Prosperity TVRandy Gage... AKA John Galt?
Philosophy is important to a rewarding life, and it must carry over into your business and work. Yet this is almost entirely missing from the business world today.
Right now, business people are under attack. The Wall Street meltdown and government bailout programs are being used to paint the picture that all businesses are evil and the people running them are money-grubbing parasites, exploiting the good “little people.
You hear a lot of talk these days about corporate greed. Yet corporate greed is a misnomer and thinking this way is simply another insidious form of lack consciousness and herd mentality programming. It’s like saying someone is greedy for wanting to be too healthy or too happy.
It’s very important that you realize that every business has a moral prerogative to make not only a profit—but the maximum potential profit possible.
Please read that last sentence again.
Now of course they must conduct their business affairs with
integrity, invest for the future, do so without plundering the
environment, or trampling on the rights of others. But if they
operate by a congruent moral philosophy, they will be in accord with these principles.
If you don’t understand the moral responsibility for a company to make money, you’re sending conflicting messages to yourself, and will have a hard time being successful at anything.
So give this some real thought, share your view, and we’ll explore the issue deeper on the next post.
-RG
Subscribe to Randy’s Blog via Email
Randy Gage... AKA John Galt?
Yeah baby! 🙂
I totally agree with you Randy. When you say:
"It’s very important that you realize that every business has a moral prerogative to make not only a profit—but the maximum potential profit possible."
But here's the problem with that.
You also say that "they must conduct their business affairs with
integrity, invest for the future, do so without plundering the
environment, or trampling on the rights of others."
But what happens when that DIRECTLY CONFLICTS with the first part?
Well, the second part ALWAYS loses.
The GAME of capitalism is a game where the bottom line wins, and everything else comes second. That's the game, just like in Soccer, the game is to score goals, and playing well comes second.
Watching the World Cup, you might think the game is "Who can fake as many penalties as you can" because the goals are easiest to get from there.
We all accept that when someone does commit a foul, but they argue, and whatever, we say "well, he's just trying to get points", but the fact of the matter is that everything else in the game suffers.
While we are playing the "My bottom line is the most important thing" Game of capitalism, everything else suffers.
The Capitalism game is meant to reward those who do the best for society with cash- Ayn Rand talks about that, and that's why she's a hyper-capitalist. However, she was not a witness to this capitalism where cash itself is the goal.
In the story of the island in one of your books, you write about a guy who makes the water pipeline, and how he should be compensated for that.
I wholeheartedly agree.
What about the guy who creates the sewer system? He should too. But then, in order to make more money, he then PURPOSEFULLY directs that system into the clean water, waits for a few people to die, and then sells water from a different stream- with a premium for filtration? Well, the sewer guy wins.
That's what we got here now- and the sewer guys are winning.
We are on the verge of a NEW system- I don't know what it is, but just like Feudalism went away when they realized that the lords were NOT ordained by God, we will soon see that Capitalism will go away when we see that Money is not God either.
Our rewards will be humanity itself, and we won't SCARE people into buying, or make up pains so they buy- instead, it will be a REWARD as it was meant to be.
Great analysis, Bones
We are indeed "on the verge of a new system..."
For more on what that might entail, click on my name. I think it will interest you.
Best wishes.
Let's stay in touch.
The best way for a company to maximize potential profit is to provide a quality product. Frank Stronach, the founder of Magna international said the only reason he is successful is because of the widespread mediocrity that is out there. He made sure he put out quality stuff. His firm probably made the frame of my Explorer, and let me tell you, it is a quality job - I have seen it from under my own hoist.
I can't agree that Capitalism will ever go away given the fact that direct reward for your own labour is the biggest incentive for human beings. There are many businesses out there that are not ethical or moral, and only concerned about the bottom line - that is an unfortunate reality. But there are many businesses that are as well.
It certainly makes for a happy customer, but it is not the most profitable way. The best way for a company to make a profit is to make something that is good enough for you to buy a new one as soon as possible.
Cars, computers, furniture, food, etc-
The ideal of the "best product wins" is a great ideal; and it's what capitalism is supposed to do, but doesn't work in reality.
