Is equality an absurd notion?

[Archbob]

But see, people like Aelf are trying to ignore whats blatantly obvious -- that most all VC invest because of financial incentive.

And really, its the larger companies that really come through with the breaking innovations in the field. How many smaller software companies can have claim to come up with the innovations Micorsoft, Apple, Adobe, Google have come up with?

"There very little to show that profit is not the main reason they are investing."

There is everything to show. You are trying to jump through every hoop to ignore the obvious. If VC's were actually interested in something else besides profits, they wouldn't jump to the financials first before even look at what the business is about. There have been many ideas that have been turned down even though it was a good idea but just because the numbers weren't good enough.

If your focusing on the return on investment, thats almost a dead-on indicator that your interested mainly in profits. But, go ahead, continue ignoring the obvious. I don't see how you could better prove this.

What your saying is that "That guy is standing right next to a dead man with an Axe and bad smattered all over his hands, blood with the dead guy's DNA, but that doesn't mean he killed him!".

Its the most obvious conclusion. If there are interested on how much they can earn from a VC venture, they are obviously interested in the profit motive. There is strict evidence that they are motivated by profit. On the contrary, there is absolutely no evidence that they are motivated by anything else, as you would seem to suggest.


And your analogy was complete fail Aelf. Your playing civ analogy has no other possible incentive other than self-interest in the game for wanting to win at the game. Being a VC capitalist, there is another huge incentive to invest in a company even though you, yourself are not interested in what the company's doing.

Your trying to compare something where there is no financial incentive to something where the primary reason for doing the activity is financial incentive. It is total fail.

 

[aelf]

But see, people like Aelf are trying to ignore whats blatantly obvious -- that most all VC invest because of financial incentive.

And really, its the larger companies that really come through with the breaking innovations in the field. How many smaller software companies can have claim to come up with the innovations Micorsoft, Apple, Adobe, Google have come up with.

There is everything to show. You are trying to jump through every hoop to ignore the obvious. If VC's were actually interested in something else besides profits, they wouldn't jump to the financials first before even look at what the business is about. There have been many ideas that have been turned down even though it was a good idea but just because the numbers weren't good enough.

If your focusing on the return on investment, thats almost a dead-on indicator that your interested mainly in profits. But, go ahead, continue ignoring the obvious. I don't see how you could better prove this.

What your saying is that "That guy is standing right next to a dead man with an Axe and bad smattered all over his hands, blood with the dead guy's DNA, but that doesn't mean he killed him!".

Its the most obvious conclusion. If there are interested on how much they can earn from a VC venture, they are obviously interested in the profit motive. There is strict evidence that they are motivated by profit. On the contrary, there is absolutely no evidence that they are motivated by anything else, as you would seem to suggest.

And your analogy was complete fail Aelf. Your playing civ analogy has no other possible incentive other than self-interest in the game for wanting to win at the game. Being a VC capitalist, there is another huge incentive to invest in a company even though you, yourself are not interested in what the company's doing.

Your trying to compare something where there is no financial incentive to something where the primary reason for doing the activity is financial incentive. It is total fail.

Sigh, clearly you still don't understand - I thought you might have tried to look it up. Yes, the two situations are dissimilar in the way you describe, but as it is with analogies, I'm highlighting the important similarities between the two. That's the point.

And my main point still seems to elude you as well. Whether people are interested in profit says little about why they want to invest in the first place, which is what my analogy explains. You asserted that profit is the main reason why people invest, thereby implying that people are mainly motivated by profit in investing. But I have yet to see this proven. All I have to show, therefore, is that it is not necessarily the case that people are mainly motivated by profit, and I think I have provided enough arguments for that, absent evidence that actually establishes your assertion. If it is not necessarily the case that people are mainly motivated by profit, then it does not necessarily follow that they are mainly motivated by it even though it might be the aim of investment. Simple.

It seems plain to me that people have personal reasons for making life decisions such as deciding to invest as an activity, reasons that may be related to but not synonymous with the prospect of profit. I certainly have never heard of anyone who decides to invest purely for profit. It is always instrumental to some other goal, be it a result of the process or something related to the process itself. It's not unreasonable, therefore, to think that people may not be motivated primarily by profit but have other reasons in mind instead.

In sum, that people tend to be interested in profit as investors is obvious enough, sure, but that doesn't settle the question of whether profit is the main reason for their investing.

 

[Yeekim]

I certainly have never heard of anyone who decides to invest purely for profit.

You really should go out more.
Maybe once the total number of investors you have heard of grows into double digits (I am being very generous here), that problem of yours will go away.

Bonus question: have you ever known anyone who has had to approve a business plan?

