4 ms·

Please don't attach any morals to this because there aren't any. This is the way to think about all businesses. Even if they’ve been making your favourite prod

Please don't attach any morals to this because there aren't any. This is the way to think about all businesses. Even if they’ve been making your favourite products for years, never forget that they’re just here to make money. People who attach morals, norms, and emotions to businesses are falling into the marketing trap. This is by design. Unfortunately I don’t know much of a way to get people to snap out of it other than seeing them get burned when their favourite company changes tack.

kdmccormick 3y ago
*large businesses. Plenty of small businesses sometimes act against their own self-interest because they genuinely care about their community and their workers. See: retiring restaurant owners who sell to someone who will keep the tradition alive rather than the highest bidder.
- kiba 3y ago
  How would you define self interest? I would say that they have a different value system, or what they're pursuing might be more conducive to their long term survival instead of chasing the almighty dollars. It reminds me of corporate raiders destroying companies by jacking up prices and reducing costs until it's no longer a functioning business.
  - kdmccormick 3y ago
    You're right, I should have said "profit" not "self-interest". My point stands. Large businesses are more exclusively profit-driven than smaller ones.
- randomdata 3y ago
  How is wanting to see a tradition you help build stay alive and choosing to spend money on seeing that tradition stay alive against one's self-interest?
  - kdmccormick 3y ago
    Yes, I agree, I meant "profit" not "self-interest".
    - randomdata 3y ago
      Is there any difference at the end of the day? Profit is sought so that one has control over their self-interest. In the example, someone wanted to see a business tradition carry on even after they were no longer involved in the business. To achieve that, they accepted a lower offer for the business to sell it to someone who also wants to carry on the tradition. But that is exactly the same, as far as the money goes, as selling the business to the highest bidder and then spending those proceeds in some way to see the tradition carry on. The net profitability is the same in both cases.
      - kdmccormick 3y ago
        > In the example, someone wanted to see a tradition carry on even after they were no longer involved. To achieve that, they accepted a lower offer for the business to sell it to someone who also wants to carry on the tradition. But that is exactly the same, far as the money goes.. It's not exactly the same. People have emotional attachments to things, like restaurants. This hypothetical owner may have made the sale they did because it made them happy to think about someone running their restaurant well after they die. That is to say, we both took "carrying on the tradition" to mean different things, because it's inherently a squishy and emotional goal, not one you can apply a cold econimic calculus to. "If I sell to Bob for $1MM then I achieve 200 tradition points, but if I sell to BigCorp for $1.2MM then I can use that money to achieve 300 tradition points" is not necessarily how this would be thought about. > That said, there is a bit of disconnect here as the original comment was talking about businesses, while this has turned to talking about the benefactors of the business. They are not completely analogous. True, and perhaps that's near the crux of my argument. Private company owners who are involed in their businesses' operation are more likely to make bad-for-profit but good-for-other-reasons decisions, whereas distant public shareholders are likely to chase profit as the end-all-be-all.
sircastor 3y ago
> never forget that they’re just here to make money. I find this read to be a little too pessimistic. They’re not an investment firm. They’re still making products that they want to sell people, and making them the way they think is best. Do they want profit? Of course. But their product is not money. They’re first and foremost an electronics manufacturer.

kdmccormick 3y ago

*large businesses. Plenty of small businesses sometimes act against their own self-interest because they genuinely care about their community and their workers. See: retiring restaurant owners who sell to someone who will keep the tradition alive rather than the highest bidder.

kiba 3y ago
How would you define self interest? I would say that they have a different value system, or what they're pursuing might be more conducive to their long term survival instead of chasing the almighty dollars. It reminds me of corporate raiders destroying companies by jacking up prices and reducing costs until it's no longer a functioning business.
- kdmccormick 3y ago
  You're right, I should have said "profit" not "self-interest". My point stands. Large businesses are more exclusively profit-driven than smaller ones.
randomdata 3y ago
How is wanting to see a tradition you help build stay alive and choosing to spend money on seeing that tradition stay alive against one's self-interest?
- kdmccormick 3y ago
  Yes, I agree, I meant "profit" not "self-interest".
  - randomdata 3y ago
    Is there any difference at the end of the day? Profit is sought so that one has control over their self-interest. In the example, someone wanted to see a business tradition carry on even after they were no longer involved in the business. To achieve that, they accepted a lower offer for the business to sell it to someone who also wants to carry on the tradition. But that is exactly the same, as far as the money goes, as selling the business to the highest bidder and then spending those proceeds in some way to see the tradition carry on. The net profitability is the same in both cases.
    - kdmccormick 3y ago
      > In the example, someone wanted to see a tradition carry on even after they were no longer involved. To achieve that, they accepted a lower offer for the business to sell it to someone who also wants to carry on the tradition. But that is exactly the same, far as the money goes.. It's not exactly the same. People have emotional attachments to things, like restaurants. This hypothetical owner may have made the sale they did because it made them happy to think about someone running their restaurant well after they die. That is to say, we both took "carrying on the tradition" to mean different things, because it's inherently a squishy and emotional goal, not one you can apply a cold econimic calculus to. "If I sell to Bob for $1MM then I achieve 200 tradition points, but if I sell to BigCorp for $1.2MM then I can use that money to achieve 300 tradition points" is not necessarily how this would be thought about. > That said, there is a bit of disconnect here as the original comment was talking about businesses, while this has turned to talking about the benefactors of the business. They are not completely analogous. True, and perhaps that's near the crux of my argument. Private company owners who are involed in their businesses' operation are more likely to make bad-for-profit but good-for-other-reasons decisions, whereas distant public shareholders are likely to chase profit as the end-all-be-all.

sircastor 3y ago

> never forget that they’re just here to make money. I find this read to be a little too pessimistic. They’re not an investment firm. They’re still making products that they want to sell people, and making them the way they think is best. Do they want profit? Of course. But their product is not money. They’re first and foremost an electronics manufacturer.