Yes, that is true. Not many car companies can be accused of over-engineering their products. But there are a few beacons of light in this sea of capitalistic darkness, namely, the firm that built the speed controller for one of my mixing machines, and a mountain bike suspension fork manufacturer based in bologna, Italy. My mechanic said one of the Japanese brands actually makes an effort to make their cars more robust and longer lasting on a continual basis. The big three are guilty of not doing as good a job as they should and that's why they keep losing market share. Actually, one out of he big three has pretty good quality standards.
Nice, Randy -
For an in-depth perspective on the matter,
click on the link provided.
Hope you like it.
Any and all comments welcome.
The bottom line and goal of a business is to create a customer and a profit. In the "game of capitalism" as described above, the guy (or company) who builds the water pipeline will sustain (in a true capitalist society), while the guy who creates the sewer system and dumps into clean water may see short term profit, but will not sustain long term. This is illustrated by today's examples (Enron, Bernie Madoff, etc.)
I see and hear examples daily of people with their own conflicting viewpoints. Someone says, yes, the government is far too encroaching today, then turn around and say, it's about time the government start looking into limiting corporate exec income... who needs to earn over half a million dollars a year?? I agree with you Randy on the herd mentality programming.
RJ
Randy...I think the outrage in the public and media is a very linked thing to large corporations violating the moral pact you said they must do: conduct their business affairs with integrity, invest for the future, do so without plundering the environment, or trampling on the rights of others. Egregious excess....in terms of high profits tied to bad but not criminal practices creates the bad rap for large profit oriented enterprises that operate morally.
I agree with your message Randy but when does greed take over??? For instance, Michael Douglas' ex is suing him for more money... she already got $47 million in their divorce... now she wants a piece of Wall St. 2 as that was a character he created when they were married... yikes! I hope the judge dismisses it in 30 seconds and fines her $20 million to discourage that kind of ugly greed...
By the way the original Wall St. has got some great lessons about profit, greed and morals... why do you got wreck this company???... because it's wreckable!!!... ugly, ugly stuff...
Wow I never heard that. Unbelievable.
But while we're on the subject, it would be good to reflect on the subliminal programming about money in that movie. Be very interesting to see where the second one goes.
-RG
Yes, maximize profits - same as paying as few taxes as possible - legally! Sorely missing at many, many levels are integrity (honesty/being truthful) and trampling of rights.
Wattles says in The Science of Getting Rich, that is our birthright to be rich since the Universe is infinite in riches. He ALSO says it's important to provide a use value GREATER than the cash value received in order to BE rich.
My interpretation of this is by bringing as much value as we can, while making as healthy a profit as possible. That way all parties are happy and the infinite circulation of riches continues and grows.
"My interpretation of this is by bringing as much value as we can, while making as healthy a profit as possible. That way all parties are happy and the infinite circulation of riches continues and grows."
The trick is to understand your inherent value. But a discussion surrounding 'use-value' vs. 'dollar-value' merits consideration. It's a wildly subjective assumption to assert that your value is equal to my value and vice versa. Just as Brian mentions above, our morality is what creates the chasm between the right to profit, greed, and the "excess" of environmentally-negligent enterprises.
I'm also on the opposite side of the line from Bones on this one (at least thus far); excellent points, but I maintain that "humanity itself" won't pay my bills. My work does. Excellent work. Integrity and excellent work.
PS - David's point notwithstanding, clearly. She wants MORE? Ridiculous - Michael earned it; she didn't.
Hey Erica- You're not on the opposite side of me on that- yes, your work pays your bills in THEORY, because we actually never "pay" for anything- we just push debt around.
Your work does NOT pay your bills; the dollars you receive for your work pay your bills (in theory), and it's only because you CHOOSE to charge for the work that it does it.
In other words, you do many different things that are "work", but you only get dollars for some of it.
You also receive many things, but only "pay" for some of them.
We have arbitrarily decided what those are.
Just because I know that's confusing...
Sometimes I go to parties, and tell jokes, and get games going.
Sometimes I get paid to do that, sometimes I don't.
Either way, the "work" is there, but the money may or may not be.... got me?
I do, indeed. But the value of my work and the dollars I receive for doing it is a matter of semantics... what I "choose" to charge for is, in fact, my value. And that isn't arbitrary at all.
Interesting conversation here and everyone should read Wallace Wattles Science of Getting Rich annually. Webster's dictionary says a Goal is an object or event toward which play is directed in order to score.
Read that a couple times. When I did it occurred to me I was not using that definition for goal. In the definition for the game of soccer the NET is the goal.
