Ok look at it like this. Would you like to invent a product and a week later have Joe Dirt down the road invent the same thing only to use cheaper parts and sell it at half the price you are and then your out of buisness two weeks later cuz everyone is buying his even tho it wont last as long as your.
better yet, what if i built something using an already existing design and then gave it an obscure part number and charged 3-5 times as much as what quality versions of that same part were selling for at the corner auto parts store.
don't the auto parts guys down the street deserve a little loyalty too?
imagine a corporate executive who came up with a program where a corporation such as massey ferguson effectively subsidized their customers by providing competitive pricing on quality consumables, rather than gouging them at every opportunity.
is there no advantage in bringing already existing primary item customers back in the door with a carrot as opposed to a stick?
seems to me the old saying that 'you know what' runs downhill, is being spun around to where the customer is supposed to accept the fact that they will always pay extra so that some freeloader can get a whopping dividend.
why should the concept of destructive welfare be excluded from the shareholders' meeting?
i think maybe it's taking longer for some people, rather than others, to recognize that the perception of entitlement has infested the stock markets of the world.
maybe it's time for shareholders to start giving a little themselves?
btw, i paid cash for my machine... did you?
the concept of becoming a debtslave just so somebody i don't even know can get rich is foreign to my being. i don't ask for welfare, so why should i feel obliged to pony up when somebody in a mansion demands welfare from me?