9 ms·
> If you aren't exchanging money for goods or services, you don't have a business, full stop. You wouldn't have a profitable business without holding a debt ov
by randomdata 3y ago
> If you aren't exchanging money for goods or services, you don't have a business, full stop.
You wouldn't have a profitable business without holding a debt over someone (money), but a business can also see the transaction be fulfilled and completed in the moment. If I sell pottery and you sell chickens, and we agree to exchange pottery for chickens, then no debt (money) is involved, but we still have viable businesses.
- jononor 3y agoDo you pay yourself in chickens?
- randomdata 3y agoNot only in chickens, but I often get paid in chickens, yes. In fact, I had chicken for lunch. It didn't magically appear. I had to trade something for it.
- bombcar 3y ago"Money" here stands in for anything the government would try to tax, which includes bartering. Basically, where are the customers? If you only have theoretical ones, you don't have a business yet, you have a project or startup.
- randomdata 3y agoThe substantial number of 'businesses' – probably the vast majority – see some trades of goods and services happen, but never accrue anything that the government would try to tax. Colloquially, they 'lose money'. What do you consider those entities if not businesses?
- bombcar 3y agoThe very trades of goods and services is the money the government would try to tax (assuming you made a profit) - even the term used "lose money" admits that they're transacting.
- randomdata 3y agoSo, just a long and roundabout way to say: "If you don't make trades, you don't have a business"? Or, maybe, "If you are not willing to make trades, you don't have a business"? The latter captures entities that are prepared to make trades, but have not yet done so. While the original definition rules out a 'business' that is still waiting on their first sale, I suspect that wasn't the intent.