The War on Information

[tw]

Originally Posted by Gravdigr

Yeah, as long as you have deep, deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep pockets.

He had deep pockets because his entire life has been about the product.

Only other way to make massive profits - fraud, screwing counter-parties, cost controls, and blame the employees. Also called the mafia or central committee of the communist party.

This is always impossible for extremists to understand. The purpose and reward are two completely different. In operations that are patriotic American, profits come from better products. In operations actively destroying American living standards, only profit is the purpose. Blame everyone else.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by glatt

"There's no such thing as a business." - Elon Musk

I think Elon Musk is proof that business isn't necessarily about profits. It can be about achieving other goals.

That's not what I take away from the Elon Musk example. His businesses are for-profit and the prognosis is poor for him to accomplish his goals if he doesn't realize a profit. I think that business can be so much more than just profit; but, the profit needs to be there.

Neil deGrasse Tyson:

... The delusion that relates to private spaceflight isn’t really what you’re describing. They’re big dreams, and I don’t have any problems with people dreaming. Mars One, let them dream. That’s not the delusion. The delusion is thinking that SpaceX is going to lead the space frontier. That’s just not going to happen, and it’s not going to happen for three really good reasons: One, it is very expensive. Two, it is very dangerous to do it first. Three, there is essentially no return on that investment that you’ve put in for having done it first. So if you’re going to bring in investors or venture capitalists and say, "Hey, I have an idea, I want to put the first humans on Mars." They’ll ask, "How much will it cost?" You say, "A lot." They’ll ask, "Is it dangerous?" You’ll say, "Yes, people will probably die." They’ll ask, "What’s the return on investment?" and you’ll say "Probably nothing, initially." It’s a five-minute meeting. Corporations need business models, and they need to satisfy shareholders, public or private. ...

... So what is SpaceX doing now? They’re bringing cargo back and forth to the space station, as should have been happening decades ago. You don’t need NASA to move cargo, you get NASA to do the things that have never been done before. And then when they do it enough and there’s a routine, then you farm it off to private enterprise, which can actually do it more efficiently than you can, and presumably make a buck for having done so. ...

[xoxoxoBruce]

All those enthusiastic people Musk hires have to be paid. They may work for less to be part of it, but still get paid. That money comes from profits or Musk. If there is no profit, it becomes a rich mans hobby or history.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by sexobon

I think that business can be so much more than just profit; but, the profit needs to be there.

The distinction is whether profit is a means or an end.

[tw]

Originally Posted by sexobon

That's not what I take away from the Elon Musk example. His businesses are for-profit and the prognosis is poor for him to accomplish his goals if he doesn't realize a profit.

Read what he said. He had no idea if his endeavors would be profitable. He did not care. He takes risks on ideas that business school graduates automatically declare unprofitable - and therefore fear and stifle.

Great entrepreneurs do that. They have no idea if it will be profitable. But it might work. Nine out of ten Silicon Valley businesses fail. Great ideas rarely create a profit. Therefore the Valley is extremely profitable and successful. Profits are not the purpose. Product is everything.

Elon Musk has a higher percentages of success - because he attempts ideas / concepts that are not profitable on any spread sheet. Howard Hughes and Sir Richard Branson did same. So did George Soros and Albert Blumenthal. Or Jeff Bezos.

In every case, they had no idea if it would be profitable. And did not care. They only viewed the product to decide if a risk was worth it. They did not do it for the wealth. They did it for what most everyone works for - accomplishment. Again, money is a reward - not the purpose. Some do not even demand a reward - ie Jimmy Wales.

In every case, the purpose was the product - a personal accomplishment. Even Ayn Rand books make that point. Many foolishly think it is only about profit. When the greedy took over society and innovations, then workers literally walked off the job in frustration. They could not do their job (ie engineers in frustration abandoned their train in a tunnel. So passengers later died - Atlas Shrugged).

