don't work
> > at an hourly rate or even salary. They are under contract. If a person
> > has a contract with a guarantee of a 2 mil bonus within 3 years and the
> > company takes a nose dive, they still have to honor the contract of the
> > person they hired.
>
> That's the old theory, and doesn't seem to work out in the real world.
> Plenty of loser CEO's see their companies as a sinking ship over which they
> have no care, therefore, its less an incentive than a feeding frenzy.
Yes, in the real world, people hire utter failures at business to run
theirs into the ground. But if it makes you happy believing it, go
right ahead.
Don Homuth
>So the cost of a product has no effect on its price?
A good graduate class in Marketing will teach you that is indeed the
case. You can start with Loss Leaders and work outwards from there.
Or if you wish to come at it a different way, you can start with
Capital Recapture and work backwards.
It is the absolute Dream of a capitalist to provide a good or service
with a low Cost but commanding a High Price. It is also the case that
if/when the happens, it doesn't and can't last very long, because The
Market will compete the Margin away within a short time.
> Where did you say you learned this great wisdom?
Oh -- not only Learned it, but have applied it with considerable
effect over the years. It's usually to be found in a combination of
graduate coursework in Microeconomics, Management Accounting and
Marketing.
> I assume you have heard about the theory of
>supply and demand.
I have indeed. It's usually called a Law, rather than a theory, but
if you want it to be a theory, that's OK by me too.
Have You discussed Margin with anyone lately.
> Here's a hint, the cost of producing a movie affects the
>supply side of the equation.
But that's hardly the question, is it? This discussion is about
whether the Cost of Production of a movie (which we may expand to
include Promotion costs as well, for our discussion) has any notable
relationship to the Price charged to ticket buyers.
It doesn't.
Let's say Goldie Hawn can command a $10M/picture salary. If you know
anyone in the film bidniss, you'll understand that the money is paid
up front, and not from the revenues of the film itself. Movie stars
mostly negotiate themselves a no-risk contract, Unlesss they are the
producers. They have something called Star Power -- a sort of
individual monopoly on their services, so they can do that.
Stars get their money whether or not the movie itself makes money at
the box office. Since the studios lost their contracting power with
Talent, it's been that way pretty much all the way along.
It's the Producers that pay the salaries -- Not the ticket buyers.
The salaries are usually paid well Before the first ticket is ever
purchased. Producers hope the ticket buyers will cover their costs,
but it doesn't always happen.
For proof of which, check out the lawsuits that production firms lodge
against Talent for *repayment* of salaries on a specific film. If
they had not prepaid them, there would be no basis for the lawsuit in
the first place.
Theater companies, otoh, price their admissions Not the least on the
basis of what the film itself Cost to make, but on the Demand side of
the equation. Note, for example, that certain well-marketed films
(Star Wars comes to mind, but you may pick any one you like or don't)
command Premium Prices at the onset of the first run. After several
weeks, the matinee pricing starts to kick in, then the film moves to a
different theater, and prices drop.
As it turns out, the Pricing of a film that involves discounts for
matinees, senior citizens, coupons, etc. is clearly not a function of
the Cost of the film to the production company, but of the importance
of getting a person somewhere near the concession stand. Theater
companies could make a tidy Profit just off concessions, even while
losing money on tickets -- if the lost margin is held close enough.
The Price charged to ticket buyers is not even a Little bit a function
of the Cost of Production, but of the way The Market establishes a
Demand function out there.
Production companies may or may not make money on a film. Hollywood
accounting practices are arcane and bizarre, and it's oftimes
difficult to figure out where the money really goes. Clint Eastwood
did an interview some years back where he noted that even on smash
hits he had been in, the accounting the studios provided indicated
that the film Lost money -- when clearly that was not the case.
Stars may also get some residuals from video rentals and purchases,
but those tend ceteris paribus to be relatively small for an
individual film. For our discussion purposes, they may be ignored.
If you wish to come at it from a slightly different direction, go to
one of those multi-screen movie houses. Check (Variety will often
have the information) the cost the film took to produce for each film
showing. Now check the Price the ticket buyers are charged.