EDIT: or are we being skillfully trolled? You couldn't have been serious?

 

[Archbob]

Sigh, clearly you still don't understand - I thought you might have tried to look it up. Yes, the two situations are dissimilar in the way you describe, but as it is with analogies, I'm highlighting the important similarities between the two. That's the point.

Those similarities between the two are irrelevent because we're argueing about incentives or motives. You can't take the main point of the argument out(the money incentives) and make analogy and claim it actually means anything.

And my main point still seems to elude you as well. Whether people are interested in profit says little about why they want to invest in the first place, which is what my analogy explains. You asserted that profit is the main reason why people invest, thereby implying that people are mainly motivated by profit in investing. But I have yet to see this proven. All I have to show, therefore, is that it is not necessarily the case that people are mainly motivated by profit, and I think I have provided enough arguments for that, absent evidence that actually establishes your assertion. If it is not necessarily the case that people are mainly motivated by profit, then it does not necessarily follow that they are mainly motivated by it even though it might be the aim of investment. Simple.

You haven't provided any arguments, like usual aelf. I've provided enough circumstantial evidence that people invest mainly for profit motive. The fact that they flip to the financials first before even looking at what the business is about should be enough to prove that. Why do you think people buy stock in a company or try to flip houses. Why do people buy lottery tickets? Its entirely for profit. Thats the one main reason.

If they were actually more interested in the business or the benefits to society, they would actually read the premise of the business plan first before the financials. But the fact is, many of them don't even look at that before flipping to the financials, indicating, they don't care really about what the business does. And you can't tell me that the people who invest in big tobacco are mainly interested in benfitting society in some ways.

Its impossible to prove that people are 100% mainly motivated by profit unless they say so, which they wouldn't because its bad for their PR. But through circumstantial evidence, its easily seen that its more likely than not.

You have yet to show anything that says that its not more likely than not.

Trying to ignore the obvious is most every argument you've been in isn't helping your case.

And you still haven't provided one shred of evidence to say they are motivated otherwise.

I've shown by circumstantial evidence why people who invest are probably most likely motivated by profits(although prestige also does play a role at times). You have yet to show anything to the contrary.

 

[Yeekim]

And really, its the larger companies that really come through with the breaking innovations in the field. How many smaller software companies can have claim to come up with the innovations Micorsoft, Apple, Adobe, Google have come up with?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skype

 

[aelf]

You really should go out more.
Maybe once the total number of investors you have heard of grows into double digits (I am being very generous here), that problem of yours will go away.

Bonus question: have you ever known anyone who has had to approve a business plan?

I think you're missing something very obvious. Even if we're talking about money, I highly doubt many people enter into business for the sole purpose of earning money. Money is instrumental. What more an intangible notion such as economic profit.

Those similarities between the two are irrelevent because we're argueing about incentives or motives. You can't take the main point of the argument out(the money incentives) and make analogy and claim it actually means anything.

You haven't provided any arguments, like usual aelf. I've provided enough circumstantial evidence that people invest mainly for profit motive. The fact that they flip to the financials first before even looking at what the business is about should be enough to prove that. Why do you think people buy stock in a company or try to flip houses. Why do people buy lottery tickets? Its entirely for profit. Thats the one main reason.

If they were actually more interested in the business or the benefits to society, they would actually read the premise of the business plan first before the financials. But the fact is, many of them don't even look at that before flipping to the financials, indicating, they don't care really about what the business does. And you can't tell me that the people who invest in big tobacco are mainly interested in benfitting society in some ways.

Its impossible to prove that people are 100% mainly motivated by profit unless they say so, which they wouldn't because its bad for their PR. But through circumstantial evidence, its easily seen that its more likely than not.

You have yet to show anything that says that its not more likely than not.

Trying to ignore the obvious is most every argument you've been in isn't helping your case.

And you still haven't provided one shred of evidence to say they are motivated otherwise.

I've shown by circumstantial evidence why people who invest are probably most likely motivated by profits(although prestige also does play a role at times). You have yet to show anything to the contrary.

You just repeated what you said without even bothering to try and understand my argument. There is obviously a difference between being interested in profit as the aim of investment and being primarily motivated by profit in investing. The first is not synonymous with the second.

I'm beginning to think that people of a certain political persuasion have trouble understanding anything beyond very basic reasoning.

 

[Yeekim]

Even if we're talking about money, I highly doubt many people enter into business for the sole purpose of earning money. Money is instrumental.

