Southport Cyclone destroyed!

Tuesday, September 26, 2006 7:44 AM
Sign the southport cyclone petition now...
http://petitions.orbititservices.com/
+0
Tuesday, September 26, 2006 12:52 PM

CoasterFanMatt said:
Its the most quirky and nostalgic park East of Kennywood.

It's not too far East, either. ;)

+0
Tuesday, September 26, 2006 2:16 PM
When it comes down to it, for all but a few of us, the lots on which our houses sit could be made more profitable by someone else wanting to put up something bigger and more expensive.

If every business owner decided to sell out to make maximum profit, most places would consist of nothing but the same jumbo chain stores, food joints, and junk stores. None of those charming little places that make so many towns and cities special would even exist.

But hey it's business, we have no right to say anything.

+0
Tuesday, September 26, 2006 2:24 PM
rollergator's avatar

RatherGoodBear said:But hey it's business, we have no right to say anything.

Not even a winky? Cold! ;)

Eminent domain, as presently interpreted, says those with the most money at stake make the decisions regarding land use. Thankfully for Southport and Cyclone, US law doesn't apply there...

+0
Tuesday, September 26, 2006 3:47 PM

If every business owner decided to sell out to make maximum profit, most places would consist of nothing but the same jumbo chain stores, food joints, and junk stores.

Look around. It's already happened in more places than you could count. Once upon a time, different places in the country were *different*. Now, I bet I could plunk you in any one of 20 completely different places in the US, and unless you heard a local accent, you'd have NO IDEA where you were.

Of course, McDonalds, WalMart, and BestBuy have become ubiquitous because they give the masses what they want, and that's the name of the game. Wishing that this wouldn't happen is like wishing that day wouldn't follow night. Understand that I'm not happy about this either, but it is what it is, and no amount of protesting by what really amounts to a tiny minority of the potential amusement park market will change it.

In short---I just fundamentally believe that you can't make the masses prefer small wooden coasters with character to the big steel barcaloungers-on-wheels that even a large segment of the enthusiast community seems to enjoy more.


+0
Wednesday, September 27, 2006 2:51 PM
Yeah, but we're not talking about a small wood coaster with character being replaced with a big steel coaster. We're talking about witnessing the removal or yet another amusement park for residential and commercial development. It's about the decline of entertainment.

I understand that we live in a capitalist society and that means the majority of people will gravitate towards whatever option it is that makes them the most amount of money with the least amount of effort. Still, the "hopeless romantic" inside of me wishes that a few amusement park operators would turn on an offer for their land and decide that even though selling out would make them a lot more money, they're happy running an amusement park and seeing smiles on peoples' faces.

Unrealistic? You bet. But I'm saying this on a coaster site because I have a passion for these things, and as much as it sucks but makes sense, I can't help but get upset over it.

+0
Wednesday, September 27, 2006 2:53 PM
Rick_UK's avatar The park's SLC (TRAUMAtizer) was starting to be moved today.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

+0
Wednesday, September 27, 2006 3:27 PM

I can't help but get upset over it.

And I don't begrudge you that. Hell, I agree with it. But, claiming that the owners tore it down "before anyone could realize what was going on and stage some sort of protest" is just silly---the owners could care less about the protests. In the words of more than one mob boss, "it's strictly business."


+0
Wednesday, September 27, 2006 3:33 PM
Lord Gonchar's avatar

Rob Ascough said:
Still, the "hopeless romantic" inside of me wishes that a few amusement park operators would turn on an offer for their land and decide that even though selling out would make them a lot more money, they're happy running an amusement park and seeing smiles on peoples' faces.

But that's just it, when you do something solely for the enjoyment of it, it's a hobby, not a business. There are *no* amusement parks in existence that are a hobby. Reread that last line.

Granted there may be certain owners/operators who enjoy the work and rewards involved in running their business and possess a general 'love of the game', but not a single amusement park out there would exist if it weren't a profitable venture. Even with a love for the work, it's still just a job - no different than anyone who happens to enjoy the work they do for a living. And for a vast majority of people that fall into that category, I'm guessing most would resign if offered a large enough sum of money.


At what point is it no longer good business sense but simply greed?

That's not even possible.

Business as a verb is: the purchase and sale of goods in an attempt to make a profit

Business as a noun is: a person, partnership, or corporation engaged in commerce, manufacturing, or a service; profit-seeking enterprise or concern

Just stick with me here. This is good. :)

So we've established that businesses are profit seeking enterprises and that doing business is an attempt to make a profit. Therefore, I don't think it's a stretch to say that the measure of success in business is the amount of profit you make.

