[onlooker]

I define "fair share", by whatever society/the tax code deems it to be. My larger point being that corporations are notorious for trying to evade paying taxes and the biggest ones seem routinely to get away with it as per my original post. Oh and Cog you do not need to dumb down anything maybe smart up would be better.

[evilgenius]

In the business world, there is this thing called competition. Over time, that constrains profits (i.e. keeps them "in check", to use your words. Funny how the left hates profits so much, yet LOVES taxing them all they can).

1). I never said anything about unlimited profit.

2). I never said anything about unlimited demand.

3). Quantum physics has no place in this discussion, and you seem indecisive about that anyway.

4). Why all the straw men? Because you don't have a meaningful argument? All I said is that businesses primarily exist to make a profit. Just because, as you imply, you don't like profits -- that doesn't change the reality.

5). Finally, shifting of supply and demand curves and all the micro-economics 101 terms you care to throw out like "marginal utility" (yeah, I had micro-econ in college) have NO bearing on the fundamental point about businesses existing to make profits.

You don't seem able to listen. I don't mean able to agree with me. Perhaps that is because you read what I wrote and took that as some kind of anti-profit message? My point is not that a business doesn't go into business with the goal of making a profit. My point is that what the business does in order to make that profit is determined by whether there is any demand for what the business has to offer. If there isn't, then the people involved will look around for some other thing to do, something for which they perceive demand. This is why I say that the stipulation that businesses exist to make a profit is as demonstrably false as Marx's Labor Theory of Value. They don't exist for that, that can't be your reason for existence, otherwise, you could do anything for which there is no demand and somehow make a profit, without selling anything. Supply side economics aside, which does assume some pretty weird things about the demand curve, you don't go into business to say you are in business. You go into business to sell goods or services. That means engaging in a market. Just as markets determine value, and not labor, they also reveal demand at various prices. Your price will only ever reveal so much demand, no matter how you spin it. It is up to you as to whether you can make a profit at that price, not the market.

[Cog]

You are wrong again.

I engage in business to make money(profit). Tomorrow I could buy I-Phones at full cost and sell them for half of what I paid for them. I would do a booming business until I went broke but according to your theory, I went into business simply to sell something. No, No, No.

Thank God you aren't in charge of a business. Your Marxist theory of why people form a business is giving me a headache that only a beer can cure.

Please do yourself a favor and take a few business classes at the local community college. You are embarrassing yourself here.

[Outcast_Searcher]

In the business world, there is this thing called competition. Over time, that constrains profits (i.e. keeps them "in check", to use your words. Funny how the left hates profits so much, yet LOVES taxing them all they can).

1). I never said anything about unlimited profit.

2). I never said anything about unlimited demand.

3). Quantum physics has no place in this discussion, and you seem indecisive about that anyway.

4). Why all the straw men? Because you don't have a meaningful argument? All I said is that businesses primarily exist to make a profit. Just because, as you imply, you don't like profits -- that doesn't change the reality.

5). Finally, shifting of supply and demand curves and all the micro-economics 101 terms you care to throw out like "marginal utility" (yeah, I had micro-econ in college) have NO bearing on the fundamental point about businesses existing to make profits.

You don't seem able to listen. I don't mean able to agree with me. Perhaps that is because you read what I wrote and took that as some kind of anti-profit message? My point is not that a business doesn't go into business with the goal of making a profit. My point is that what the business does in order to make that profit is determined by whether there is any demand for what the business has to offer. If there isn't, then the people involved will look around for some other thing to do, something for which they perceive demand. This is why I say that the stipulation that businesses exist to make a profit is as demonstrably false as Marx's Labor Theory of Value. They don't exist for that, that can't be your reason for existence, otherwise, you could do anything for which there is no demand and somehow make a profit, without selling anything. Supply side economics aside, which does assume some pretty weird things about the demand curve, you don't go into business to say you are in business. You go into business to sell goods or services. That means engaging in a market. Just as markets determine value, and not labor, they also reveal demand at various prices. Your price will only ever reveal so much demand, no matter how you spin it. It is up to you as to whether you can make a profit at that price, not the market.