If you collapse goal and score onto each other you lose the play part and all kinds of nasty things appear. Make goal and score distinct and play, enjoyment, fun appears in the equation.
What happens if your 'goal' is to make more money? How do you keep score? Keeping score and goal distinct it is not the money. What is the game you are playing toward which to reach your goal?
Bones, I disagree with your assessment, because in it Capitalism is misdefined. Capitalism only exists were bot parties agree to the bargain. Anything less is tyranny or some invalid economic model. Capitalism in its purest form exchanges value for value and when one party feels he gets less value than he provides, the bargain should not be struck. By providing maximum value for your customer, you have the right to require maximum profit. By providing anything less, you do not have that right. Trampling over the rights of someone else is NOT capitalism; it is something else by some other name.
Hey Nancy- I think you're right. In true Capitalism (which is even more impossible than true Communism), we would be negotiating over each and every item for cost. However, even then it doesn't work because the skill of negotiating is factored in. In your example, the maximum value would be the maximum profit; actually, there'd be no maximums or minimums, it would just be the actual value, right?
Saying that the trampling on other people's rights not being capitalism is interesting; is that like purposefully hurting a quarterback not football?
Conditioning, to think that the following cant exsit together... “It’s very important that you realize that every business has a moral prerogative to make not only a profit—but the maximum potential profit possible.”
“they must conduct their business affairs with
integrity, invest for the future, do so without plundering the
environment, or trampling on the rights of others.”
But what happens when the second part DIRECTLY CONFLICTS with the first part?
Who says this is true...
What if by doing the second part, you increase the bottem LINE
This is and as been happening now and through out history!
More and more people are gravitating to, and suporting the more "green" corporations
Conditioning! The way we view and precieve!
“on the verge of a new system…”
I believe we are on the verge of an Awaking a new Awareness ...
Thanks for being a part of that Randy I have been changing my conditioning the last three years its been like a rebirth I am finally walking cant wait to start running...
I think if you increase the bottom line by bettering the second part, that's GREAT!
What I asked (as a question) is "But what happens when..." that means it's a CONDITIONAL phrase. As in "what happens when" that particular situation comes up?
I agree that the green companies are growing n popularity, and it's because our some of our VALUES as a society are changing- that's the part I think will change capitalism and bring something else.
Great post and great conversation!
I love reading the comments here. This is a cerebral bunch to say the least.
This is how I like to sum it up (by stealing a quote, of course)
"If you help enough people get what they want, you will get what you want" - ZZ
"Business" is in business to make money! Bottom line.
And the best way to be the most successful and the most profitable is to provide the greatest value to as many people as you possible can.
Internally and externally (meaning employees and customers)
If that happens to line up with your passion and the gifts you have been given...you will succeed at the highest level.
Peace/out
MS
Although the "best way is to provide as much value as you can to as many people" is a great IDEAL, it is not what works in reality to create the biggest profit.
Just look around at our biggest and best companies- check with REALITY.
Our oil companies prevent battery technology for electric cars, so they can profit more.
Our computer companies buy and destroy technology so they can profit more.
Commercials are ALL scare tactics.
I'm not saying it DOESN'T work, I'm saying it isn't what makes the MOST PROFITABLE.
You can provide a 10 million people with a free e-book that changes their lives and they love it and you for it forever,
and be LESS profitable than selling one barely-passable ebook to someone who stops reading it half-way through for a dollar.
The first provides more value, but the second is more PROFITABLE.
I am thinking that prosperity, love,wealth, etc is infinite...meaning everyone can be prosperous...and everyone can be a winner.
And everyone can maximize their gifts, talents& strengths to maximize happiness, health, wealth, love,etc.
I agree- and you'll notice we don't have a "score-keeping" system for any of those things but money.
I can't scare you into giving me your health!
Randy,
I have to say that I agree and disagree. I believe in capitalism. My father was an executive saleperson in New York in the 1960's. He climbed the ladder and got so far in the company he was with. He told me later that they never fired anyone. He said "They would put arsenic in your coffee, before they fired you."
I don't know that I agree with that philosophy, but I don't believe there is integrity in firing thousands of people just so you bottom line goes up. There is no more loyalty from companies.
I worked for a company Centex, (know owned by Pulte). Centex was a great place to work. Had a real family atmosphere. Then they brought in the bean counters. It became like Auchwitz. We won every award for sales. I was the number 1 sales person in the division and they fired five of us. Why so they could keep over $25,000 of my money for future sales.
