I explain the law of compensation like this: 'Returns are minimal in spite of massive effort at the start, yet returns can be massive with minimal effort over time.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
The law of diminishing returns is something I really believe in.
It does seem fair to give them the option of a better return.
Wherefore when a man giveth out his money upon condition that be may not demand it back until a certain time to come, he certainly may take a compensation for this inconvenience which he admits against himself.
Giving back involves a certain amount of giving up.
Companies typically borrow money at less than their return on equity and therefore compound their return at the expense of lenders.
Competition is the final price determinant and competitive prices may result in profits which force you to accept a rate of return less than you hoped for, or for that matter to accept temporary losses.
For the most part, earnings and market value growth are a result of reduced expenses.
To pay out millions upon millions of dollars in bonuses for incomplete work, poor performance, and unacceptable products is the height of government waste and mismanagement.
It starts this way: The worth of a job is not defined by what it allows you to do when you're not working.
And very often the influence exerted on a person's character by the amount of his income is hardly less, if it is less, than that exerted by the way in which it is earned.
No opposing quotes found.