Look, if you want to live in economic la-la land like most liberals and pretend like business is about "having something to offer" instead of profit, go right ahead.

Just don't expect to have ANY shred of credibility among people who know A LITTLE about business.

[Outcast_Searcher]

You are wrong again.

I engage in business to make money(profit). Tomorrow I could buy I-Phones at full cost and sell them for half of what I paid for them. I would do a booming business until I went broke but according to your theory, I went into business simply to sell something. No, No, No.

Thank God you aren't in charge of a business. Your Marxist theory of why people form a business is giving me a headache that only a beer can cure.

Please do yourself a favor and take a few business classes at the local community college. You are embarrassing yourself here.

You have to love liberals. Their entire sense of economics is about saying who ELSE should pay lots of taxes on their "evil" profits. Anything else they say can be complete nonsense, because they already have been accepted by the "something for nothing" crowd for hating profits.

Kind of sad, really. But apparently it gets you into the right cocktail parties.

[evilgenius]

You are wrong again.

I engage in business to make money(profit). Tomorrow I could buy I-Phones at full cost and sell them for half of what I paid for them. I would do a booming business until I went broke but according to your theory, I went into business simply to sell something. No, No, No.

Thank God you aren't in charge of a business. Your Marxist theory of why people form a business is giving me a headache that only a beer can cure.

Please do yourself a favor and take a few business classes at the local community college. You are embarrassing yourself here.

I'm afraid you are the one embarrassing yourself, and you can't even see it. I feel sorry for you.

Perhaps I can explain this another way. One which you might understand better. I'll use a hypothetical example, and maybe you will see the point.

In the world of web development this often happens with small businesses, they want a web site. They want one, so they go to a developer. The developer tries to make them one, but has to have input from them as to what copy to place in the various sections. That's when the developer finds out that the reason the small business person is in business is to 'make money'. In other words, they can't say what it is that they do in a concise way. Forget about search engine optimization because this customer only wants to 'make money'.

Google won't place you very highly in the search results if all that you have to say for your business is that you are in it to 'make money'. You can rail against this, and claim that it is the imposition of the huge monster corporation over the little guy, but it might be better to come up with something. It helps to know how you plan to compete against the other businesses you are in competition with, what sort of marketing strategy you think works best for you. It also helps to understand what it is that you do well enough to say it in a few words, and what those words are so that Google can connect your business with them. That thing called a 'Mission Statement' is not something that was dreamed up by Marx in his manifesto. It's a tool to help you better understand what it is that you do and to give everybody else involved in either working with you or buying from you an understanding of the same.

[Outcast_Searcher]

You are wrong again.

I engage in business to make money(profit). Tomorrow I could buy I-Phones at full cost and sell them for half of what I paid for them. I would do a booming business until I went broke but according to your theory, I went into business simply to sell something. No, No, No.

Thank God you aren't in charge of a business. Your Marxist theory of why people form a business is giving me a headache that only a beer can cure.

Please do yourself a favor and take a few business classes at the local community college. You are embarrassing yourself here.

I'm afraid you are the one embarrassing yourself, and you can't even see it. I feel sorry for you.

Semantics games don't make you look any more competent in the field of economics, but thanks for playing.

Meanwhile I'll alert the media that the global stock markets shouldn't worry about profits since it's all about mission statements and Karl Marx!

(You can't make this stuff up).

[evilgenius]

You are wrong again.

I engage in business to make money(profit). Tomorrow I could buy I-Phones at full cost and sell them for half of what I paid for them. I would do a booming business until I went broke but according to your theory, I went into business simply to sell something. No, No, No.

Thank God you aren't in charge of a business. Your Marxist theory of why people form a business is giving me a headache that only a beer can cure.

Please do yourself a favor and take a few business classes at the local community college. You are embarrassing yourself here.

I'm afraid you are the one embarrassing yourself, and you can't even see it. I feel sorry for you.

Semantics games don't make you look any more competent in the field of economics, but thanks for playing.

Meanwhile I'll alert the media that the global stock markets shouldn't worry about profits since it's all about mission statements and Karl Marx!

(You can't make this stuff up).

Go ahead, I'm sure they are just waiting to hear what you have to say.

[Outcast_Searcher]

You are wrong again.

I engage in business to make money(profit). Tomorrow I could buy I-Phones at full cost and sell them for half of what I paid for them. I would do a booming business until I went broke but according to your theory, I went into business simply to sell something. No, No, No.

Thank God you aren't in charge of a business. Your Marxist theory of why people form a business is giving me a headache that only a beer can cure.

Please do yourself a favor and take a few business classes at the local community college. You are embarrassing yourself here.

I'm afraid you are the one embarrassing yourself, and you can't even see it. I feel sorry for you.

Semantics games don't make you look any more competent in the field of economics, but thanks for playing.

Meanwhile I'll alert the media that the global stock markets shouldn't worry about profits since it's all about mission statements and Karl Marx!

(You can't make this stuff up).

Go ahead, I'm sure they are just waiting to hear what you have to say.

You're a financial genius with all the answers. Is that what you want to hear?

[evilgenius]

Not at all. I began by making a point that I think you misinterpreted. It is not that profit is not part of going into business, but that you won't succeed in business unless you understand what the nature of the business that you attempt is. By understanding that nature you will gain power over the peculiarities of that business because all of those peculiarities relate to that nature and don't revolve around greed. You, as a business owner, are the one who gets to decide how much greed comes into the equation. You can decide that greed exists for you to the exclusion of the reasons why you went into business, but you do that at your long term peril. That's about the only thing I think that has kept me droning on.

[evilgenius]

I took some time to think about this issue. I wondered why it was that when I mentioned purpose over profit, not saying explicitly that profit is not part of business because that wasn't what I meant, that there was such an outcry. I think it comes down to this, that you can really see this two different ways. Like a Neeker cube, or that woman who is either an old crone or a beautiful young woman depending upon how you choose to perceive her, you can see business and profit two different ways.

The first way is the Darwinian way. If it makes a profit it succeeds. If it doesn't, then you jettison it. There is a whole branch of behavioral psychology that thinks this is what people do with everything. This branch of psychology doesn't believe that human beings have free will. It maintains that the individual is a construct of the world that contains them. If you think about it, if you make all business decisions based upon whether they are going to turn a profit that is what you are doing. You aren't pursuing business because you had some dream, but because you wanted to make money. By seizing upon the situations where people are obligated, by hook or by crook, to pay a certain price for a certain thing and finding a way to provide that thing for less cost to you than what you can get paid to provide it you can do that. By conforming to the things that worked you could do that. You won't create anything new, but you will most likely succeed.

The other way is the way of the dreamer. Under this way you go into business because you figure out what it is you want to do and try to make that work, turn a profit. The profit is the sign of success, but it is not why you go into business. You go into business to do your dream. If enough people need or want what you have gone into business to do, and you manage it right, you may turn a profit. Managing it right is about applying ethics, in this case telling the truth, using consistent and generally accepted weights and measures and all of the other things that involve your use of free will. It doesn't guarantee success, but you didn't go into business necessarily for that reason. By convincing people to buy from you and finding various ways to control your costs according to your use of free will you might turn a profit. You might create something new, and then again you might just fail.

Probably no real business is 100% one way or the other.

Incidentally, to tie this back into taxes and taxing attitudes, the government, always being a construct of the will of the people and therefore lacking free will of its own, always falls into the first camp. It is the law which we use to capture what we discover at various times when we engage ourselves in finding new things. The government either carries out the law, or it doesn't. We, in our understanding of what we once discovered, have to hold it accountable to carry out the law, or not.