This is why I am so against big business today. The answer to Americas future is small business. Where people can start a business from home and build loyalty to their brand.
If you think I am some kind of liberal democrat spouting this, you are wrong. Dwight Eisenhower warned of the large military industrial complex and Teddy Roosevelt was known as "Teddy the Trust-buster". They knew that these robber barons would be the kings and queens America didn't want.
Greed is never good. It is considered one of the deadly sins. Ambition to succeed is different because it includes others along the way. It seems every time we utter that ridiculous statement, "Greed is Good" we have a major banking meltdown.
Thanks,
Jim Story
Hey Jim- Thanks for writing to me privately!
In the story of Centex (and this will sound harsh), but the only reason you had a job to begin with is that you brought money in.
That's what salespeople are for.
you were a tool for money-getting. When they could get the money without you, they fired you.
That's how it works when the bottom line is the only value.
Not sure if I am reading what everyone else is reading in this article. It just makes sense to me. Period.
Great article RG!
g
I Love It! The Comments are just as Great as Randy's Post! I learn from All of you every single time.
This is 'Brain Food' & I engage by analyzing my opinions against your written words, adjusting or confirming my philosophies...and as a Bonus I get to know myself even better.
Thanks for the Personal Growth bonus I get with all of your posts Randy & comment contributors. I enjoy the mental tit-for-tat y'all put me through--it's always a learning experience.
Keep it coming!!
xo
I think that there is one vital element that the herd usually ignore. Business owners and investors risk their cash in businesses. Owner/operators also indure a lot of pressures that most employees could never really appreciate. Investors are looking for a return on their money, otherwise, why bother risking it in the first place? A successfuly company provides mental stimulation and challenge for the people that work there, provides increasing positions to more employees and provides a product or service that makes life easier or better for many customers. Our progress as a civilisation depends on it.
You are 100% right about this; I don't think anyone here would say differently.
I was saying that the game of all that risk and such for the sake of the wallet is what puts people and our civilization SECOND, which is obvious now.
It doesn't really matter if someone is mentally stimulated, or even if the company provides something that helps people; just that the money keeps moving.
I wholeheartedly agree with Randy. It totally makes sense to me. Period.
"Now of course they must conduct their business affairs with INTEGRITY, invest for the future, do so without PLUNDERING the environment, or TRAMPLING ON THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS. But if they operate by a congruent moral philosophy, they will be in accord with these principles. ......If you don’t understand the MORAL for a company to make money, you’re sending CONFLICTING MESSAGES to yourself, and will have a hard time being successful at ANYTHING. "
Vo L.
Strong points and interesting ideas however in among all the debate over profit vs. corporate responsibility I don't see any discussion regarding sustainability and how that impacts the truthfulness of the post. The point of the blog is the moral imperative for a company to make not only a profit, while being a responsible citizen, but to make the maximum profit. The arguments both for and against ignore that for a company or individual to maximize they must sustain. The company that attempts to maximize today while ignoring next week is not making the maximum potential profit how can they under these circumstances. Doubt it look back at two of the statements by Bones “The best way for a company to make a profit is to make something that is good enough for you to buy a new one as soon as possible." This is the same mentality that helped place Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac into receivership, and GM under government control. Did these actions and corporate decisions make the most possible profit? Perhaps, for the time frame measured, however what about last week, next year, or 10 years from now? Bones second comment “Sometimes I go to parties, and tell jokes, and get games going. Sometimes I get paid to do that, sometimes I don’t. Either way, the “work” is there, but the money may or may not be…. got me?” Here as is so often seen in corporate and government is the finite view again. Just because the money is not seeable in the moment is not that it is not there, how often does the action today produce the profit tomorrow? The maximum profit can only be achieved over time, and that can only happen with a premium on sustainability. Randy – Love you Boss but the post makes the false assumption that its possible to have one-Maximum profit, w/o the other- Corporate responsibility. Bones well written ideas however your placing a false test into the equation that maximum profit can only be what you are seeing now. Finally not a new thought but one that bears repeating, the flaw in capitalism is the capitalist.
True Russ- I TOTALLY agree with you that I am totally disregarding the long-term sustainability of a company. I actually think the idea of a "long-term" company is an old one- as in, they don't really make companies like that anymore.
