May 21 2014, 2:13 pm
|
|
Ganite
 |
They might own all the popular brands but they don't own ever brand so therefore they are not a monoply.
|
There's only like 5 big "media" companies too. Most companies are like this - if they're big enough to be well known they're a good investment for a larger company or even a merger with another emerging company.
| |
Fun fact: Nestle has been caught twice using forced child slave labor in various countries around the world. They have refused to stop after multiple fines and trials.
| |
Ganite wrote:
They might own all the popular brands but they don't own ever brand so therefore they are not a monoply. Yeah that's true, we really don't have any private sector monopolies that I can think of. The only obvious monopolies are government controlled services (such as defense - you don't get to pick which military/police force you support, everyone pays the government for the same one.) I guess the correct term for the picture is "oligopoly," which is very common today. A handful of corporations control almost the entire market. But if Google could become a monopoly of anything, I'm sure it would... | |
Ter13 wrote:
Fun fact: Nestle has been caught twice using forced child slave labor in various countries around the world. They have refused to stop after multiple fines and trials. Then we can figure the cost of child labor is worth the fines and trials, adding that with all the fines and trials (if anyone looks these up at all), the customer's must not care enough to not buy their products... Or enough don't care to cause damage. | |
Ter13 wrote:
Fun fact: Nestle has been caught twice using forced child slave labor in various countries around the world. They have refused to stop after multiple fines and trials. A shoe company did too ( Nike, Adidas, one of those, can't remember ATM ). In fact I think if we were all-knowing, we'd find out that a lot of these businesses have done something shady to get to where they were today. They did a study that showed that CEOs tend to be psychopaths, or at least many psychopaths are attracted to positions like CEO. Which makes sense, because in order to run a large corporation, sometimes you're put in a situation where you have to put your business over the well-being of others, and it would take a psychopath to make the decision of ruining peoples lives just so they themselves can remain a billionaire. "Lord forgive me I never would’ve made it without sin." are lyrics in one of Jay-Z's songs. Implying he used sin to become wealthy ( net worth of $500 million ). And he isn't the only one. | |
psychopaths Sociopaths. The difference between a sociopath and a psychopath is that the sociopath will throw you off a bridge and steal your shoes. The psychopath will throw you off the bridge and eat your shoes. | |
Ter13 wrote:
psychopaths The two words are used interchangeably for the most part. Probably because sociopaths and psychopaths show almost identical behavior. Like in your example: both are willing to throw someone off a bridge. Now if neither of them did anything after throwing the person off the bridge, there'd be no way of knowing which was a psychopath and which was a sociopath. | |
Lol how they walk away from the bridge
| |
EmpirezTeam wrote:
Ter13 wrote: The difference is how they treat other people- socipaths crave a kind of social attention and are often pathological liars even to themselves; while psychopaths are the opposite. Both lack impulse control or care for others though. It's more or less their intent, sociopath will steal your shoes and throw you off the bridge to hide the fact and to maintain the reality he is not a shoe thief. There's a lot of sociopaths in politics too, think about it, if your brain is wired to yearn attention and appeal to who ever, what would get you the most high? | |
The two words are used interchangeably for the most part. They aren't interchangable. A sociopaths are psychopaths, but not all psychopaths are sociopaths. Psychopath: a person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behavior. Sociopath: a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience. The major difference between a sociopath and a psychopath is their tendencies toward social/antisocial behavior. Psychopaths don't tend to make good leaders because they tend to manifest irrational behavior, whereas a sociopath typically makes a poor leader in the long haul, but is very efficient at maintaining positions of power owing to their lack of conscience and their ability to do whatever it takes to maintain control of their surroundings. The study you mentioned actually put people who displayed few or no identifying factors of sociopathy, and then observed their behavior in situations where they were in a leader and a follower position. They noticed a tendency for people to display sociopathic behavior when granted even imaginary influence. The study actually indicated that what Jittai just said was inaccurate. Instead of sociopaths being attracted to politics disproportionately, the study indicated that positions that grant power tend to make people into sociopaths. Interesting stuff, really. | |
Perhaps those kinds of positions of "power" bring out the best sociopath - like a kind of survival of the fittest.
Personally I think every kind of mental disorder is an exaggerated/disproportionate version of something that already exists in us. Couldn't some of those people who began to show signs of sociopathy afterwards just lacked a place to actually show them? | |
RIP Twitch?
| |