This is quite different from your earlier claim (and, fortunately, not completely out of whack with reality this time).
Yes, money is instrumental. Yes of course: people have a whole hierarchy of goals in life. So? This only means that people invest with the purpose of making profit, which then may be used for something completely different.
Why do you think people buy stocks of real estate developers, utility companies or airways, which may be located on another bloody continent, so they'll never even see their dollars "at work"? Yes, some may seek self-actualization or respect of others as a reward as well - but this can only be achived by being successful. And in this case, profit is the measure of success.
To bring an example:

BP plc[3][4] is a British-based global energy company which is the third largest energy company and the fourth largest company in the world.... The company is among the largest private sector energy corporations in the world and is one of the six "supermajors" (vertically integrated private sector oil exploration, natural gas, and petroleum product marketing companies).[9] The company is listed on the London Stock Exchange, the New York Stock Exchange, and is a constituent of the FTSE 100 Index.

Some 70 million dollars worth of BP stock were sold and bought yesterday. So, please explain us, why do you think people bought the stock of BP? Because they are emotionally attached to deepwater drilling?

Of course, you seem to speak of "investing" and "entering into business" interchangeably... so yes, there are people who, for example, dream of having a restaurant or a nightclub and so start and operate one even while it barely covers the costs (or not). This would be their private hobby, not "business" or "investment activity". And these cases are exceptions rather than the norm.

 

[Verbose]

Some 70 million dollars worth of BP stock were sold and bought yesterday. So, please explain us, why do you think people bought the stock of BP? Because they are emotionally attached to deepwater drilling?

Of course, you seem to speak of "investing" and "entering into business" interchangeably... so yes, there are people who, for example, dream of having a restaurant or a nightclub and so start and operate one even while it barely covers the costs (or not). This would be their private hobby, not "business" or "investment activity". And these cases are exceptions rather than the norm.

Really?

It seems clear we agree that playing the stock exchange is done purely for profit motives (with some there might be a gambling thing going on, the lure of controlling chance too, I figure) — however building a business tends to be rather different from betting on which ones will produce the most profit.

Entrepreneurs tend to like money for sure, not least since it's necessary to keep going, while at the same time the most obvious mark of success, but considering how many small entrepreneurs keep putting on ungodly hours to make their business work on a hunch or a hope or whatever, profit can't be the only motive. There's a lot going on with them, from issues of freedom to the pure excitement of making " a good deal".

At least, that seems palpably obvious if you hang around some of them for a while. But yes, they tend to be different from the stock exchange-players (rubbing on to money so some will rub off), and the present day managerial type CEO:s apparently only in it for the money we tend to get these days.

It's a bit of a song how business management these days is somehow somehow suffering from a deficit in leadership.

 

[Yeekim]

You are entirely correct. I just think that we should keep in mind the subtle difference between "investor" and "entrepreneur".
Moreover, there is obviously a great difference between saying "some entrepreneurs have motives other than profit" and "no investor has ever been interested solely in profit".
First is a given, another is just a massive

 

[aelf]

This is quite different from your earlier claim (and, fortunately, not completely out of whack with reality this time).
Yes, money is instrumental. Yes of course: people have a whole hierarchy of goals in life. So? This only means that people invest with the purpose of making profit, which then may be used for something completely different.
Why do you think people buy stocks of real estate developers, utility companies or airways, which may be located on another bloody continent, so they'll never even see their dollars "at work"? Yes, some may seek self-actualization or respect of others as a reward as well - but this can only be achived by being successful. And in this case, profit is the measure of success.
To bring an example:

Some 70 million dollars worth of BP stock were sold and bought yesterday. So, please explain us, why do you think people bought the stock of BP? Because they are emotionally attached to deepwater drilling?

Of course, you seem to speak of "investing" and "entering into business" interchangeably... so yes, there are people who, for example, dream of having a restaurant or a nightclub and so start and operate one even while it barely covers the costs (or not). This would be their private hobby, not "business" or "investment activity". And these cases are exceptions rather than the norm.

But you're still missing the point. Profit motive is indeed very central in the social scheme of things, but on what basis do you claim that it is the primary motivation for people to invest? Yes, they don't have to be emotionally invested in what they are investing in, but on a personal level even a shallow get-rich-quick mentality is very likely built on other motivating factors such as the desire for material security or for comfort.

In short, people don't seek profit for nothing. And I think this is a non-trivial point, because if the social currency is less confined to monetary terms, people would engage in economic activity less specifically for the purpose of profit, since they would be able to rely less on money to fulfil their wants and needs. And, certainly, there would be a lot less short-term investments such as you describe. The motivations for engaging in economic activity would remain, but the game would change.

Also, I don't see why people can't be interested in starting a business for fun or something and still be considered to be doing business or investing. On what basis do you claim that they are not really doing what they are doing?

