Is equality an absurd notion?

[GhostWriter16]

No, it's right.

What part of my post are you referring to?

EDIT: Or are you referencing the OP?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Not at all. We're still tribal animals. Shoot, that's why we're here (CFC is a modern day tribe).

We have flashlights & MP3 players & jets but we're still tribal by nature because that's what works.

Correction.
That is what worked in the good old days. Today it is not what works, but what is simply wired into our brain and we have to live with it.

 

[Archbob]

For those of you arguing about how a society where there are no privately owned companies would run. Think about this. All the largest companies are privately owned. They were made with the incentive to the owner(s) or return on investment and riches. That incentive is what made people start these companies.

Without that profit incentive, who would bother to start companies?

 

[Bill3000]

For those of you arguing about how a society where there are no privately owned companies would run. Think about this. All the largest companies are privately owned. They were made with the incentive to the owner(s) or return on investment and riches. That incentive is what made people start these companies.

Without that profit incentive, who would bother to start companies?

Er, purpose-driven people, the same reasons people start various non-profit services like Wikipedia or Linux or charities or public arts? I'm sure even profit-based ones; not everyone starts a for-profit company simply to become wealthy - they usually have other motives as well.

I mean you can certainly say that the profit incentive is a very helpful motive that helps create prosperity, but you can't say that it is a necessary one, as there are other motives which can drive people to create quality services; especially intellectual and artistic ones. Besides, your question is a bit of a strawman, since the abolishment of the profit incentive is not what systems like socialism is about; you certainly can have the profit incentive in some of these scenarios, like in cooperatives.

 

[Narz]

Correction.
That is what worked in the good old days. Today it is not what works, but what is simply wired into our brain and we have to live with it.

It still works but most people put other things above community. We're not solitary animals. Shoot, why do you think we're all here on this forum? It's a tribe-substitute that comes with us wherever we go in this transient world.

 

[Archbob]

Er, purpose-driven people, the same reasons people start various non-profit services like Wikipedia or Linux or charities or public arts? I'm sure even profit-based ones; not everyone starts a for-profit company simply to become wealthy - they usually have other motives as well.

I mean you can certainly say that the profit incentive is a very helpful motive that helps create prosperity, but you can't say that it is a necessary one, as there are other motives which can drive people to create quality services; especially intellectual and artistic ones. Besides, your question is a bit of a strawman, since the abolishment of the profit incentive is not what systems like socialism is about; you certainly can have the profit incentive in some of these scenarios, like in cooperatives.

I would have to say that profit motive is the primary reason most companies get started. Most VC's invest expecting to make a profit. There are exceptions but without a huge profit incentive, the system just simply wouldn't work. Cooperative just don't have the same level of financial incentive as private ownership. You need profit incentive for most scenarios(not just some) for the system to work.

Very few people will actually take the time and effort to start a company(and no Venture capitalists will invest) if you tell them that eventually the company is going to be owned jointly by a worker's cooperative.

 

[warpus]

What the hell does evolution have to do with anything?

edit: i'm half asleep, forgot to quote, and now somehow the thing I was referencing is nowhere to be seen

 

[aelf]

I would have to say that profit motive is the primary reason most companies get started.

And you know this how?

Most VC's invest expecting to make a profit. There are exceptions but without a huge profit incentive, the system just simply wouldn't work. Cooperative just don't have the same level of financial incentive as private ownership. You need profit incentive for most scenarios(not just some) for the system to work.

Very few people will actually take the time and effort to start a company(and no Venture capitalists will invest) if you tell them that eventually the company is going to be owned jointly by a worker's cooperative.

It might very well be a question of ownership, especially if the receipt of profits is tied to concept of ownership. I'd be very interested in a psycological account of investment decisions that demonstrates how in such matters the human brain is primarily motivated by as an intangible a concept as economic profit. Personally, speaking of evolution, I think our brains are not (yet) wired to reward itself over the notion of economic profit alone.

What the hell does evolution have to do with anything?

