Have we become used to or immune to mass shootings?

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

#

"sharing the risk was the original purpose of insurance. The big bucks are the byproduct of that development."

I must disagree. The original (and current) purpose of insurance (in a free, or somewhat free, market) is to make money for the company owner(s). Providing a mechanism for 'sharing the risk' is the means by which that money is made.
.

depends what you mean by 'original'

I work for a 300 year old insurance company that began life as a fire insurance provider - the chap who started the company was inspired to start the venture by living through the great fire of London in which thousands of people lost everything they owned.

The theory was this: for the very wealthy it was possible to rebuild and recover (partly because much of their wealth was held in banks) while the artisan and newly emerging middle classes could be completely wiped out by a single unforeseen event.

And this basic principle is still true - if you are wealthy and your house burns down you have options to rebuild. If you are not wealthy (and most of us are not) then insurance stands in the place of wealth when disaster strikes.

Sharing the risk is not a byproduct of the means to profit - it goes hand in hand. It is the means of making profit - and the means of making profit allows for the sharing of risk. It is (when not entirely corrupt - see health insurance where no single payer scheme exists) a social good. It allows people to take risks they might not otherwise take (spending on goods rather than saving every spare penny to set against the possibility of disaster) - it allows banks to take risks on people (mortgages) and people to take risks on business ventures (liability insurance) it allows smaller landlords to offer homes (rent cover schemes) and a host of other stuff.

The notion that companies exist for one sole purpose is as untenable as the notion that people generally act on single motives.

[tw]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

Nope. The purpose of every company is profit. Product or service is the means to profit. This is the basis of free enterprise (which I endorse and you despise).

GM wanted profits. So their products suck. They even kept making V-8 engines. As a result, only top management was reaping massive profits. Since those were the only profits that mattered.

GE did everything to maximize profits. Therefore GE product continue to lose markets. Siemens literaly gorges on GE's diminishing markets. No problem. A Central Committee (top management) is still reaping big bonuses.

Companies that worry about their products are this nation's benchmark industries. Intel ignores profits. Intel's success is based in their product - Moore's law. Intel literally risked the entire company many years ago because their next generation processors would not meet Moore's law. Their risky commitment worked. So Intel processors were cooler. AMD (that wanted to make profits) was losing money and market.

When a company wants profits, then short term profits are followed by massive losses. And the central committee of the communist party (top management) pads their bonuses. This nation's lesser productive companies are also noteworthy for highest paid corporate executives. Meanwhile, companies that innovate - make better products - then have massive profits.

Reality requires many paragraphs. And does not include any "Donald Trump" style insults. So an extremists (ie henry quirk) cannot grasp it.

Only an extremists would insist what was first told by the 'central committee of the communist party' must be the truth. A soundbyte describes this: brainwashing.

The purpose of every company - even non-profit ones - is always about its product.

[sexobon]

That's certainly true of firearms manufacturers. Their purpose has always been to make a good product.

[tw]

Originally Posted by sexobon

Their purpose has always been to make a good product.

And product numbers prove it:

[sexobon]

It's great that the government supports companies that make good product.

The government should have more control over parents and what they produce.

[henry quirk]

"(The purpose of) firearms manufacturers...has always been to make a good product."

And why did E.R. Amantino strive to make a good coach gun?

Cuz, wisely, they understood: a consistently good product encourages repeat and new customers (more money [profit]).

Some gunmakers (there were, and are, are a few) make crappy products and literally pay the price (eventually) for being cavalier or cynical with the customers.

Simply: excellent products or services maintain and increase profit; a degraded quality in products or services threatens profit.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is...

...lyin' through his teeth...

...or...

...is terminally ignorant.

#

"The notion that companies exist for one sole purpose is as untenable as the notion that people generally act on single motives."

People are hellishly complex thngs...the instrument that is free enterprise is not.

Say it with me: profit...profit...profit...profit...

[sexobon]

"Simply: excellent products or services maintain and increase profit; a degraded quality in products or services threatens profit."

Companies that have had their production costs go up have been faced with passing those costs on to customers and pricing themselves out of business; or, downgrading quality to remain competitive in price and continue making a profit. Quite likely the competition is in a similar situation and the net effect is that it doesn't change anyone's bottom line.

Manufacturers also increase profits by downgrading product quality for promotional events like Black Friday with negligible effect on their bottom line. Those consumers are just looking for the cheapest thing available and don't subscribe to brands.

"(The purpose of) firearms manufacturers...has always been to make a good product."

Anyone who didn't realize that I was being facetious either isn't here in the Cellar often enough to know better; or, they have the IQ of a chipmunk.

[henry quirk]

"Anyone who didn't realize that I was being facetious either isn't here in the Cellar often enough to know better; or, they have the IQ of a chipmunk."

Or mebbe such a person was just using a (rearranged) post by another as a means to make, reiterate, or further a point.

That is: I was talkin' at tw, not takin' a swipe at you.

*shrug*

[sexobon]

Thank you for your kind reply. When people are quoted and a narrative follows, it's easy to think the narrative is responding to the person quoted. I try to avoid giving that perception by using ^this^, ^whs^, "and furthermore" ... etc. Sorry I didn't realize who it was directed at.

[henry quirk]

I wasn't clear, my error, apologies...

[Griff]

I'm guessing Mexico blows up the graph.

[Undertoad]

Mexico 6.34

via

[xoxoxoBruce]

I wonder how that would compare to murder rates by any means?

[Griff]

We are a murderous bunch.

[anonymous]

My stepson was involuntarily admitted to a psychiatric hospital last night after revealing to ER staff his detailed plan to shoot up his high school. So, you know. Fun times.

(I'm sure y'all know who this is, but medical confidentiality and all that.)

I'm fucking tired.