Corporations don't die...

[infinite monkey]

Originally Posted by tw

More leaks about what AT&T was doing. AT&T was delaying equipment deliveries from suppliers (ie Juniper Networks). Telling their suppliers this was due to not purchasing T-mobile. Leaks even say why AT&T was doing that. So that equipment providers would lobby their politicians permit the T-mobile buy-out.

What risk? Risk means doing something that would result in better products and services. AT&T, instead, was trying to buy politicians and reap profits at the expense of consumers. That sounds more like bribery and fraud.

So AT&T is listed in Consumer Reports as the worst in customer service. Of course. AT&T (like GM or Eastman Kodak) only want profits; not earn those profits doing better service and products. AT&T did what is taught in business schools. Including spending money only to eliminate free market competition and manipulate government regulators. When management comes from business schools, then outperforming the competition with better products is too hard.

Amen, brutha!

I have absolutely no business sense, not even any sense about my own personal business called My Life. But I know there's something rotten in the state of Denmark.

As a side note, wtf is going on with gas prices? There have been numerous occasions recently where I've seen gas going for 3 "OH" something, then a couple hours later it's at 3 THIRTY something. It's been rapid cycling, and it makes NO freaking sense. What, some CEO needed an eighth house real quick-like? Mayhaps for a holiday party? It's sick sick sick, and we have to sit here and be grateful and hop right on it if gas dares to 'dip' to 3 "OH" something.

[Lamplighter]

One more for the corporations - brought to you by your US Supreme Court
... Corporations can now own your rivers and do with them as they please.

PRIVATE PROPERTY - NO TRESPASSING

Reuters
Feb 22, 2012

US top court rules for PPL on Montana riverbeds

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday for a unit of PPL Corp
and overturned a decision that granted Montana ownership of riverbeds
underlying company-owned hydroelectric dams in a case with an estimated $50 million at stake.
<snip>
The company had argued the contested stretches of water were not navigable
when Montana became a state in 1889 and therefore the title to the submerged lands
under the dams should not go to the state.

I guess the Indians never conducted trade on the rivers before Montana became a state.
Oh wait, those were Indians... Nevermind