Also why communism fails. People are denied what they want most - accomplishment. That is not money. Money is farther down the list - ie #3 or #5). People work first and foremost for accomplishment. They expect a just reward. It need not even be massive. Since reward is not the purpose.

Bill Gates did not quit school to become rich. He was in a hurry to accomplish something in computers. He did not know what. He knew opportunity existed to accomplish something. He became rich only because he stumbled into successful products.

When replaced by someone who only wanted to make profits, Steve Ballmer, well Microsoft suffered almost ten years of defective or mediocre products. Because Ballmer wanted profits - not better products. Ballmer had to leave to save Microsoft.

Or Wantanabe wanted to make Toyota the world's #1 automaker - to increase profits. So Toyota's sterling quality image was tarnished by massive defects including Camry anti-lock brakes and defective V-8 engines in most all Tundra pickups. Toyoda said there are five steps to bankruptcy. Toyota was already at step 3. We know why Wantanabe only wanted to increase profits. Toyoda would spend most of the next ten years undoing disasters created by someone who only wanted to make profits.

We know Intel's management has long never made decisions based in profits. Intel recently risked the entire company because their products did not meet Moore's law. We all know what happened when they risked everything to maintain product advancement. Intel CPUs now dominate. And AMD was facing bankruptcy. AMD took a profitable strategy. How did that work out?

These well understood principles require more than a soundbyte to comprehend. Many are only educated in what soundbytes and business school philosophies have ordered them to believe. So they foolishly assume the purpose of a business is profits - screw the product - as both communism and the mafia believe.

Purpose of every company that makes America great - better products. Purpose of so many companies that are dragging America down (ie Sears, Radio Shack, big steel, coal industry) - profits.

[henry quirk]

If I, as business owner/operator, look to make money by way of offering a decent product or service, at a decent price, then I'm doomed to indulge in "fraud, screwing counter-parties, cost controls, and blam(ing) the employees" as a greedhead scumbag commie-fuck.

But, if I only look to offering great services or products and worry not one bit about makin' money then not only will I be rewarded with wealth beyond measure, but I'll also be a 'damned fine human being'.

Is that how it works?

[Gravdigr]

I don't know about anybody else's business, but, my business was designed from the get go to make money. Didn't do it cuz I love trees. Did it cuz I love money and the things it can buy.

[sexobon]

For every example of successful high risk takers cited, who went into business for reasons other than profit, there are hundreds who failed for the same reason. Just happening to be in the right market at the right time and succeeding is the exception, not the rule. Otherwise, everyone would be doing it. The purpose of business is to make profit. If that profit enables the accomplishment of other goals, great. There's no shortage of businesses that are making better products while bringing America down by pricing themselves out of the marketplace because they didn't watch their profit margin. Bottom line - profit.

Those wearing the blinders of developmental impairment focus their tunnel vision on what makes news rather than the reality of day to day life for the many, the backbone of America. Those social dropouts who've lost touch mindlessly follow others like Hillary who drive the utopia bandwagon. They're all failures because regardless of education level they lack the ability to apply their knowledge to resolve practical situations.

[glatt]

In your first sentence, you say some people go into business for "reasons other than profit." Your words.

Therefore, businesses aren't always for profit. Obviously, the profit has to be part of it if they want to keep operating. But there can be other reasons.

I work at a law firm, and it was founded by the original partners as a place to be special compared to other law firms at the time. They wanted to surround themselves with special people who would work hard but also enjoy each other's company. Build a reputation. Make a decent place to work. The purpose of that business they made was to make a living, not to make a profit. They have all retired, and the "business is for profit" jerks have taken over running the place. It sucks now.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by glatt

In your first sentence, you say some people go into business for "reasons other than profit." Your words.

Therefore, businesses aren't always for profit. Obviously, the profit has to be part of it if they want to keep operating. But there can be other reasons.

Business is about profit. THEY weren't primarily about business. They were about something else; but, needed the business for its profit to get there. Otherwise, they wouldn't have gone the business route.

