Electile Dysfunction (Current students plz look!)

[.RJ]

would you as a car maker... make lower emission cars when you don't have to?

But they do need to lower emissions. Because the consumer demands it. As evidenced by most automakers joining California to increase fuel efficiency and throw the finger at Trump.

Car companies are accountable to shareholders and the public directly buys their products.

[HAULN-SS]

Bad analogy anyway. The more apt question and it applies to anyone: would you find efficiencies in your processes to maximize your bottom line? Of course you would.

[Apoc]

Clearly you haven't worked at any of the companies I've worked at.

[HAULN-SS]

If you're going to be contrarion about something this obvious just come out and say it at the beginning.

[Apoc]

Sorry, didn't realize I had to connect the dots some you seem to be a pretty well informed guy.

Your premise is flawed. There are many businesses that do not seek to maximize profit (Amazon's mission is to maximize customer focus) and no amount of asking individuals about their preference to make money will reflect the behaviour of entities. That's to say nothing of business who grow large enough to be profitable without having to solve every inefficiency in the system. There's such a thing as profitable enough and I'd argue subsidies encourage that.

[HAULN-SS]

It's easy to say your customer is your focus after you've robotized large sections of your packaging and distribution systems, created your own shipping company, created your own airline, and ...and....and (all to reduce cost and reliance on someone else to maximize your profit, whether now or in the future)

"you have done fuckall to innovate or reduce water usage in the past 100 years" is what I have specifically been responding to. It's just not true.

[.RJ]

And why spend millions to reduce the use of what is effectively a free resource? Too be good citizens? Come on. Not in our capitalist system. Read the book I linked if you want to get into the how did we get here. If the big ag companies paid market rate for their water, then its a very clear case to invest more in more efficient use of it - I think the blatant disregard of the laws because big ag lobbying is what really rustles me.

Here's some more data points on the water use.

https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-pra...water-use/

USDA NASS survey estimates reveal that total farm water applied has been relatively stable over time for the 17 western States, ranging from about 74 maf in 1984 to 76 maf in 2013

Now, in that time our population has grown from 200M to 325M, so we are feeding more people with the same agricultural water use.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/gov...-cut-back/

Farmers are using about the same amount of water as they did in 1960s, but they have doubled the amount of money they get.

http://cekern.ucanr.edu/Irrigation_Manag...riculture/

The report outlines as much as 6.45 million acre-feet (MAF) per year of conservation savings could be generated through four different conservation scenarios. This is more than twice the water that the whole of Kern County uses in a year to irrigate more than 800,000 acres of fruits, nuts, vegetables and field crops.

At least things seem to be picking up

https://mavensnotebook.com/portfolio/agr...fficiency/

Farmers are increasing their use of drip irrigation and micro-sprinklers; a survey of growers in 2010 found that the irrigated acreage using drip irrigation and micro-sprinklers increased 16% between 2001 and 2011, while the acreage of land irrigated using surface irrigation methods decreased by 13%.

However, conversion of traditional irrigation systems to pressurized systems and installing advanced technologies requires significant investment in facilities and equipment, as well additional energy that increases costs for both the water supplier and the growers. The California Farm Water Coalition reports that from 2003-2008, San Joaquin Valley farmers invested $1.5 billion in high efficiency irrigation equipment; considerably more has been spent in recent years. These additional costs can be a challenge for many water suppliers and growers.

My point remains is, that compared to the rest of the world we're pretty far behind. And yes, you're right that my statement that farming has done fuckall, is not actually correct, because they couldnt have scaled up like they have without more efficient delivery of water - but controlling the use of it has really lagged behind, and, the persistent damming up of rivers is destroying ecosystems. This isnt a Trump thing though, this ball started rolling over 100 years ago.

[Apoc]

It's easy to say your customer is your focus after you've robotized large sections of your packaging and distribution systems, created your own shipping company, created your own airline, and ...and....and (all to reduce cost and reliance on someone else to maximize your profit, whether now or in the future)

How about 15-20 years before that stuff? Cause that's when Amazon started talking about it. They sacrificed profit for decades to build that stuff, not the other way around.

