What scares the f*ck out of you?

[Undertoad]

Which we could return to. I think what you've done here, in a wild tangent from the original point, is to confuse the purpose of a Corporation with the purpose of a business.

The purpose of a Corporation is is often written about and considered in business classes and economics and market philsophy. It's to serve the interests of the shareholders, which means to increase the value of their shares.

(Which is, roughly, the perceived value of investment in the corporation, in the marketplace of investments.)

(Note that a Corporation will often do that without making a profit; witness Amazon, whose value continues to increase year over year even while strategically not generating a profit.)

The purpose of a business is much different; it's to serve the interest of the owner or owners. They will have wildly varying reasons why they want to operate a business. For many of them, strategically losing money is a reason to do so, either for tax purposes, or accounting purposes, market reasons ("That site in Elmwood is losing money but it's a pain in the ass for our competition the next town over"), family reasons ("The pretzel shop goes to our daughter-in-law. We expect she will fuck it up"), or personal reasons ("I'm not making any money with my Christian cake store, but it's a personally fulfilling mission.")

That's what you wanted to say in the first place. If increasing the price of the stock making money is the only purpose of the business, denying a portion of the market is a terrible way to go about it. Identifying buyers and not alienating them is kind of critical. You'd only want to do that if some purpose of your business is not making money in certain ways. Which is perfectly fine.

[henry quirk]

"As with any sort of weird ad hominem, it really doesn't advance your argument at all."

As though the majority here give a flip about my 'argument'.

In any event: your concern over my advancing my 'argument' is touching.

#

"a wild tangent"

Which one? When, for example, tw moved the thread from 'let’s shit on Ted Cruz!' to 'I'm gonna rant about a (largely) irrelevant law!'?

That the "wild tangent" you're talkin' about it?

#

I'll say it again: the purpose of a business is to make a profit for the owner(s) of the business. Some -- like me -- are straightforward about it; others indulge in long-term strategies that cost them today in the hope of garnering that much more tomorrow.

Nuthin' you posted (as example) disputes me.

Also: only a crazy or stupid person sez 'I'm working this business or job to secure my kids (to feed them, shelter them, etc. ['I’m makin’ money for my family']) but making money takes a backseat to some ideal or abstract.

I'll concede that stupid or crazy people may start businesses to (as Lamp would say) 'serve the public' but such folks are the exception...certainly such folks are not the focus of my comments, my 'argument', in this thread.

Experiment time...

Who here owns his or her own business?

Why?

Who here has a job?

Why?

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

<snip>Experiment time...

Who here owns his or her own business? Me, dba Lamplighter Consultants

Why? ... as a (legal) vehicle for consulting for/with other businesses/entities.

Who here(had) a job? Me

Why? ... teaching and research

Now, Henry may try to turn that into $ and/or an exception
... Of course, $ is necessary in our society, but let me say $ is/was not the "Why"

[henry quirk]

If money is not the 'why' then why charge at all?

Consult for free...teach for free...research for free.

Or: consult, teach, research solely to break even (inflow balanced against outflow).

Did you, lamp, ever make a profit (a financial gain, the difference between the amount earned and the amount spent in buying, operating, or producing something)?

If so: why? Did you keep it? Donate it? Return it?

[henry quirk]

Why did 'profit' become a dirty word?

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

Why did 'profit' become a dirty word?

Because the Ferengi turned it into a quasi-religion.

[tw]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

Why did 'profit' become a dirty word?

It never was. However its purpose has been subverted by what is taught in business schools where concepts also justify mafia style corruption.

Profits are a reward - not a purpose. For the same reason a gold metal in the Olympics is a reward - but not the purpose of that race.

If a company is not making a profit, then its products suck - do not advance mankind. Bankruptcy exists to destroy companies so corrupt as to not innovate.

If a company is making a profit, that does not mean its products are good. That only reports that a company *may* be making good products. Furthermore, good products only appear as a profit four to ten years after the fact. Another concept subverted by business schools that teach today's profits come from work done this year. Also called short term thinking or concepts that enrich top management at the expense of all other employees.

Shareholders expect a return on their investment. So responsible investors invest in something where an ROI is four to ten years after the fact. Because responsible and productive companies worry today about the product. And then reap a reward four to ten years later.

Profit is an indicator and a reward. But only if the reward is earned (ie by innovation) and not by scamming other (ie stock brokers).

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Which we could return to. I think what you've done here, in a wild tangent from the original point, is to confuse the purpose of a Corporation with the purpose of a business.

The purpose of a Corporation is is often written about and considered in business classes and economics and market philsophy. It's to serve the interests of the shareholders, which means to increase the value of their shares.

(Which is, roughly, the perceived value of investment in the corporation, in the marketplace of investments.)

(Note that a Corporation will often do that without making a profit; witness Amazon, whose value continues to increase year over year even while strategically not generating a profit.)

The purpose of a business is much different; it's to serve the interest of the owner or owners. They will have wildly varying reasons why they want to operate a business. For many of them, strategically losing money is a reason to do so, either for tax purposes, or accounting purposes, market reasons ("That site in Elmwood is losing money but it's a pain in the ass for our competition the next town over"), family reasons ("The pretzel shop goes to our daughter-in-law. We expect she will fuck it up"), or personal reasons ("I'm not making any money with my Christian cake store, but it's a personally fulfilling mission.")

That's what you wanted to say in the first place. If increasing the price of the stock making money is the only purpose of the business, denying a portion of the market is a terrible way to go about it. Identifying buyers and not alienating them is kind of critical. You'd only want to do that if some purpose of your business is not making money in certain ways. Which is perfectly fine.

I like this. It bears reflecting on.

Just an add on: I work for one of those non-profit corporations which some people rail against. We have a clear mission which people are willing to support by working at lower rates of pay for. It feels better than making more money in a less fulfilling gig. I may still be a lifestyle libertarian but it seems I'm pretty well converted to the social contract politically.

[henry quirk]

"Having this argument on the Internet does not make me money, so"

Me neither, but then arguing on the net is not my livelihood, so...

#

"Having this argument on the Internet is no longer interesting, so... I'm done."

As you like.

#

"the Ferengi turned it into a quasi-religion."

Big-eared buggers...they killed our Lord and Savior, UFO Space Alien Jeezus, you know.

#

"non-profit corporations"

Great things that fall outside of my position in this thread.