Fair enough, right? Well then...

Success is:

1. the favorable or prosperous termination of attempts or endeavors (Gonch speak: having the most at the end)
2. the attainment of wealth, position, honors, or the like (Gonch speak: that one is self-explanatory)
3. a successful performance or achievement (Gonch speak: doing whatever you're doing very well)

Not let's put it together:

By any definition a successful business (or business person) is one who achieves the most profit possible.

With that said let's move on.

Greed is defined as: excessive or rapacious desire, esp. for wealth or possessions

When there is no limit present (such as the profit potential and thus the goals of business), then one cannot be greedy.

I think the old saying goes, "The sky's the limit!"


+0
Wednesday, September 27, 2006 3:57 PM
rollergator's avatar ^" There are *no* amusement parks in existence that are a hobby."

Once the government shut down neverland, it was all over for the *hobbyist* amusement park owners... ;)

Next best bet? Fun Spot, Angola IN.

+0
Wednesday, September 27, 2006 4:37 PM
Sorry, I don't agree with that at all, Gonch. While maximizing profit is one aspect of "good business", it is far from the only one.

In high school I was friends with a guy whose father owned a local restaurant in a nearby town. He didn't make a ton of money from the place but it apparantly was enough for him to pay his bills and have a little fun. The building was located on a busy corner where the land value was absurd but my friend insisted that his father turned down all offers because he enjoyed what he did. I'm sure he could have sold the place and retired with the money he would have made but he continued to run the place because it was a passion of his. Only when the father passed away a few years ago did the place get sold, but if that didn't happen, I'm sure he'd be turning down offers to this day.

If he had sold the land to CVS for a ton of money, I would have considered him a good business person. Instead, he held onto something that made him happy instead of rich and I still considered him a good business person. To him, success wasn't measured by selling an asset to achieve maximum profit. Sucess was measured by the fact that he was able to make a living while maintaining a good deal of sanity.

I know the definition of business- I make my living in the corporate world and understand how turning a profit is absolutely necessary in order to survive in it. But what people seem to have forgotten is that there are numerous intangibles when it comes to business and not everything is as black and white as quarterly statements and balance sheets will have you believe.

Passion absolutely has a place in the corporate world. People like Walt Disney put passion ahead of profit and while I'll admit he almost bankrupted himself a few times, he ultimately prevailed and ended up changing the course of entertainment for years to come. George Steinbrenner spends millions of dollars on free agents and makes sure there is always a good team on the field at Yankee Stadium. Not all baseball team owners share in his way of thinking, but not all baseball teams are as successful as the Yankees, either.

Profit is nice, but clearly there are other things to think about as well.

*** Edited 9/27/2006 8:38:32 PM UTC by Rob Ascough***

+0
Thursday, September 28, 2006 2:01 PM
According to Gonch's definition, the Russian mafia should be "businessmen of the year."

I disagree that there are no limits to the goals of making profits, so therefore, there is no such thing as greed. In our society there are laws that don't allow one person to steal what belongs to another (the government can, individuals can't), murder or injure someone to attain what they own, burn your competitors' places of business down, etc.

There are also things like anti-trust laws, fraud laws, labor laws, environmental laws, even simple things like zoning ordinances that prevent individuals, corporations, etc. from doing whatever they want in the name of making profit. And if you're too good at making money, there are any number of people who are more than willing to try to relieve you of some of it via a lawsuit or some other method.

It should also be noted, that history gives us many examples of successful people under Gonch's example hurled themselves out of windows, shot bullets into their skulls, or sucked carbon monoxide in a closed garage. So how much did they have at the end?

Adding a winky so nobody thinks I'm too cold. ;) *** Edited 9/28/2006 6:02:32 PM UTC by RatherGoodBear***

+0
Thursday, September 28, 2006 3:09 PM
Lord Gonchar's avatar Well, let me admit that I not even sure I buy my own argument 100% - I'm just giving textbook definitions. (I really should've been on the debate team as a kid :) )

However, the measure of success is often the level of profit. Why is SF considered vastly unsuccessful and chains like Disney and CF considered very successful? Profit.

Regardless of all the moral wonking, profit is the measure of success when it comes to business.


Rob said:
People like Walt Disney put passion ahead of profit and while I'll admit he almost bankrupted himself a few times, he ultimately prevailed and ended up changing the course of entertainment for years to come.

