*shrug*

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

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.

"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?

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"

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?

question
 

Why did 'profit' become a dirty word?

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

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

Peace

Because the Ferengi turned it into a quasi-religion.

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.

"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.

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).

For the most part, a company decides whether it makes a profit. The market decides whether it makes the kind of money needed to make a profit. What companies are rewarded by is revenues.

Amazon, for example, famously refuses to make a profit. They could make a profit at any time. Amazon takes all the money that might go into profits and puts it right back into the company, to develop new innovations, and new markets. As a result their gross revenues, i.e., sales, are geometrically increasing.

http://cellar.org/2015/amzn-2004-2014.jpg

History will show that this was the correct model. Everyone declared for years and years that "Amazon is not profitable therefore it is not a viable company!" Everyone was wrong. Some people are still saying this. They are wrong.

Amazon could have been profitable at any time in its history. But that would have ended its growth and terminated the ability for it to generate profits in the future. Instead it has gone from being a book store, to being an everything store, to being a major blue chip internet infrastructure company and a tremendous developer of new products. It took until 2009 for the financial market to realize this and reward it with higher stock prices. If you bought AMZN in the beginning of 2009 you would have seen it rise by a factor of ten by the end of 2013. Amazon has rewarded its stockholders by not being profitable.

~ I learned this by going to MBA school so maybe not all time spent there is a waste ~

Your example demonstrates that Amazon is making tremendous profits. But instead of claiming them in spread sheets, Amazon's profits are directed into something that only appears on spread sheets as a cost - investment and innovation. Innovations do not appear as profits until after that innovation is no longer innovative.

Never assume spread sheets report accurately. What an innovator does today means negative profits this and other years later. Ford is a perfect example. William Clay in 2000 wanted in all Fords an innovation developed in GM in 1972 (and still not in all GM cars today). Massive work done in and after 2000 meant Ford lost more money in 2007 then ever in Ford's history. So why did Ford have massive profits in 2010? Spread sheets only provide numbers that must be viewed with perspective.

Your Amazon example assumes monetary standards promoted in business schools are accurate. Business schools teach that activiities this year are reported on this year's spread sheets. That myth also explains why stock brokers are some of the worst investors on Wall Street. Actual value of any economic activity (ie a non-profit organization) is not always measured by myopic concepts taught in business schools. One is expected to appreciate that where reviewing this years financial reports.

Why was Enron so profitable when it was really scamming the economy?

Why did AT&T (when run by people who come from where the work gets done) finance a man to write computer chess programs? Why is that relevant to a telecom? Because spread sheets cannot measure value.

Because spread sheet (business school) concepts were ignored, the Bell Labs created the transistor, laser, fiber optics, structured programming language (ie C), communication satellites, discovered the Big Bang Theory, masers, PCM communication (that makes cell phones possible), Shannon's communication theory (math that makes all digital communication possible), computer speech (ie Siri), Unix (the basis of all other Operating systems). Most were developed more than 20 years before profits happened. These and so many others were some of the greatest accomplishments of those decades.

Because business school graduates make decisions from profit and loss sheets, then networking, WYSIWYG video displays, the graphical interface (ie Windows, mouse), structured programming, etc sat stifled in Xerox unless innovators stole the technology.

Due to profit and loss thinking, Chevrolet makes a hybrid where its engine cannot even recharge its battery. How dumb is that? Only smart when decisions are based in profits and cost controls rather than in value.

Profits are only a reward. Amazon simply directs their reward into new innovations rather than into a pile of cash. Only spread sheet myopia *knows* Amazon is unproductive. Spread sheets will not say profitable or unprofitable for generations.

This is correct. Revenues realized in excess of expenses and sustaining a business's status quo are profit. The purpose of a business is profit. The goals of those who reap the profit may be reinvestment into the business to grow, diversify, conduct R&D to create new marketable goods and services; or, doing pro bono charitable work, wielding influence ... etc. Businesses, rather than personal fortunes, may be established to achieve those goals; but, goals can change - the purpose of a business does not.

Some businesses may take longer than others make a profit. Positioning a business for sustainability may take more time than simply meeting expenses. That does not; however, mean that the purpose of the business isn't profit, just that it hasn't fulfilled its purpose yet. Even a subsidiary business operating in the red as a tax deduction for the parent organization exists for the purpose of overall profit just as business charitable contributions sometimes do.

Counterpoints suggesting that revenues beyond expenses aren't profit when they're reinvested into a business would have to demonstrate that those revenues were limited to just sustainment requirements and not growth. Then it would mean only that the business isn't profitable now, that its purpose isn't yet fulfilled. NPOs are beyond the scope of the initial contention and rebuttal as are definitions of "profit" derived from jargon relative to specific disciplines.

LLAP