4 ms·

Ok but life is not all about business and money. Some or many inventors did their exploring tasks because it was a passion of theirs. Some people are driven by

by gbog 13y ago

Ok but life is not all about business and money. Some or many inventors did their exploring tasks because it was a passion of theirs. Some people are driven by pride or even sexual desires. Some of the greatest achievements of humans have been made in the name of God, or for a women, or just because it has to be done. Google founders should not really need more money than what they already have, and therefore could have another set out goals in life than making more money...

dredmorbius 13y ago
life is not all about business and money I hear you. Believe me I do. However that's the system we've got. You've got at least three problems that I can see: • Figure out what you want to replace it with. • Figure out how to get there from here. • Figure out how to sell it. Many have tried. Google founders should not really need more money than what they already have We're not talking about the founders, we're talking about the company. As of December 31, 2013, the company had $87,309 million in total equity -- value less liabilities. Its operating expenses for the three months ending December 31, 2013, were $12,936 million. Without income, Google would be broke in six quarters. You can't run a company without income. https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AGOOG&fstype=ii&ei=UeX4Usj5I4e1iwLUMA https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AGOOG&fstype=ii&ei=... And in the event you're thinking this is just money: money represents a lien on real resources. Those financial stocks and flows correspond to resources Google can access or must use on an ongoing basis. The additional projects it does engage in are possible because its revenues are that much higher above its expenses. What you're talking about would require that Google find some other way of keeping the power on and encouraging people to show up to the office every day, without money changing hands, in a fashion which retains some semblance of economic efficiency. What are you proposing, exactly?
- gbog 13y ago
  There was an academia in classic China called Hanlin. Its business model was probably close to what I'm taking about: infinite funds providing a roof and good food to the guests and their families. Extra income in the form of fame, access to the brightest minds of the times and their books, and great output opportunities as public servant. Main task was to extend human knowledge and embellish Chinese culture with more poems or pictures. Google probably could have been this way but right now it's too late I guess.
Tyrannosaurs 13y ago
Google founders don't own Google any more, at least they only own around 16% of it. The vast majority (80%+) of the rest of the stock is held by institutional investors who want one of two things: (1) capital growth (that is the share price to go up) and (2) dividends (that is for them to be given money for owning the stock). There is no room for Google as some non-business utopia, it's a corporation with a responsibility to shareholders. So long as Larry and Sergey keep delivering a return they'll be allowed to keep doing what they want but the minute they're not seen as doing that they'll be replaced.

by gbog 13y ago

dredmorbius 13y ago

life is not all about business and money I hear you. Believe me I do. However that's the system we've got. You've got at least three problems that I can see: • Figure out what you want to replace it with. • Figure out how to get there from here. • Figure out how to sell it. Many have tried. Google founders should not really need more money than what they already have We're not talking about the founders, we're talking about the company. As of December 31, 2013, the company had $87,309 million in total equity -- value less liabilities. Its operating expenses for the three months ending December 31, 2013, were $12,936 million. Without income, Google would be broke in six quarters. You can't run a company without income. https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AGOOG&fstype=ii&ei=UeX4Usj5I4e1iwLUMA https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AGOOG&fstype=ii&ei=... And in the event you're thinking this is just money: money represents a lien on real resources. Those financial stocks and flows correspond to resources Google can access or must use on an ongoing basis. The additional projects it does engage in are possible because its revenues are that much higher above its expenses. What you're talking about would require that Google find some other way of keeping the power on and encouraging people to show up to the office every day, without money changing hands, in a fashion which retains some semblance of economic efficiency. What are you proposing, exactly?

gbog 13y ago
There was an academia in classic China called Hanlin. Its business model was probably close to what I'm taking about: infinite funds providing a roof and good food to the guests and their families. Extra income in the form of fame, access to the brightest minds of the times and their books, and great output opportunities as public servant. Main task was to extend human knowledge and embellish Chinese culture with more poems or pictures. Google probably could have been this way but right now it's too late I guess.

Tyrannosaurs 13y ago

Google founders don't own Google any more, at least they only own around 16% of it. The vast majority (80%+) of the rest of the stock is held by institutional investors who want one of two things: (1) capital growth (that is the share price to go up) and (2) dividends (that is for them to be given money for owning the stock). There is no room for Google as some non-business utopia, it's a corporation with a responsibility to shareholders. So long as Larry and Sergey keep delivering a return they'll be allowed to keep doing what they want but the minute they're not seen as doing that they'll be replaced.