Shop or not?

Actually, I think if you ask ANY business owner, large or small, they will ALL tell you that they are motivated by profit - when it comes to their business. No exceptions. To think otherwise is naive.

 

That is a wicked buisness. ...so guide and protect me oh dja dja
--- merged: Jan 20, 2012 3:59 PM ---

This I know is wrong. There's alot of gospel in this world

 

i'd love to break even if (in the future that is) i didn't have to worry about food, house payments/rent, kids, utilities. the money has to come from somewhere and breaking even for the sake of culture does not keep food in my stomach.

 

it seems someone needs a business 101 class.

Seriously, it's fine and dandy to not be greedy and to do purposeful things, however, there are plenty of people who do a lot of good for others and themselves and still turn a profit. It doesn't mean that the actual person is pocketing the money, it simply means the purposeful thing they are doing is able to substantiate itself and continue doing the good things it's been doing. It's also fine to mock and grumble about the bank ceo's and car manufacturing ceo's that were bailed out and then pocketed big money, but to say that all profit is bad and business and consumers can live on culture and arts alone is a purely utopian theory and one that is quite flawed.

even a church or religion can't exist without profit.

artists can't survive with profit --not for long. A little profit goes a long way in some cases.

if people can't sustain the businesses, arts,cultural or consumer then how are they to exist?

 

haha it seems to be quite the opposite though. i wonder where the line is that a company crosses when profit because of a benevolent purpose turn into a money-grubbing overcapitalistic inhumane machine, maaaaaaaan.

 

people have no appreciation for High Art anymore... *sigh*

 

Breaking even keeps food comming to your table and gives you the chance to practice culture

 

How is making profit and sustaining a buisness the same thing? Yes a buisness will have its ups and downs. But the point is that I man is not motivated by profit for the sake of profit
--- merged: Jan 20, 2012 4:16 PM ---

Do I sense communism-fear?

 

It's been tryed and failed. Humans will allways have somekind of market-economy. What I'm trying to figure out is how I can survive in it with pure consious
--- merged: Jan 20, 2012 4:30 PM ---
This discussion has changed focus from what the consumer can do to not fall into a trap , to what the buisnessowner can do not to be just greedy. It's eazier to focus on someone else?

 

Please tell me this isn't a serious question.

Please.

 

My household is a small buisness. I sustain it, but I make no profit. Serious question it is.

 

It's pretty easy - you can operate a highly profitable yet moral company at the same time. There are numerous examples, although it becomes much more difficult as you scale up.

And the business owner is simply the other side of the question you've asked, and one that's a lot more interesting. The consumer simply has to decide which companies fit within his moral guidelines and solely patronize those businesses as much as possible.
--- merged: Jan 20, 2012 4:43 PM ---

No, your household is a household. If you're operating a business, it's separate from your household. The two are necessarily mutually exclusuve and they can't overlap.

Your household is no more a business than my office is a home.

 

Yes I belive you. One of my closest friend is a very successful buisnesswoman and she has no minus on my moral-account. But I belive it's more a combination of ambition in general and a big sense of humor that makes her successful. Not profitable calculations
--- merged: Jan 20, 2012 4:50 PM ---

I beg to differ. Example: Household has to have income and expence. Buisness has to have income and expence. And to answer how a buisness can be sustained without profit: My mom had a company for long. It never made any profit. But it kept her going.

 

You're using the term "profit" wrong. Profit is what's left over after expenses, one of which can be the salary of the owner(s). If the salary of the owner(s) is not included, then it becomes harder to sustain the business unless the owner(s) are being subsidized by a spouse or other business venture.
The difference between a household and a business is that the household does not produce anything. The members of the household may work at a business to produce something, but the household itself is not productive. It's a pure consumer. You cannot equate the two.

 

This is and was clear to me. How am I using the word "profit" wrong?

I can tell you that the owner of a household has to produce services too, in the form of working for his salery.

 

Because your mother was clearly turning a profit when you factor out her salary. Her business did turn a profit - otherwise it would not have kept her going.

No, they don't. The members of the household work, but they do not work for the household. The household is not producing anything.

Really, this is very basic economics. It's something recognized by all schools of economists, from free marketers to Marxists. Households are not businesses. They do not sell anything nor do they provide services for anyone. They do not operate on the same basis as a business. What you're arguing is completely illogical and in no way based in reality.