"fast money, cash out" seems to be the idea. And then you move that money into something else. Kiyosaki talks about the velocity of money.
I only say that because the strategy now seems to be to build a company, and sell it or cash it in for a different one. Of course, you sell it to a bigger, longer-lasting company (which is against my own point), or the time for what that company does is just over.
I love that quote "What's wrong with Capitalism is the capitalist", but that's pretty much what could be said about anything, right?
With the way the world changes so quickly, and with ideas and products coming and going, it just seems that the idea of a "long-haul" company feels like an industrial age concept.
Randy Gage... AKA John Galt?
Yeah baby! 🙂
I totally agree with you Randy. When you say:
"It’s very important that you realize that every business has a moral prerogative to make not only a profit—but the maximum potential profit possible."
But here's the problem with that.
You also say that "they must conduct their business affairs with
integrity, invest for the future, do so without plundering the
environment, or trampling on the rights of others."
But what happens when that DIRECTLY CONFLICTS with the first part?
Well, the second part ALWAYS loses.
The GAME of capitalism is a game where the bottom line wins, and everything else comes second. That's the game, just like in Soccer, the game is to score goals, and playing well comes second.
Watching the World Cup, you might think the game is "Who can fake as many penalties as you can" because the goals are easiest to get from there.
We all accept that when someone does commit a foul, but they argue, and whatever, we say "well, he's just trying to get points", but the fact of the matter is that everything else in the game suffers.
While we are playing the "My bottom line is the most important thing" Game of capitalism, everything else suffers.
The Capitalism game is meant to reward those who do the best for society with cash- Ayn Rand talks about that, and that's why she's a hyper-capitalist. However, she was not a witness to this capitalism where cash itself is the goal.
In the story of the island in one of your books, you write about a guy who makes the water pipeline, and how he should be compensated for that.
I wholeheartedly agree.
What about the guy who creates the sewer system? He should too. But then, in order to make more money, he then PURPOSEFULLY directs that system into the clean water, waits for a few people to die, and then sells water from a different stream- with a premium for filtration? Well, the sewer guy wins.
That's what we got here now- and the sewer guys are winning.
We are on the verge of a NEW system- I don't know what it is, but just like Feudalism went away when they realized that the lords were NOT ordained by God, we will soon see that Capitalism will go away when we see that Money is not God either.
Our rewards will be humanity itself, and we won't SCARE people into buying, or make up pains so they buy- instead, it will be a REWARD as it was meant to be.
Great analysis, Bones
We are indeed "on the verge of a new system..."
For more on what that might entail, click on my name. I think it will interest you.
Best wishes.
Let's stay in touch.
The best way for a company to maximize potential profit is to provide a quality product. Frank Stronach, the founder of Magna international said the only reason he is successful is because of the widespread mediocrity that is out there. He made sure he put out quality stuff. His firm probably made the frame of my Explorer, and let me tell you, it is a quality job - I have seen it from under my own hoist.
I can't agree that Capitalism will ever go away given the fact that direct reward for your own labour is the biggest incentive for human beings. There are many businesses out there that are not ethical or moral, and only concerned about the bottom line - that is an unfortunate reality. But there are many businesses that are as well.
It certainly makes for a happy customer, but it is not the most profitable way. The best way for a company to make a profit is to make something that is good enough for you to buy a new one as soon as possible.
Cars, computers, furniture, food, etc-
The ideal of the "best product wins" is a great ideal; and it's what capitalism is supposed to do, but doesn't work in reality.
Yes, that is true. Not many car companies can be accused of over-engineering their products. But there are a few beacons of light in this sea of capitalistic darkness, namely, the firm that built the speed controller for one of my mixing machines, and a mountain bike suspension fork manufacturer based in bologna, Italy. My mechanic said one of the Japanese brands actually makes an effort to make their cars more robust and longer lasting on a continual basis. The big three are guilty of not doing as good a job as they should and that's why they keep losing market share. Actually, one out of he big three has pretty good quality standards.
Nice, Randy -
For an in-depth perspective on the matter,
click on the link provided.
Hope you like it.
Any and all comments welcome.
The bottom line and goal of a business is to create a customer and a profit. In the "game of capitalism" as described above, the guy (or company) who builds the water pipeline will sustain (in a true capitalist society), while the guy who creates the sewer system and dumps into clean water may see short term profit, but will not sustain long term. This is illustrated by today's examples (Enron, Bernie Madoff, etc.)
