Interviewing with Jeppesen

"Michael 182" wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

Care to define what you mean by "profiteering off Katrina"?

Not sure why this isn't obvious, but raising the cost of building
materials, transportation, water, food, etc. beyond that which will yield
a reasonable profit. Don't bother telling me about supply and demand -
just because one can get away with charging absurd prices in a crisis
situation does not mean it is ethical.

Don't bother you with stepping on your whimsical version of reality: got
cha'.



Anytime maximizing profits includes illegal behavior, as dramatically
evidenced by Enron, Adelphia, et al.

Well, yes, ouright theft is, I suppose, one form of profit maximization.
:~)

It is a huge form of profit maximization, as evidenced by the passage of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

Yeah, like Congress has any grasp of the situation.

But building a company that markets and distributes aviation data, and
then finding yourself in the enviable position of having very little
competition or sales limitations except market elasticity is obviously
not unethical.

As long as you have two parties _voluntarily_ (uncoerced by either one of
the parties) engaging in a transaction, it's ethical.

Too broad. By this definition drug dealing, prostitution and child porn
are all ethical business transactions.

They are.

In fact, by this definition Enron and Adelphia are excused as well.

They were fraud. As such, they were NOT freely entered into.

The transactions they completed were completely voluntary. I'm a committed
capitalist,

Too bad your grasp is evidently the comic book version.

but life, and business, is full of ethical quandries and shades of grey.

Crips!!

wrote in message
ups.com...

Michael 182 wrote:
"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

Care to define what you mean by "profiteering off Katrina"?

Not sure why this isn't obvious, but raising the cost of building
materials,
transportation, water, food, etc. beyond that which will yield a
reasonable
profit. Don't bother telling me about supply and demand - just because
one
can get away with charging absurd prices in a crisis situation does not
mean
it is ethical.

"Don't bother telling me about supply and demand."

OK, let's discuss architecture without touching on the little-known
subject of "gravity."

"Profiteering" can provide social goods in the form of efficient
allocation of supply. With a hurricance shutting pipelines and
refineries down, there will be no fuel deliveries for the next week.
This means there is not enough gas for everyone to fill up their tanks
"just because." So, you have three choices:

1. First 1000 people to fill up their tanks win. 950 of them park their
cars in their driveways and watch the storm on CNN. Anyone after those
1000 who neds gas is SOL and cannot buy it at any price.

2. Raise the gas price to $6. 950 people say "shee-it!" an drive home
without filling up their tanks, and watch the storm on CNN. Anyone who
-really- needs gas, can buy it.

When gas rises to $6 a gallon, see how many providers will get off their ass
and rush to the scene with tankers trucks filled to the brim.

When gas stays at $2.50, there is no incentive to go there for "norlmal"
profits.

The new rules in Hawaii are an example; why would providers ship gas to
Hawaii when the markets says it should go elsewhere? Hawaii will have cheap
gas, just not enough of it.

Bureaucrats have been playing that game going back thousands of years
beginning with copper during the early days of written history and it STILL
doesn't aleviate the situation.



3. Hold prices steady, and ration supply.

The average person thinks #3 is "fairest" but in fact it is the worst,
because it depends on some brain surgeon somewhere to figure out and
implement a fair rationing scheme. This is not realistic. Thus, leaving
market actors to their own devices will ensure that people who really
need gas, can get it, while people who don't, choose not to. No
bureaucrats required.

There is no area of "profiteering" that is not subject to these same
rules. We can write laws that contradict them, but writing a law which
states that 2+2=3 does not make it so.

Anytime maximizing profits includes illegal behavior, as dramatically
evidenced by Enron, Adelphia, et al.

Well, yes, ouright theft is, I suppose, one form of profit
maximization.
:~)

Enron and Adelphia engaged in blatant fraud, which is another thing
entirely. It's the difference between simply marking up a used car by
50% over book and rolling the odometer back.

It is a huge form of profit maximization, as evidenced by the passage of
the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

Proof that there should be a 2-year waiting period--for Congress to
pass laws. SarBox should have been called the Lawyers and Accountants
Full Employment Act, as they're the only ones to objectively benefit
from it.

And there was nothing in S-O what wasn't already illegal; it was all just
window dressing and posturing.


As long as you have two parties _voluntarily_ (uncoerced by either one
of
the parties) engaging in a transaction, it's ethical.

Too broad. By this definition drug dealing, prostitution and child porn
are
all ethical business transactions.

What if the attempt to legally impose ethics produces an even less
ethical result? C.f. Prohibition.

In fact, by this definition Enron and
Adelphia are excused as well. The transactions they completed were
completely voluntary.

No, no, no no. These companies used accounting tricks which made it
appear that they had/made money they didn't (among other things). It's
why I used the analogy of rolling back an odometer. We didn't need a
new law to make what they did illegal.

Quite.


--
Matt

---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO