![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Argh, How many Wikipedia entries are there out there which call economic ideas they disagree with the "old-fashioned, outdated" ideas or whatever and call the economic ideas they agree with the "modern" ideas? Believe it or not, there are a lot of people nowadays who think "human capital" is a load of BS, including myself. This drives me crazy, calling your groups ideas "modern" and the oppositions the old-fogey, outdated ideas is a very sly way to slip in a POV without making it seem so -- Lancemurdoch 02:18, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Where is the place to discuss more fully theories relating to this, including Calvinist theology, Marxist theory and the surrealist (and other) opposition to work? -- Daniel C. Boyer 21:16, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I read this BBC article about Google.
It says: "Revenues are in line, but it was a big earnings miss". English is not my mother tongue, and even if it would have been, i'm not sure that i would understand that.
What is the difference between revenues and earnings? And profit, for that matter?-- Amir E. Aharoni 06:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
M&Ms says: Profit = Total Revenue - Total Cost (Revenue being the price that a good/service is sold at which includes the cost plus profit to make the process worthwhile). This is terminiology that you would find in economic theory. The word earnings however is a bit vague (i.e. not generally part of a theory) but it could mean the profit i.e. the company hit the target on revenue but their costs were higher than expected so they missed out on potentially more profit than they could have had.
Nobody had to go to work? I'm rather sick of it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.122.208.51 ( talk) 19:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC).
Get back to work you dirty hippy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.110.147.213 ( talk) 01:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Although this artical has been marked as Start Class on the quality scale, be carefull to not make the length of this article too long. At the moment (May 2007) I think it is at an appropriate length in relation to the subject of the article. However, I think it could be very easy for this article to be come far too lengthy with future editing, rendering it almost incomprehensible to average users seeking information.
I guess in general, I do believe that this article could do with a little re-wording in certain areas and possibly a few additional sections, BUT most importantly the additional sections should be kept to a minimum!
Remember: Quality over Quantity!!! Jason McConnell-Leech 13:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Argh, How many Wikipedia entries are there out there which call economic ideas they disagree with the "old-fashioned, outdated" ideas or whatever and call the economic ideas they agree with the "modern" ideas? Believe it or not, there are a lot of people nowadays who think "human capital" is a load of BS, including myself. This drives me crazy, calling your groups ideas "modern" and the oppositions the old-fogey, outdated ideas is a very sly way to slip in a POV without making it seem so -- Lancemurdoch 02:18, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Where is the place to discuss more fully theories relating to this, including Calvinist theology, Marxist theory and the surrealist (and other) opposition to work? -- Daniel C. Boyer 21:16, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I read this BBC article about Google.
It says: "Revenues are in line, but it was a big earnings miss". English is not my mother tongue, and even if it would have been, i'm not sure that i would understand that.
What is the difference between revenues and earnings? And profit, for that matter?-- Amir E. Aharoni 06:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
M&Ms says: Profit = Total Revenue - Total Cost (Revenue being the price that a good/service is sold at which includes the cost plus profit to make the process worthwhile). This is terminiology that you would find in economic theory. The word earnings however is a bit vague (i.e. not generally part of a theory) but it could mean the profit i.e. the company hit the target on revenue but their costs were higher than expected so they missed out on potentially more profit than they could have had.
Nobody had to go to work? I'm rather sick of it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.122.208.51 ( talk) 19:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC).
Get back to work you dirty hippy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.110.147.213 ( talk) 01:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Although this artical has been marked as Start Class on the quality scale, be carefull to not make the length of this article too long. At the moment (May 2007) I think it is at an appropriate length in relation to the subject of the article. However, I think it could be very easy for this article to be come far too lengthy with future editing, rendering it almost incomprehensible to average users seeking information.
I guess in general, I do believe that this article could do with a little re-wording in certain areas and possibly a few additional sections, BUT most importantly the additional sections should be kept to a minimum!
Remember: Quality over Quantity!!! Jason McConnell-Leech 13:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)