I see and hear examples daily of people with their own conflicting viewpoints. Someone says, yes, the government is far too encroaching today, then turn around and say, it's about time the government start looking into limiting corporate exec income... who needs to earn over half a million dollars a year?? I agree with you Randy on the herd mentality programming.
RJ
Randy...I think the outrage in the public and media is a very linked thing to large corporations violating the moral pact you said they must do: conduct their business affairs with integrity, invest for the future, do so without plundering the environment, or trampling on the rights of others. Egregious excess....in terms of high profits tied to bad but not criminal practices creates the bad rap for large profit oriented enterprises that operate morally.
I agree with your message Randy but when does greed take over??? For instance, Michael Douglas' ex is suing him for more money... she already got $47 million in their divorce... now she wants a piece of Wall St. 2 as that was a character he created when they were married... yikes! I hope the judge dismisses it in 30 seconds and fines her $20 million to discourage that kind of ugly greed...
By the way the original Wall St. has got some great lessons about profit, greed and morals... why do you got wreck this company???... because it's wreckable!!!... ugly, ugly stuff...
Wow I never heard that. Unbelievable.
But while we're on the subject, it would be good to reflect on the subliminal programming about money in that movie. Be very interesting to see where the second one goes.
-RG
Yes, maximize profits - same as paying as few taxes as possible - legally! Sorely missing at many, many levels are integrity (honesty/being truthful) and trampling of rights.
Wattles says in The Science of Getting Rich, that is our birthright to be rich since the Universe is infinite in riches. He ALSO says it's important to provide a use value GREATER than the cash value received in order to BE rich.
My interpretation of this is by bringing as much value as we can, while making as healthy a profit as possible. That way all parties are happy and the infinite circulation of riches continues and grows.
"My interpretation of this is by bringing as much value as we can, while making as healthy a profit as possible. That way all parties are happy and the infinite circulation of riches continues and grows."
The trick is to understand your inherent value. But a discussion surrounding 'use-value' vs. 'dollar-value' merits consideration. It's a wildly subjective assumption to assert that your value is equal to my value and vice versa. Just as Brian mentions above, our morality is what creates the chasm between the right to profit, greed, and the "excess" of environmentally-negligent enterprises.
I'm also on the opposite side of the line from Bones on this one (at least thus far); excellent points, but I maintain that "humanity itself" won't pay my bills. My work does. Excellent work. Integrity and excellent work.
PS - David's point notwithstanding, clearly. She wants MORE? Ridiculous - Michael earned it; she didn't.
Hey Erica- You're not on the opposite side of me on that- yes, your work pays your bills in THEORY, because we actually never "pay" for anything- we just push debt around.
Your work does NOT pay your bills; the dollars you receive for your work pay your bills (in theory), and it's only because you CHOOSE to charge for the work that it does it.
In other words, you do many different things that are "work", but you only get dollars for some of it.
You also receive many things, but only "pay" for some of them.
We have arbitrarily decided what those are.
Just because I know that's confusing...
Sometimes I go to parties, and tell jokes, and get games going.
Sometimes I get paid to do that, sometimes I don't.
Either way, the "work" is there, but the money may or may not be.... got me?
I do, indeed. But the value of my work and the dollars I receive for doing it is a matter of semantics... what I "choose" to charge for is, in fact, my value. And that isn't arbitrary at all.
Interesting conversation here and everyone should read Wallace Wattles Science of Getting Rich annually. Webster's dictionary says a Goal is an object or event toward which play is directed in order to score.
Read that a couple times. When I did it occurred to me I was not using that definition for goal. In the definition for the game of soccer the NET is the goal.
If you collapse goal and score onto each other you lose the play part and all kinds of nasty things appear. Make goal and score distinct and play, enjoyment, fun appears in the equation.
What happens if your 'goal' is to make more money? How do you keep score? Keeping score and goal distinct it is not the money. What is the game you are playing toward which to reach your goal?
Bones, I disagree with your assessment, because in it Capitalism is misdefined. Capitalism only exists were bot parties agree to the bargain. Anything less is tyranny or some invalid economic model. Capitalism in its purest form exchanges value for value and when one party feels he gets less value than he provides, the bargain should not be struck. By providing maximum value for your customer, you have the right to require maximum profit. By providing anything less, you do not have that right. Trampling over the rights of someone else is NOT capitalism; it is something else by some other name.