Let me first state I'm skipping the friend's dad example because it feels too personal for me to go after. I'm just not all that cool with it. :)

However, Walt is a good example. A great one even. He was indeed an excellent visionary...and secondly a sufficient busniessman. His passion brought him profit. It could have just as easily brought him squat. (as you said) I'd rather be lucky than good any day of the week. But mostly the reason we think of him as successful is due to the Disney empire and secondly due to his other achievements.


George Steinbrenner spends millions of dollars on free agents and makes sure there is always a good team on the field at Yankee Stadium. Not all baseball team owners share in his way of thinking, but not all baseball teams are as successful as the Yankees, either.

Steinbrenner spends that dough because being a high profile, championship team brings in the money. Trust me, he makes more in the long run by spending that money. It has nothing to do with being successful on the field, it has to do with being successful on the bottom line. It just so happens that the shortcut to that bottom line success is a winning team. All steinbrenner proved is that a winning team (and the subsequent windfall) can be bought.


RGB said:
I disagree that there are no limits to the goals of making profits, so therefore, there is no such thing as greed.

You misunderstood. There are obvious limits in the goals (or more correctly, means or actions) to obtain profit, but the is no limit on the profit itself that can be made. Greed is an excessive desire for something. Who is to say what's excessive in this case? If the is no limit on the profit potential, I say there can theoretically be no greed in the pursuit of profit. A business can never get too much. Their goal is to profit and their success is determined by the level of that profit. One company bringing in more money that the other is more successful, not greedier.


It should also be noted, that history gives us many examples of successful people under Gonch's example hurled themselves out of windows, shot bullets into their skulls, or sucked carbon monoxide in a closed garage. So how much did they have at the end?

Three things.

1. Then they ended up the same place we all end up. :)

2. For every example you could cite, one could also mention thousands of others who "live happily ever after."

3. I'm not talking about the individual. Sure an individual can be greedy. I'm talking these corporate entities. Pick any name for among the gazillion out there - Microsoft, Cedar Fair, Coca-Cola, Nike, and so on.

When I say greed in business is not possible, I'm talking about a Six Flags for example, not a Daniel Snyder or a Mark Shapiro or any park GM or even the kid running the Icee machine. Those people can indeed be greedy and desire more than their share of the profit generated by SF. However, SF itself cannot as it solely exists to obtain as much profit as possible. It's up to the people employed by SF (all the way from Danny S. at the top to that kid working the Icee machine part-time at the bottom) to make that happen.

If SF drops a park or two (or six :) ) it has nothing to do with greed and everything to do with SF amassing as much profit as possible and becoming more successful (with it's sole goal of achieving as much profit as possible).

Which brings us back around to the original point:


Rob said:
At what point is it no longer good business sense but simply greed?


Gonch said:
That's not even possible.

And I still don't think it is.

.

*** Edited 9/28/2006 7:17:09 PM UTC by Lord Gonchar***


+0
Friday, September 29, 2006 9:04 AM
re: Steinbrenner

He'll be the first to admit that the Yankees was a wise investment, having purchased the team from CBS for $10 million and having it currently valued at $1 billion (that's not a mistake- the team is worth 100 TIMES what it was worth 30 years ago.) But Steinbrenner is also a guy with a big ego and if you listen to him talk (well, when he did talk years ago), he wanted to win as much as he wanted to make money. All baseball team owners want to make money but I think it's Steinbrenner's desire to win that helps his team make him money.

Now, getting back to the "good business" discussion, let's look at something that isn't as personal as the story about my friend's father- WAL-MART.

Wal-Mart makes tons and tons of money. They are one of the biggest companies in the world, one of the most profitable companies in the world and they clearly have their market cornered. On paper, Wal-Mart is the picture-perfect example of captialism, the very definition of "good business".

But let's look at how the company achieves that levek of success. They move into communities, force the closing of locally-owned businesses with cut-throat pricing and then move to a bigger building a few towns over, leaving the first community without any retail (because everything is gone). They get their low prices by bullying manufacturers and distributors, basically saying "if you don't do what we want- even if it's unreasonable- we'll pull our business. That proves devestating because in today's society, you might as well go out of business if you can't supply to Wal-Mart. Their tactics force companies to send their jobs overseas, leaving the middle America customers that they serve without the jobs they need to shop at Wal-Mart. They pay their employees wages so low and deny them adequate benefits so they are forced to use government health care programs that the taxpayers end up paying for (they claim they can't afford to pay their employees any more yet they post something like $6 billion in profit each year.) They are known for preventing the advancement of black employees, female employees... basically any employee that isn't a white male.

Sure, Wal-Mart makes a lot of money. But is that the definition of "good business"?

+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2021, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...