Originally Posted by glatt

I work at a law firm, and it was founded by the original partners as a place to be special compared to other law firms at the time. They wanted to surround themselves with special people who would work hard but also enjoy each other's company. Build a reputation. Make a decent place to work. The purpose of that business they made was to make a living, not to make a profit. They have all retired, and the "business is for profit" jerks have taken over running the place. It sucks now.

If they got any kind of retirement benefits out of it, including the employer's contribution to Social Security, they had profit sharing. Sounds like the people running it now want theirs up front. Perhaps they don't think that retiring from there is a viable option for them anymore.

[Happy Monkey]

Aiming for high-quality products often requires aiming past short-term profits. If you're focused on the profits, you'll keep hitting shorter and shorter-term profits, until you're just shooting your own foot.

If I, as business owner/operator, look to make money by way of offering a decent product or service, at a decent price,

That's a good starting point. The split in the road is when you're faced with the option of making a little more profit by making the product a little less decent.

[tw]

Originally Posted by sexobon

For every example of successful high risk takers cited, who went into business for reasons other than profit, there are hundreds who failed for the same reason.

Biggest reason for business failure is concentration on (attention to) profits. That myopia routinely creates failures - once one learns from history and not their emotions.

If making an innovative (desired) product, it should be making a profit. If it does not concentrate on the only thing that matters - products - then massive losses are realized years later. The word loser applies to those who dumbly believe profits are the purpose.

Profit does not exist for maybe four or ten years. In a productive environment, profits cannot be quantified. Any effort to do so often harms the product. Only the product can be quantified today. If they get it right, then profits are massive - but only years or decades later.

GM worried about profits 20 years ago. GM must now pay $millions to maybe 1000 Cobalt owners - because they worried about profits - not the product. GM maimed and murdered people - to protect profits. Extremist (low intelligent) management thought only profits mattered.

Opel, that once earned GM $1billion annually, was cost controlled to increase profits. Resulting in crap for decades - because profits were important. GM must sell Opel to create profits. GM cannot fix Opel by addressing an inferior product line. Only those so extremist as to want profits will sell capital assets to claim them as profits. GM refused to let Opel develop new products - to cost control - to increase profits.

How did William Clay Ford fix Ford? Moderates learn from reality. He ignored profits. He addressed reasons for Ford's self destruction. Everything Ford made in 2000 was crap. In 2007, Ford had never lost more money in the company's history. Because William Clay ignored profits seven years ago. Therefore he was intelligent - not brainwashed by emotions and rhetoric. He did not take government money even though losses in almost 100 years (by number and percentage) had never been larger. He ignored profits - only addressed products.

Ford ignored profits - resulting in highest profits in Ford's history a decade later. It takes long for products to create profits. Intelligent moderates create everything good by ignoring profits - only address the product.

A peer was driven from top Apple management - because Apple only wanted profits. He walked out in overt anger because Apple refused to let new products be developed. Apple would not design any product that was not justified by profits. Therefore Apple products were crap - made diminishing and no profits.

What changed? Business school graduates - driven by profits - were replaced by people who ignored profits - who focused only on products.

Amelio was not wacko dumb. He ignored profits; only addressed the product. What resulted is almost routine. It saved Apple. Attention only on products created historical profits. They had profits because they wanted better products - not profits.

Companies that worry about profits routinely self destruct many years and decades later. Almost every time despite emotional and extremist rhetoric. Companies that survive for decades concentrate fully and only on their products. History has not changed despite what soundbyte rhetoric proves.

[sexobon]

The biggest reason for business failure is lack of profit. Profit may be programmed into a business model to occur years down the road, profit may be put back into a business; or, used for other things like pursuing lofty goals. Anything done in the way of goods and services is to create the profit that sustains the business and enables achieving goals. That some businesses didn't do enough with their goods and services to sustain profit doesn't change the fact that business is about profit. It just means they were poorly run by people who weren't about the business and only in it for what they could take from the business for themselves.