Hey Nancy- I think you're right. In true Capitalism (which is even more impossible than true Communism), we would be negotiating over each and every item for cost. However, even then it doesn't work because the skill of negotiating is factored in. In your example, the maximum value would be the maximum profit; actually, there'd be no maximums or minimums, it would just be the actual value, right?
Saying that the trampling on other people's rights not being capitalism is interesting; is that like purposefully hurting a quarterback not football?
Conditioning, to think that the following cant exsit together... “It’s very important that you realize that every business has a moral prerogative to make not only a profit—but the maximum potential profit possible.”
“they must conduct their business affairs with
integrity, invest for the future, do so without plundering the
environment, or trampling on the rights of others.”
But what happens when the second part DIRECTLY CONFLICTS with the first part?
Who says this is true...
What if by doing the second part, you increase the bottem LINE
This is and as been happening now and through out history!
More and more people are gravitating to, and suporting the more "green" corporations
Conditioning! The way we view and precieve!
“on the verge of a new system…”
I believe we are on the verge of an Awaking a new Awareness ...
Thanks for being a part of that Randy I have been changing my conditioning the last three years its been like a rebirth I am finally walking cant wait to start running...
I think if you increase the bottom line by bettering the second part, that's GREAT!
What I asked (as a question) is "But what happens when..." that means it's a CONDITIONAL phrase. As in "what happens when" that particular situation comes up?
I agree that the green companies are growing n popularity, and it's because our some of our VALUES as a society are changing- that's the part I think will change capitalism and bring something else.
Great post and great conversation!
I love reading the comments here. This is a cerebral bunch to say the least.
This is how I like to sum it up (by stealing a quote, of course)
"If you help enough people get what they want, you will get what you want" - ZZ
"Business" is in business to make money! Bottom line.
And the best way to be the most successful and the most profitable is to provide the greatest value to as many people as you possible can.
Internally and externally (meaning employees and customers)
If that happens to line up with your passion and the gifts you have been given...you will succeed at the highest level.
Peace/out
MS
Although the "best way is to provide as much value as you can to as many people" is a great IDEAL, it is not what works in reality to create the biggest profit.
Just look around at our biggest and best companies- check with REALITY.
Our oil companies prevent battery technology for electric cars, so they can profit more.
Our computer companies buy and destroy technology so they can profit more.
Commercials are ALL scare tactics.
I'm not saying it DOESN'T work, I'm saying it isn't what makes the MOST PROFITABLE.
You can provide a 10 million people with a free e-book that changes their lives and they love it and you for it forever,
and be LESS profitable than selling one barely-passable ebook to someone who stops reading it half-way through for a dollar.
The first provides more value, but the second is more PROFITABLE.
I am thinking that prosperity, love,wealth, etc is infinite...meaning everyone can be prosperous...and everyone can be a winner.
And everyone can maximize their gifts, talents& strengths to maximize happiness, health, wealth, love,etc.
I agree- and you'll notice we don't have a "score-keeping" system for any of those things but money.
I can't scare you into giving me your health!
Randy,
I have to say that I agree and disagree. I believe in capitalism. My father was an executive saleperson in New York in the 1960's. He climbed the ladder and got so far in the company he was with. He told me later that they never fired anyone. He said "They would put arsenic in your coffee, before they fired you."
I don't know that I agree with that philosophy, but I don't believe there is integrity in firing thousands of people just so you bottom line goes up. There is no more loyalty from companies.
I worked for a company Centex, (know owned by Pulte). Centex was a great place to work. Had a real family atmosphere. Then they brought in the bean counters. It became like Auchwitz. We won every award for sales. I was the number 1 sales person in the division and they fired five of us. Why so they could keep over $25,000 of my money for future sales.
This is why I am so against big business today. The answer to Americas future is small business. Where people can start a business from home and build loyalty to their brand.
If you think I am some kind of liberal democrat spouting this, you are wrong. Dwight Eisenhower warned of the large military industrial complex and Teddy Roosevelt was known as "Teddy the Trust-buster". They knew that these robber barons would be the kings and queens America didn't want.