Not unless one subscribes to the 'best of all possible worlds' line of fallacious thinking.

 

[Archbob]

And you know this how?

Because the first thing any venture capitalist looks at in a business plan is the financials. Many don't even look at the other details.

 

[aelf]

Because the first thing any venture capitalist looks at in a business plan is the financials. Many don't even look at the other details.

That says little or nothing about the reason for their investing.

 

[Archbob]

That says little or nothing about the reason for their investing.

It says everything about their reason for investing, unless you want to completely ignore the obvious.

They are most interested by far at the financials of a business plan, meaning they are more interested in the return they can get for their investment.

Most VC's also look at a 5 to 10 year investment period for an average business(industry depending of course) as they look to get out or sell at that time for a nice fat return.

That should tell anyone with common sense that they are investing mainly for profits.

 

[aelf]

It says everything about their reason for investing, unless you want to completely ignore the obvious.

They are most interested by far at the financials of a business plan, meaning they are more interested in the return they can get for their investment.

Most VC's also look at a 5 to 10 year investment period for an average business(industry depending of course) as they look to get out or sell at that time for a nice fat return.

That should tell anyone with common sense that they are investing mainly for profits.

So can you explain how it is obvious or common-sensical?

A good turnover is the aim of investment, so of course investors would be interested in the financials. But that can still say little about what actually motivates people to invest. They are only contingently motivated by profit because it's the aim of the game (so to speak) that they are participating in, in the same way that I'm interested in winning a Civ game but that is not the actual motivation for my playing. If I'm not interested in playing Civ for some other more fundamental and personal reason, I wouldn't be interested in winning a game because I wouldn't even pick it up.

Thus, even though you would be able to say that profit is necessary as a goal in investment due to the very nature of the game, I haven't seen anything that indicates people must primarily be motivated by profit to invest.

 

[Narz]

I would have to say that profit motive is the primary reason most companies get started. Most VC's invest expecting to make a profit. There are exceptions but without a huge profit incentive, the system just simply wouldn't work. Cooperative just don't have the same level of financial incentive as private ownership. You need profit incentive for most scenarios(not just some) for the system to work.

I've known a few small businessmen/women & the desire for freedom (from overlords, creative freedom, freedom over their time) seems to be the #1 incentive, not necessarily more money (many people who go into business for themselves make less money than they did before).

Very few people will actually take the time and effort to start a company(and no Venture capitalists will invest) if you tell them that eventually the company is going to be owned jointly by a worker's cooperative.

I would welcome such a thing if it meant my business had more chance of success. As long as I still had some control & made a living wage. Better than going under.

 

[Narz]

Not unless one subscribes to the 'best of all possible worlds' line of fallacious thinking.

What's that?

 

[Archbob]

So can you explain how it is obvious or common-sensical?

A good turnover is the aim of investment, so of course investors would be interested in the financials. But that can still say little about what actually motivates people to invest.

If ROI is the main thing your looking at in a business plan. It indicates that you are mainly interested in money. That doesn't take a rocket-scientist to figure out.

Have you seen the way many of these VC's live? It costs a whole lotta money to be living in that way.

I doubt they'd actually invest nearly as much if there wasn't profit incentive.

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

Most people buy stocks, bonds, lottery tickets, for a chance to advance themselves in the world, not for the betterment of society. VC's and Entrepenuers are hardly much different.

Freedom and getting to set your own work schedule are quite nice. But the large financial incentive is what really gets most of the people who get large amounts of funding to start a mega corporation.

Everything in our world is centered around profit. Investors, VC's, businessmen -- that more or less all they focus on.

I would welcome such a thing if it meant my business had more chance of success. As long as I still had some control & made a living wage. Better than going under

I'd just stick to my regular day-job then. Its less risky than starting a business and I can easily make better than a living wage doing that.

If I'm not interested in playing Civ for some other more fundamental and personal reason, I wouldn't be interested in winning a game because I wouldn't even pick it up.