Those who are less than children (i.e. developmentally impaired) are unable to differentiate the concept of business profit from personal gain. They can't see the forest from the trees. Those are the delusional minds who believe that business is about product when the fact is that consumer demand is about product while business is about profit. Business models take consumer demand into account only insofar as it doesn't negatively impact profit.

Hey tw, cootchie-cootchie-coo! Cootchie-cootchie-coo!


(Is he smiling?)

[tw]

Originally Posted by sexobon

The biggest reason for business failure is lack of profit.

Biggest reason for no profit is a total disregard for the product - almost every time. But that is impossible to learn when brainwashing is entrenched.

If a product advances mankind, then a company is probably earning a profit. If a product does not advance mankind, that company has no profit and is probably using money games to mask negative returns.

AT&T did that for decades until finally purchased by SouthWest Bell. GM has been doing that for decades. Opel is a latest example. They even shorted pension funds. Sold Hughes Electronics to cover that debt. Then did it again. Then dumped an unfunded $8 billion debt on the US government.

Radio Shack has been doing that for most of the past 20 years. Sears has been doing that for almost as long. Toshiba has been doing same. Enron was a classic example. AIG was using money games to print money - until their zero profits game came crashing down. RCA started doing that in the late 1960s. Then Jack Welsh offered Bradshaw a $2million bonus to sell RCA to GE for pennies. GE got NBC for free. Bradshaw only saw what he understood - personal profits.

Dennys did that when TW Enterprises - business school graduates - even subverted management reviews; that were completely irrelevant even to good food.

In every case - without exception - missing profits are directly traceable to a company that ignored their product ten or more years previously.

Ashton-Tate was the world's largest PC Software manufacturer. They had an Office suite long before Microsoft did. With legendary names such as dBase, Multi-Mate, and VisiCalc. Then the founder died. Ed Esber subverted product development. He began increasing profits with profit games such as new product packaging. The world's largest PC software manufacturer was in obvious trouble eight years later - especially after dBase IV set a new standard for unreliable and buggy software. Directly traceable to a boss who focused on profits - the product was only a necessary evil.

Negative profits because Ed Esber, et al ignored the only function of any company - its products.

The naive cannot post one example to support an erotic fantasy. He was told the purpose of a business was profits. Clearly it never was. The easily brainwashed will only repeat a same myth without even one honest reason or example. Knowledge requires logical thought - not masturbating the same lies.

Obviously no profit results from is a total disregard of products. Defective products, due to misguided management, created no profits less than a decade later. No examples contradict that reality. Since brainwashing does not provide facts or honesty. Just another example of a war on honest information.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by tw

Biggest reason for no profit is a total disregard for the product - almost every time. ...

Business is about profit EVERY time.

By your own words, product may or may not result in no profit. Even then, it's really human disregard for the profit making product. Human disregard for other sound business practices may result in no profit as well. One could create a laundry list of things which, like product, can have an adverse affect profit; but, it all comes back to profit. Business is about profit EVERY time.

There are tons of businesses that do not advance mankind. They simply maintain it. Everyone here uses some of their products everyday. They are invaluable and they are quite profitable.

The examples you post are all the result of confirmation bias. That and the ridiculous conclusions you draw from them reflect the workings of a developmentally impaired mind. This precludes posting examples for your benefit as you consider any source which disagrees with you to be invalid.

All anyone else has to do is go through business bankruptcy records to find a myriad of reasons for failure to make profit other than disregard for product. I don't mean just the high profile ones that a developmentally impaired person reads about and thinks they can now pontificate on.

I'm so sorry your parents didn't get you the mental healthcare that you needed; so, you unwittingly became a propagandist like your father. Without timely intervention, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

Cootchie-cootchie-coo! Cootchie-cootchie-coo!

C'mon, turn that frown upside down. You make people laugh! At least you've got that going for you.