Ticket buyers pay for a certain time of entertainment provided, all
things being equal. And the prices charged, save for certain Premium
movies, tends to be about the same across the menu.
(I will confess that it does help to have a close friend from high
school having been in the Hollywood movie bidniss for the past thirty
years. We've discussed this in the past, when we've gotten together.
I was surprised too.)
chainsaw
> chainsaw <x...@ooo.biz> wrote in
> news:7s07e.4228275$Zm5.6...@news.easynews.com:
>
>
>>Fenris wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Not all corporate bonuses bother me. What bothers me is reading
>>>about CEO taking obscene bonus while the company is losing money.
>>
>>So if their contract was inked earlier the board should reneg?
>>
>>Can you say - lawsuit?
>>
>
> Try reading for comprehension.
>
> The key word is "bonus".
Try looking at torts.
If the contract specifies criteria the CEO can meet, there is no just
cause to withhold, save perhaps for criminal fraud.
> If the contract calls for a bonus for poor results, the contract writer
> should be fired.
I've never seen a contract like that, even when the Nuggets sucked...
> However, since the people who set the salary, and the
> people who get it, are in an incestuous relationship, nothing of the sort
> will happen.
Er, huh?
Don Homuth
> Seriously, ask
>yourself, if these actors were to ask (and get) double of what they make
>today that your theater tickets or DVD's would be the same price?
No reason why they wouldn't.
The margin for DVDs is astonishingly high, when calculated on a unit
price.
Theater tickets the same. The theater company pays a rental fee for
the film from the production company, but its Profit is not solely a
function of the film. In most cases, it's not even Mostly a function
of the film rental.
>...Tell me, who was it that came out to support John Kerry?
> Who was it that sang for him and shot their
>mouths off? That's right, the entertainment industry....
Let us now run down the members of the entertainment industry who
openly supported Dubya in turn.
Start with Mel Gibson, and work outwards from there....
Have fun!
Don Homuth
>
>"Baxter" <lbax02.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>news:115qsp4...@corp.supernews.com...
>> --
>> When I was young, I worked for a small businessman. He summed up his
>> philosophy in five words: "All the traffic will bear."
>>
>Yes, but that doesn't mean he can charge any price he wants to.
It means he can charge whatever price The Market will allow him to
charge, however.
It need have Nothing to do with cost.
Don Homuth
>
>"Don Homuth" <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:1koq5116sn5kelo5h...@4ax.com...
>> Goods and services are not Priced according to what they Cost. That's
>
>You are insane.
Read both Educated and Experienced.
> While customers don't care what it cost, suppliers, such as
>the theater owners, have to.
Theater owners don't care what it Cost to produce a film. They only
care what Price they will pay to rent it from the production company.
> They are not going to sell it for less than
>what it costs to supply the product, in this case, a movie.
The profit margin of a movie house is not solely a function of the
rental paid for the film. Indeed, not even the largest portion of
that profit comes from ticket sales, as a general rule.
>The price of seeing a movie has to be driven by what it costs to provide.
That's the conventional wisdom.
It is incorrect.
It is a function of what The Market will allow the movie house to
charge, and virtually nothing else at all.
> It is basis market theory,
Basic market theory oversimplifies. Advanced Pricing Theory doesn't.
> prices will tend to move to some level that generates a
>"normal" profit, whatever normal is for that business.
That's due to competition within The Market, but not the cost of
production overall. The production company makes its profit from the
rentals to the movie houses. The movie houses make most of their
profit from the concession stands.
> You are just talking
>a lot of crap that you obviously don't understand.
Nope.
Just apparently did a Lot more work in this field of study than you
have.
I've even successfully applied it within The Market with other bidniss
entities. Had a local nursery (plants and trees) hereabouts whose
owner mistakenly believed that he could charge his Costs, plus some
profit margin and get it. The Market wouldn't let him do that.
By differentiating his product line, we were able to discover that he
could charge >100% margin for some plants, and couldn't sell any at
all of others.