This is a completely fail comparison. There isn't a multi-million dollar prize if you win a Civ game like there is if you invest in a successful business. If there was, I'd be playing Civ all day even though I didn't want to. If it was announced that anyone who beat Civ IV on Sid level on random huge map would get a $5 million prize(and assuming you knew this was legit), then I bet there'd be quite a few people who would quit what they are doing right now and be civving all day.

Civ doesn't give you a huge financial incentive to win.

 

[aelf]

If ROI is the main thing your looking at in a business plan. It indicates that you are mainly interested in money. That doesn't take a rocket-scientist to figure out.

Have you seen the way many of these VC's live? It costs a whole lotta money to be living in that way.

I doubt they'd actually invest nearly as much if there wasn't profit incentive.

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

Most people buy stocks, bonds, lottery tickets, for a chance to advance themselves in the world, not for the betterment of society. VC's and Entrepenuers are hardly much different.

Freedom and getting to set your own work schedule are quite nice. But the large financial incentive is what really gets most of the people who get large amounts of funding to start a mega corporation.

Everything in our world is centered around profit. Investors, VC's, businessmen -- that more or less all they focus on.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist either to know that repeating your assertions proves nothing. And you even came up with this little gem here: "There very little to show that profit is not the main reason they are investing." So how are we to see that it is not the case that something is not the main reason for investing without first proving that it is the main reason for investing, the latter which you are evidently unable to do?

This is a completely fail comparison. There isn't a multi-million dollar prize if you win a Civ game like there is if you invest in a successful business. If there was, I'd be playing Civ all day even though I didn't want to. If it was announced that anyone who beat Civ IV on Sid level on random huge map would get a $5 million prize(and assuming you knew this was legit), then I bet there'd be quite a few people who would quit what they are doing right now and be civving all day.

Civ doesn't give you a huge financial incentive to win.

Clearly, you don't understand what analogies are and how they function. This argument by analogy that I provided is the best thing yet in our discussion on what motivates people to invest, if I may say so myself. I really wish I could be more modest and charitable, but you're really not giving me anything to work with here.

 

[Bill3000]

As an FYI, monetary rewards have been empirically shown to not work to motivate people to excel in intellectual tasks.

 

[Yeekim]

As an FYI, monetary rewards have been empirically shown to not work to motivate people to excel in intellectual tasks.

Well, that is probably because promising monetary reward does not make anyone smarter per se.

But how is that relevant to discussion at hand anyway?
Making an investment or career decision isn't probably covered under the label "intellectual task" as far as this study is concerned. Also, deciding to pursue a particular goal and excelling in that are different things as well.

 

[aelf]

Well, that is probably because promising monetary reward does not make anyone smarter per se.

But how is that relevant to discussion at hand anyway?
Making an investment or career decision isn't probably covered under the label "intellectual task" as far as this study is concerned. Also, deciding to pursue a particular goal and excelling in that are different things as well.

Heh. Actually, I really want to see the response to this, so on second thoughts I'm keeping quiet.

 

[kosiosko 1]

I would have to say that profit motive is the primary reason most companies get started. Most VC's invest expecting to make a profit. There are exceptions but without a huge profit incentive, the system just simply wouldn't work. Cooperative just don't have the same level of financial incentive as private ownership. You need profit incentive for most scenarios(not just some) for the system to work.

Very few people will actually take the time and effort to start a company(and no Venture capitalists will invest) if you tell them that eventually the company is going to be owned jointly by a worker's cooperative.

your point about venture capitalists..... its fair comment on Huge companies that are going to list

Most smaller companies, venture capitalist invest in... ACTUALLY plan on the workers taking over the company, Its the management buy out, investors start their own company, which they run and grow, its only the fact that they cannot grow it further that leads them to venture capitalists that don't buy the company but take a percentage of it, often provideing management traing and assitance as well.... and from the outset its planned for the management team(the owners and investors) to buy it back after this phase of the companies life .... most companies are not google and apple going from back yard shed to wall street

Venture capitaists put in the exit plan, if they plan to have a stake long term they are just capitalist