What scares the f*ck out of you?

[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.

[Undertoad]

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

[Lamplighter]

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

Peace

[Undertoad]

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.



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 ~

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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.

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.

[DanaC]

This is one of the potential contenders (at some point) for leadership of the Conservatives over here - there are a lot of the party who'd like him at the top and the media touts him every so often as a rival to Cameron (partly becaue of the relationship between the London Mayoralty and Parliament) the interview is from 2012. Boris Johnson, Mayor of London:



More recently, on ISIS and the British Jihadi:

[DanaC]

For those who haven't seen him beyond the odd speech - here's the current PM and leader of the Conservatives on Letterman:

[tw]

Originally Posted by DanaC

For those who haven't seen him beyond the odd speech

So these guys hype 'let's get out of the EU'. When push comes to shove, do they really mean it? Or is this classic rhetoric that politicians use to inspired their followers - and that they do not really want or believe? What do you think? Are they really serious?

[henry quirk]

As I say, tw: 'have it your way'.

'nuff said.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by tw

So these guys hype 'let's get out of the EU'. When push comes to shove, do they really mean it? Or is this classic rhetoric that politicians use to inspired their followers - and that they do not really want or believe? What do you think? Are they really serious?

Some of them are - the Conservative Party is divided on the issue - some of them want out, others want to stay in but with renegotiated terms. Most of the serious leading figures in the party want to stay in, but there's a lot of pressure for them to promise an 'in/out' referendum.

It's a funny issue Europe - most of the main parties are divided on it, but for different reasons (the right of the Tories want out for reasons of national soveriegnty, whilst the left of Labour wants out because the dream of Europe has turned into a wet dream for business and we've basically already opted out of the worker protection aspects of Europe). One of the big issues is immigration and the free movement of citizens within Europe - so, when the new states joined their people suddenly had the right to move freely and work in any ocuntry in Europe etc - this led to an influx of people from Eastern Europe coming to the UK and that's upset a lot of people.

The right to control our own borders is a big issue for the anti-Europe side.

Whether they're serious? Don't know really. Some of them very much are - this has been a divisive issue within the Conservatives in particular, for decades. It was their internal divisions over Europe that pretty much killed them in '97.

For many of them though it is a rallying call - for someone like Cameron it is an albatross - on the one hand the needs of business and the economy clearly warrant a relationship with Europe - but he has to play a eurosceptic note if he wants to keep his troops onside.

The right wing fringe parties (like UKIP) have made much of the Conservatives' unwillingness to 'stand up for Britain' and free us from the European project - as they're the party most likely to draw away Tory support, there's a lot of pressure for the Conservatives to take a harder stance.

I've over simplified the issue - it's divisive and you'll find anti-european union attitudes amongst the left and right, for different reasons - and the fringe parties, on both left and right, often take a much harsher stance. With the main parties so close together (no one party won enough seats to form a credible government alone) those fringe parties are more of a threat to them than ever before. There is always a tug of war within parties and between parties over this issue.

[tw]

Originally Posted by DanaC

I've over simplified the issue - it's divisive and you'll find anti-european union attitudes amongst the left and right, for different reasons - and the fringe parties, on both left and right, often take a much harsher stance. With the main parties so close together (no one party won enough seats to form a credible government alone) those fringe parties are more of a threat to them than ever before.

Will this undermine the Conservatives coalition? British elections happen quickly. Can we expect the Queen to learn that Parliament has been dissolved? Details that might predict that event are difficult to grasp at this distance. Or has this already started?