Moreover, there is obviously a great difference between saying "some entrepreneurs have motives other than profit" and "no investor has ever been interested solely in profit".
First is a given, another is just a massive

No one has made the second claim. On my part, I just don't see why it is necessarily true that people are primarily motivated by profit when they invest (which certainly includes long-term investing).

 

[Fayadi]

In the real world, if you approach a venture-capitalist to invest in something that is of no market value it would get no where. I concur with Yeekim, you should go out more. When you step into the real world and deal with money and understand how difficult it come by, you would give up this idea that money can be thrown away at will.


A person could invest X amount of money for profit only; one could also invest X amount of money for profit purposes and passion. It is very rare for one to invest the X amount of money purely for passion. You are talking about celebrities or super-rich people who could do that. The majority of the business are small businesses and the owners can't rationally afford to throw away their money on projects for purposes of passion. They are upper-middle class who are not under rich category. When the amount of money they have is limited, why would anybody in their right mind will use it for investment that does not prioritize in seeing the money come back (in the form of profits). The majority of the businesses fail. One is taking risks for investment. What's the upside of putting money at risk if not for profit motive then?


The world punishes harshly anybody who doesn't plan their money well. You need money for daily necessities, shelter, entertainment, retirement etc. No rational person would risk the stability of these for purposes of passion. If the upside of the risk-taking is that one would get more money than before, doesn't it suddenly all makes sense? No rational person takes risks without an upside.

It would be positive if you could be on the same page on this.


But again I read this quote from you

Yes, they don't have to be emotionally invested in what they are investing in, but on a personal level even a shallow get-rich-quick mentality is very likely built on other motivating factors such as the desire for material security or for comfort.

In short, people don't seek profit for nothing.

You have answered your own question. Through profit then one get access to material security and comfort. By the way the desire for material security or comfort is not shallow. It is being rational. Don't let ideologies blur your judgment.

 

[aelf]

You have answered your own question. Through profit then one get access to material security and comfort. By the way the desire for material security or comfort is not shallow. It is being rational. Don't let ideologies blur your judgment.

No?

You're trying to suggest that only through profit can one get material security and comfort, which is not true. And this does not answer my own question - whatever you might mean by that - because it still stands, thereby, that profit is merely instrumental to achieving other desires that are not contingent to the structure of society. That is, people will always want material security and comfort but they may not desire profit if the structure of society is different from a capitalist one. Also, the question of rationality does not enter the picture. The opposite of 'shallow' is not 'rational'.

I don't think I've said anything controversial. On the contrary, all this simply requires some clarity of thought.

 

[Fayadi]

No?

You're trying to suggest that only through profit can one get material security and comfort, which is not true.

You are taking some points of what I said and missing some out which is not helpful in understanding what I am trying to say. Money is a very essential thing, you have less your material security is less, you have more and you are more comfortable materially. Profitability is the metric for any rational investment because rational people wish to see the money come back as investments have risks. The majority of the people are not rich. They simply can't fool around with their money like some celebrities opening up cafe or clubs to have a place to socialize with friend. When rational people divert their money, they divert to places that higher chances of coming back and that's where profitability is the primary importance in making these decisions. Can you start seeing the light how rationality comes into the picture now?

Through what other means can one reasonably achieve material security and comfort then without the profits? PLEASE ANSWER THIS QUESTION. You do realize when one sunks a certain fund into investments and it does not generate profit; one's money will not come back until the profits start showing up? When your fund is stuck into a certain place or the funds go bust when the investment went bad; that will be money that cannot be used right? Won't the material comfort decrease?

And this does not answer my own question - whatever you might mean by that - because it still stands, thereby, that profit is merely instrumental to achieving other desires that are not contingent to the structure of society. That is, people will always want material security and comfort but they may not desire profit if the structure of society is different from a capitalist one. Also, the question of rationality does not enter the picture. The opposite of 'shallow' is not 'rational'.

I don't think I've said anything controversial. On the contrary, all this simply requires some clarity of thought.

We are talking about the people driven by profit-motive aren't we? Why don't you stay on the topic. Whether profit-motive benefits society is altogether a different topic. You were talking about profit not an essential factor once the structure of the economy is not capitalist. You might be right but that is totally irrelevant to our discussion. Let me remind you again what we are discussing here, we are talking about the importance of profit-motive when people make investment decisions. Investment decisions obviously takes place in capitalist societies because you can't invest money freely in an economic system that contradicts capitalism.

If you ask me, as a student of economics and scientific rationality, profit-motive with optimal regulation benefits society. The most rapid progress of human history is achieved since 1750, the intertwining of the Industrial Revolution and the increased trade between nations. But that deserves another thread.

 

[Luckymoose]

As long as I can say I'm better than you we will never ever ever have equality.