A rambling search for an underlying principle

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Linking to the ultimate conspiracy site (infowars) to "prove" Soros is behind every organization on the left?

The link was never designed to "prove" anything. The report in the news came at an interesting time in the general discussion. It was not a specific response to anything you posted. It was merely pointing out the relationship between the convited felon Soro's and his continued attempts to muck with our election process.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Griff

Scientists understand that the business of humanity is survival of the species. It is a funny sort of libertarianism that opposes human rights in favor of group (corporate) rights.

I am saying they are at bottom the same -- for corporation voluntarily entered into. Some parts of them might differ in details, but they are yet too inextricably intertwined with individual rights also to part the two to any good effect.

Businesses are a sub-form of the organization of civilization, which works to the survival of the species in a large way. Looking at it this way, I make a point of not retreating into selfishness. I recommend the same to you. There is no such thing as "the collective" as the Leftists invoke it, but this does not obviate free and voluntary association, nor action taken to sustain it to partake of its benefits.

Slavery to government or slavery to business is still slavery. Read up on your coal country company towns.

True enough -- but what is inherent in business to require that form of company paternalism that built the coal company towns? I say there's nothing. Recall those towns began as a try at improvement upon what had been before. That they decayed into pervasive dependency is something separate from that. The pessimist may rightly sigh, "People ruin everything." The man of action does not take that as an excuse to do nothing at all about it all, does he?

. . . The right is fascinated by the prospect of perfected business, while the left is fascinated by perfected government, both are unattainable and create hell on earth.

Well said! -- and it illustrates why society's pendulum never stays at its extremes, but almost always stays within a more middling ambit.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

True enough -- but what is inherent in business to require that form of company paternalism that built the coal company towns? I say there's nothing. Recall those towns began as a try at improvement upon what had been before. That they decayed into pervasive dependency is something separate from that.

The prime directive for both people and of businesses is survival.
But without people there obviously would be no businesses. The reverse is not true.
So people are at a higher priority, and businesses must remain subservient.

There are two inherent aspects of business that cause imbalance and work to the disadvantage of people.
The first and foremost aspect of business is that it's sole requirement for survival is to make a $ profit.
All other activities in which a business might engage are therefore, by definition, secondary.

Some forms of business (sole proprietorships, partnerships, etc) keep the owners in a position of responsibility for "secondary" activities.
But in the corporation form, the owners (stock holders) only liability is to the extent of their $ investment of the initial stock purchase.
The corporations Board of Directors, officers, managers, and employees are responsible only for the profit-making activity.
Even when a corporation does something illegal, it's BoD, officers and subordinates are rarely found culpable,
and financial penalty on the corporation books is the only remedy.

This inequality is especially true when the secondary activities of a business falls in the area of ethics.
When people are affected negatively by the activities of the corporation then have little or no recourse,
and so business fails in some degree to it's first raison d'être.

[classicman]

The first and foremost aspect of business is that it's sole requirement for survival is to make a $ profit.
All other activities in which a business might engage are therefore, by definition, secondary.

Really?

[xoxoxoBruce]

No matter how good or bad it's intentions, without profit, it's gone.

[classicman]

I completely agree - I'm actually waiting to hear tw's reply to that.

[Lamplighter]

The Cellar is the only exception to the rule.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

No matter how good or bad it's intentions, without profit, it's gone.

Which is why both GM and Chrysler went down. Both were only concerned with profits. Therefore they had none.

Meanwhile, William Clay Ford changed Ford's objectives. The product was more important. Therefore 10 years later, Ford has profits, an expectable of even better profits, and a management that continues to worry about the products - not the profit.

Management must choose which is important. When the product is always more important than the profits, then record profits result many years later.

What causes a company to lose money? Crap products. Losses always occur when a company does not worry first and foremost about its products. Not immediately. Both AT&T and GM were playing spread sheet games for 30 years. Making crappy products while constantly worrying about profits. Sometimes it takes that long for the spread sheets to report reality - when management uses lies and money games to cash in capital -to create mythical profits.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

Meanwhile, William Clay Ford changed Ford's objectives.

No, he changed their method. The prime objective was to make a profit, so they could survive, as it always was.

[richlevy]

BTW, just traded in my Ford for a new not-a-Ford.