Amazon doesn't do that stuff to maximize future profit, they do it to reduce lead time to customers. Read anything Bezos has ever written or said and it's pretty clear. You can choose to think he's bullshitting everyone and only cares about future profits, but that's never a read I got.

[.RJ]

I think had they been more profitable, sooner, it would have neutered their growth.

[Apoc]

I think had they been more profitable, sooner, it would have neutered their growth.

Definitely. AWS wouldn't exist without in its current format, or maybe even at all, if it wasn't for throwing tons of potential profit into scaling it (and continually reducing cost to customers). Now, it's the engine that's fueling much of the expansion in the last decade. 

Another point worth considering is Amazon did not build the delivery network because it reduced dependency/cost, it did it because those carriers could not operate at Amazon scale. It's the same reason AWS actually exists and why they do things like build their own applicant tracking system and BI platform from scratch.

[JPolen01]

What is the MM take on Walmart announcing no more handgun and certain types of ammo sales as well as asking people not to carry in their stores? Same goes for Kroger?

I'm not asking whether you think it is right or constitutional or whatever - I'm asking if you think tides are shifting. For a company the size of Walmart to come out and stop selling a certain product and then also lobbying the Executive Branch to do something about gun violence is a big shift from where we were just last week.

Edit:

Rex just informed me that Walmart only sold handguns in Alaska anyway so that is pretty dumb. Mostly a PR move I guess.

[.RJ]

Its a PR move but they're banking that the positive spin on it is greater than whatever backlash they'll incur from the NRA and their customer base. So yes, tides shifted.

[Senor_Taylor]

I doubt Walmart gun sales of any kind were high and I've seen quite a few that didn't even have a gun/ammo section.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

[WRXtranceformed]

Companies (especially Walmart) rarely do stuff out of the good of their hearts. I'd love to know how many backroom conversations with corporate lawyers were had there and probably at other big retailers who sell guns right now. Ie. I'm wondering if the long term risk of corporate liability is greater than the perceived profit they'll get from firearms and ammo.

[Sijray21]

Companies (especially Walmart) rarely do stuff out of the good of their hearts.  I'd love to know how many backroom conversations with corporate lawyers were had there and probably at other big retailers who sell guns right now.   Ie. I'm wondering if the long term risk of corporate liability is greater than the perceived profit they'll get from firearms and ammo.

This

I'm sure this was a business decision that someone said, "oh, hey, we can turn this into a PR move without affecting our current base".

[Ken]

Companies (especially Walmart) rarely do stuff out of the good of their hearts.  I'd love to know how many backroom conversations with corporate lawyers were had there and probably at other big retailers who sell guns right now.   Ie. I'm wondering if the long term risk of corporate liability is greater than the perceived profit they'll get from firearms and ammo.

This

I'm sure this was a business decision that someone said, "oh, hey, we can turn this into a PR move without affecting our current base".

Yeah - it was probably something similar to CVS' decision a ways back to get rid of tobacco. It will hurt a little in the short-termish but they stand to win out in the end.

Also - pretty sure Wal-Mart is commonly referred to as one of the world's largest gun retailers.

[Jake]

I refuse to shop at Walmart anyway, so this latest PR stunt doesn't do a thing for my opinion/"comfort" shopping there or whatever.

[ScottyB]

Its a PR move 

that's all there is to it.

they sell so much shit, and are often the only big retailer in smalltown America, that they'll barely see the effect.  i wouldn't be surprised if they raise the cost of all their other goods by a 1/10 cent and make up the difference with ease.  no way would they do it if they thought they needed to take a bath for the sake of good will.

[Ryan T]

Total PR stunt. All the rifles at Wal-Mart were junk anyways. Ammo was decently priced, but still cheaper online. I can't even remember the last time I stepped foot in Wal-Mart. I hate that place. Dollar General FTW.

[JPolen01]

Quite alarming that Trump invited Taliban leaders to step foot on US soil (according to his Twitter). Do we think this was actually going to occur or just another midnight toilet tweet?