I will leave it to your vivid imagination to discern what course of
action I recommended.
Clue: It wasn't to Price his wares according to their Cost, but to
Price them according to The Market alone. He knew full well what his
Costs were, but he had No Idea what The Market was doing.
We worked it out nicely.
gatt
> > But God forbid when their electric bill goes up $3.00 per month
LOL! "$3 per month." That's like saying gas went up a few pennies a
gallon in the last decade.
> >and they find that the electric company paid some guy a 2 mil bonus at
> >Christmas.
There's not a person alive at PGE worth a $2 million bonus.
> Well, when PGE collects millions in the form of Taxes from ratepayers,
> then doesn't pay the taxes, then pays some exec a $2M Bonus, there's
> certainly something pretty smelly going on.
I fail to understand the mentality of corporate apology that some people
seem to cling to.
I bet if a Democrat wanted to impose a $3/month tax on these people, they'd
go bugshit.
-c
chainsaw
> Bushie neocons and theocons
labels, labels, labels...
chainsaw
> When I was young, I worked for a small businessman. He summed up his
> philosophy in five words: "You're fired you young punk!"
Lobby Dosser
It means he can charge whatever he wants to charge. Whether or not he
will find buyers is an entirely different question.
Lobby Dosser
Have you been to a movie lately? You pay the same price for Adam Sandler
in 'Buffoon From Hell' as you do for Anthony Hopkins in 'WWIII'.
Regardless of what it cost to produce the film.
Don Homuth
(Sigh)
It's not Required to be clueless on the amUsenet.
The Buyers *are* The Market.
chainsaw
> (Sigh)
>
> It's not Required to be clueless on the amUsenet.
So you're offering that service as a bonus?
gatt
"ray" <xxxr...@aol.com> wrote in message news:xxxrayted-
> Well if you do understand how business works in this country, you will
> find that most CEO''s get paid because of their talent
Like Solectron, who bought out Stream International. Saved money by
outsourcing over 1,500 jobs and because they saved the company so much
money, the Board of Directors awarded themselves $25,000,000 in bonuses.
Which likely is more than those 1,500 people made combined.
Granted. MOST CEOs, or at least MANY CEOs, get paid because of their
talent. Most people aren't criminals, but that doesn't mean we tolerate or
ignore crime. Most conservative Americans, in fact, are rather aggressive
in their determination not to be a victim of it.
>>For instance, cable television companies pointed
> out that the premium channels went up because of the cost that Hollywood
> sells their product for. It's like any other business.
Hollyweird isn't like any other business. And Demi Moore got paid
$12,000,000 to portray a stripper and there are probably a thousand acting
students in America who could strip better and act better for less than a
tenth of that.
Buuuuut...people suck it right up, which is what the entertainment industry
and corporate America -do- have in common. Each have their own strange
suck-up following that are willing to accept the drug convictions, arrests,
the bizarre behavior ("I let Michael Jackson sleep with my child because he
bought me a bracelet..."), the piss-poor performance and price hikes.
Doesn't mean it makes sense. It just means that there are X-million really
stupid sheeple in America who toadie up to the class of people they admire,
whether it's a Paris Hilton or a Carly Fiorina.
-c
Jeff Welch
>> When I was young, I worked for a small businessman. He summed up his
>> philosophy in five words: "All the traffic will bear."
>>
>
>
> Yes, but that doesn't mean he can charge any price he wants to.
Of course he can.
-Jeff
Lobby Dosser
(Sigh)
al·low P Pronunciation Key (-lou)
v. al·lowed, al·low·ing, al·lows
v. tr.
To let do or happen; permit: We allow smoking only in restricted areas.
The Buyers(Market) Have no control over what the Seller charges. They
control whether or not they will buy what the seller is selling at the
price set by the seller.
Jeff Welch
"chainsaw" <x...@ooo.biz> wrote in message
news:oAh7e.4297115$Zm5.6...@news.easynews.com...
>> Bushie neocons and theocons
>
> labels, labels, labels...
Useful little buggers.
-Jeff