Greed is never good. It is considered one of the deadly sins. Ambition to succeed is different because it includes others along the way. It seems every time we utter that ridiculous statement, "Greed is Good" we have a major banking meltdown.
Thanks,
Jim Story
Hey Jim- Thanks for writing to me privately!
In the story of Centex (and this will sound harsh), but the only reason you had a job to begin with is that you brought money in.
That's what salespeople are for.
you were a tool for money-getting. When they could get the money without you, they fired you.
That's how it works when the bottom line is the only value.
Not sure if I am reading what everyone else is reading in this article. It just makes sense to me. Period.
Great article RG!
g
I Love It! The Comments are just as Great as Randy's Post! I learn from All of you every single time.
This is 'Brain Food' & I engage by analyzing my opinions against your written words, adjusting or confirming my philosophies...and as a Bonus I get to know myself even better.
Thanks for the Personal Growth bonus I get with all of your posts Randy & comment contributors. I enjoy the mental tit-for-tat y'all put me through--it's always a learning experience.
Keep it coming!!
xo
I think that there is one vital element that the herd usually ignore. Business owners and investors risk their cash in businesses. Owner/operators also indure a lot of pressures that most employees could never really appreciate. Investors are looking for a return on their money, otherwise, why bother risking it in the first place? A successfuly company provides mental stimulation and challenge for the people that work there, provides increasing positions to more employees and provides a product or service that makes life easier or better for many customers. Our progress as a civilisation depends on it.
You are 100% right about this; I don't think anyone here would say differently.
I was saying that the game of all that risk and such for the sake of the wallet is what puts people and our civilization SECOND, which is obvious now.
It doesn't really matter if someone is mentally stimulated, or even if the company provides something that helps people; just that the money keeps moving.
I wholeheartedly agree with Randy. It totally makes sense to me. Period.
"Now of course they must conduct their business affairs with INTEGRITY, invest for the future, do so without PLUNDERING the environment, or TRAMPLING ON THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS. But if they operate by a congruent moral philosophy, they will be in accord with these principles. ......If you don’t understand the MORAL for a company to make money, you’re sending CONFLICTING MESSAGES to yourself, and will have a hard time being successful at ANYTHING. "
Vo L.
Strong points and interesting ideas however in among all the debate over profit vs. corporate responsibility I don't see any discussion regarding sustainability and how that impacts the truthfulness of the post. The point of the blog is the moral imperative for a company to make not only a profit, while being a responsible citizen, but to make the maximum profit. The arguments both for and against ignore that for a company or individual to maximize they must sustain. The company that attempts to maximize today while ignoring next week is not making the maximum potential profit how can they under these circumstances. Doubt it look back at two of the statements by Bones “The best way for a company to make a profit is to make something that is good enough for you to buy a new one as soon as possible." This is the same mentality that helped place Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac into receivership, and GM under government control. Did these actions and corporate decisions make the most possible profit? Perhaps, for the time frame measured, however what about last week, next year, or 10 years from now? Bones second comment “Sometimes I go to parties, and tell jokes, and get games going. Sometimes I get paid to do that, sometimes I don’t. Either way, the “work” is there, but the money may or may not be…. got me?” Here as is so often seen in corporate and government is the finite view again. Just because the money is not seeable in the moment is not that it is not there, how often does the action today produce the profit tomorrow? The maximum profit can only be achieved over time, and that can only happen with a premium on sustainability. Randy – Love you Boss but the post makes the false assumption that its possible to have one-Maximum profit, w/o the other- Corporate responsibility. Bones well written ideas however your placing a false test into the equation that maximum profit can only be what you are seeing now. Finally not a new thought but one that bears repeating, the flaw in capitalism is the capitalist.
True Russ- I TOTALLY agree with you that I am totally disregarding the long-term sustainability of a company. I actually think the idea of a "long-term" company is an old one- as in, they don't really make companies like that anymore.
"fast money, cash out" seems to be the idea. And then you move that money into something else. Kiyosaki talks about the velocity of money.
I only say that because the strategy now seems to be to build a company, and sell it or cash it in for a different one. Of course, you sell it to a bigger, longer-lasting company (which is against my own point), or the time for what that company does is just over.
I love that quote "What's wrong with Capitalism is the capitalist", but that's pretty much what could be said about anything, right?
With the way the world changes so quickly, and with ideas and products coming and going, it just seems that the idea of a "long-haul" company feels like an industrial age concept.