bobthened

Meanwhile, the government can only offer a _poultry paltry 6% pay increase to junior doctors.

My interest are gaming, standup comedy, memes, react videos, metalurgy, machining, blacksmithing,

Because a lot of the type of guys who like seeing those stupid conservative videos also like many of the same things as you. Gaming^™ is well known to have a problem with the alt-right, react videos have a very similar structure to conservative “libs destroyed with fact and logic” types of videos, and finally a lot of conservatives like to think of themselves as an old fashioned man’s-man so they enjoy things like metalwork and other typical “manly” careers.

Now do that for every single company.

The backlash that Bud Light faced from LGBTQ people was not for the same thing that they faced backlash from the right for, it was because they left Dylan in the dust to fend for herself against hoards of angry reactionaries. Or in other words they pretended to be progressive and then immediately dropped their sponsor like she was mouldy apple as soon as it became even slightly inconvenient for them to keep up with that progressive facade.

They did that because their main market in the United States has always been largely conservatives. Ben and Jerries ice cream has never really been marketed towards conservatives (and also people don’t really identify with brands of ice cream like they with brands of beer), and they’ve always been very public with their political ideology. So they are a) very unlikely to face any kind of backlash for saying something progressive and b) very unlikely to retract any progressive statement/action if they were ever to receive a backlash for it because they have at least a modicum of integrity.

None of what you’re saying makes any sense. That’s why I’m not acknowledging every single talking point.

Why would the left ever be annoyed at the kind of statements Ben and Jerries made??

I’m talking after the lgbtq+ push back

I don’t believe you to be honest. I think you’re just saying that now to try to save face.

And if that was what you were talking about then your post makes even less sense than I thought. Why would an obviously true statement like “The USA exists on stolen indigenous land” made by a company that everyone already knows is sorta left leaning politically (and has been saying things like that for decades) ever piss off their market of the exact type of person who would agree with a statement like that?

Bud light saw a temporary drop in revenue because a big part of their market is right wing reactionary morons. Ben and Jerries doesn’t market towards those types, they’ve always been a relatively ethical and left(ish) leaning company. Saying something like ”the United States is on stolen indigenous land” will only make B&J’s more popular.

Also let’s not forget that Bud Light is just one of the several hundred brands that are owned by Anheuser Busch, the actual drop in revenue is basically nothing to them.

The answer is that 1. They’re privatised but 2. They’re effectively monopolies. The argument for privatisation is basically that private companies need to innovate and keep prices low in order to compete in the free market against rival companies providing the same service/product — in practice though unlike something like electricity (which I also think should be renationalised) you don’t actually get to choose which company supplies water to your home, it’s just based on where you live and there’s only one option, so soon each catchment the water companies don’t actually have any competition.

They don’t need to innovate because the consumers don’t have the ability to switch to another supplier (unless they want to be moving house constantly), equally they have no incentive to keep their prices low.

So they’re effectively the worst of both worlds. If they’re going to be private sector you might as well do it properly by creating actually competition, otherwise just make them public sector.

He’s definitely not innocent.

It does, it’s just called a different thing. Centripetal force is exactly the same thing as what most people assume centrifugal force means.

Profit is the Revenue(all of the money that you get from selling the products) - all of the costs; so that includes, manufacturing costs, Labour costs, overheads, tax costs, marketing, transport/distribution, insurance, rent, etc.

Companies can increase their profits in a number of ways, but in simple terms they can either reduce their outgoing costs or increase their incoming revenue. Most of the time they try to do both. So they might be putting fewer of their products in each box but charging more for them, or reducing the quality of their packaging but charging more for the products, laying off employees but charging more, or dodging taxes but charging more etc. etc.

Because they want to mine their platforms for more profit at the expense of their users/customers. It’s just how capitalism works.

If you look back over history corporate changes like this tend to happen in waves. like for example a few years ago Disney and Warner Brothers and HBO etc. all took their programmes off Netflix and created their own platforms at around the same time. This is because they are all copying each other. One corporation thinks up a new way to harvest money from their consumers and all of that corporation’s competitors do the same because they don’t want to miss out on all that cash.

Reddit is pushing their third party apps out of business because they want to force their users onto only the official reddit app. Probably they also have a plan to further monetise their app in the near future as well (e.g. way more ads or paid subscriptions tiers that unlock more features). Youtube closed down all the third-party apps because people were using them to get around the ads, and YouTube wanted to force more and more ads and also the subscription service because that’s where they get their money from.

Literally the only reason they do it is to increase profits.

Could be good could be bad. We do need more homes, some people genuinely don’t want the responsibility of owning a home and John Lewis is a relatively ethically run company (I think it’s owned by the employees).

Maybe they should just sell the homes instead, but if they were to rent them out at an affordable rate that also could be quite good.