removed
removed
If all this is true, who’s the fool? The OD or the corporation?
removed
I worked in chain stores (owned by the evil empire) where the OD had no incentive to help sell glasses. Some of the ODs were great and understood the game I had to play as the manager of the store, and others couldn't be bothered. I broke my back to keep their appointment books full regardless of if they were helping me or not because I wanted a shot to sell to as many people as I could. But it was much tougher when the doc says here is their Rx and doesn't give any recommendations from the chair. So as a former manager for chain stores I would welcome a doc with buy in who wanted to make the store profitable.
Specsthrifters looks like they have gone WAY too far in that respect though. Still have to agree with optical 24/7...
Attachment 15317
removed
:unsure:
From the article:Quote:
Originally Posted by optio
"Let's be clear, these companies did absolutely nothing wrong; they legitimately qualified for this scheme.
"If you qualified in an instant, you continued to receive the subsidy for six months, regardless of whether you're trading returned to normal or not."
Seems like you should be mad at the Australian Government :unsure:
A country can tax a business that is operating within it whatever they would like regardless of where they are headquartered no? If they charge too much said company can decide to not operate there, the country and the company both have a decision on what is optimal for each--that is the free market. Again it sounds like you should be mad at the Australian Government...Quote:
Originally Posted by optio
removed
removed
Honestly, I think some of this could fall under the umbrella of antitrust.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/antitrust.asp
They discuss a number of things but here is a bottom line.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
- Antitrust laws were designed to protect and promote competition within all sectors of the economy.
I don't think funding a Canadian expansion with 90 million Australian tax dollars helps promote competition here.
Are you saying it would have been impossible for them to enter Canada without the funds they acquired LEGALLY from the Australian government? Because if what they did was illegal,the Australian government is the one who has standing to claim foul, not Canada. And they AREN'T!Quote:
Originally Posted by eastgtaod
Have some pride in what you do and compete against them and beat them. The sky is not falling, you will be able to compete against them. Online glasses are the death of B&M shops... tele-exams are the death of optometry clinics... Luxottica is a monopoly... VSP is a monopoly... and yet we are all still here and have jobs and make a comfortable living.
removed
What smell test? They followed the law that was set out by the Australian government. Australia thought about having a clawback provision but decided against it. That is 100% on the Australian government. End of story.
If what you say is true, then why is it listed as a controversy in Wiki?Quote:
Originally Posted by NAICITPO
Because people like you who are conflating issues of morality, ethics, and legality.Quote:
Originally Posted by eastgtaod
removed
A for profit company is ethically driven (within the bounds of the law) to make profit for the shareholders. Lawmakers know this, they usually multi-generation business people or lawyers themselves. The lawmakers decided in the moment during the pandemic that including a clawback provision would mean companies might not take the money. They decided that giving the economy a life raft was more important than including this provision.
So my argument is not that it is moral for the company to take money they didn't need, but that it was both ethical and legal. It is up to the lawmakers, if they want to enforce a moral code on the businesses that operate within it, to put that into law.
Attachment 15324
It's almost like you are mad at a shark for eating a fish because it is not very nice. That is what a shark does, and similarly companies make money.
removed
removed
removed
removed
Actually a privately held company can have sharehodlers, investors and even issue stock (this would just not be traded publicly).Quote:
Originally Posted by optio
And what I am going on about it is it seems you are morally outraged that a company acted in its own best interests by taking money freely offered to them by a government. And what I am saying is it is the job of lawmakers to protect their citizens best interests, it is not the job of private companies to protect the citizens best interests.
I don't care what Wiki says.
removed
removed
removed