Re: OT: Yahoogroups and The Wealth of Nations...

[Mech <mech@m3ch.net>]

At 12:23 AM -0700 6/29/08, Travis Hartnett wrote:
>
>People start businesses to make money.  
>People invest in businesses to make money.
>You want "good practices", get involved with a foundation or charity...

Ah, but it almost sounds as if you're making an assumption that what 
I call "good business" is tied to some sort of moral imperative. 
While I like the idea of a Socialist society on paper, I'm far too 
pragmatic to think that's going to become a reality anytime in my 
lifetime.  There are too many hardcore capitalists around to take 
advantage of any transitional instability, and then the whole house 
of cards goes down.

Rather, when I'm talking about "good business", I'm merely thinking 
about practices which are sustainable and can carry an organization 
for longer than, say, a couple of years.

Most of these people trying to manipulate the stock prices for their 
own gain are only concerned, as you say, with short-term gain. 
Sustainable (again, what I'm calling "good") business practices are 
not really their concern for the most part, since they merely wish to 
take money off the table and walk away.

Which is as good an argument as any for a business to stay private, 
and not open themselves up to a cadre of short-term profit seekers. 
There are some huge corporations which have done that, and remain 
successful.

>From a business perspective, the only thing better than making money 
>in the long term is...making money in the short term!

I'd still argue for a balanced portfolio.  Given particular 
circumstances, making money in the long term is good.  Under other 
circumstances, making it in the short term is good.  However, the 
philosophy of throwing away -- or perhaps more accurately "burning 
up" -- one model in favor of the other starts to give me the itchies 
down the back of my shirt.  I can't put a rational reason behind it, 
but the concept of businesses as nothing more than number-generating 
machines which deliver no viable product or service gives me 
indigestion.  I guess it would be less so if one can be shown to 
consume no resources while producing that null result, but I can't 
really imagine that being the case.

This whole concept of whether to encourage sustainable business 
practices -- I seem to recall that economists argue themselves silly 
over this whole concept too.  I think it gets down to the question 
of, "is capital finite?"  I forget who draws which lines where, but 
it gets down to whether there is a theoretical limit to the amount of 
capital available in the marketplace.  Encouraging short-term gains 
regardless of the cost is indicative of a "no limit" philosophy, 
IIRC, while building long-term enterprises leans more toward the 
"finite resources" camp.  I've read a little bit of Soros on the 
matter, but quite frankly I start to glaze over after somebody 
invokes the great god of the marketplace Adam Smith.  :P

(P.S. sorry if i'm coming across as a bit confrontational.  new job 
is throwing me through a bit of culture shock here, and leaving me a 
bit testy overall.  please don't take it personally.)

        --m.
-- 
_____
"Image is blasphemy. Text is heresy. The spoken word is a lie."
        ( x ) <--- you are here.