4 ms·
There's a lot of room between "exist to make money" and "must make money in order to exist". Like, a staggering amount of room.
by kenko 13y ago
There's a lot of room between "exist to make money" and "must make money in order to exist". Like, a staggering amount of room.
- ksikka 13y agothere's also a lot of pressure when you're public
- baddox 13y agoI don't really see much of a difference. If a company must make money to continue to exist, then I think it's reasonable to say that company "exists to make money." Of course, that doesn't mean is exists only to make money.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- khafra 13y agoThe practical difference disappears when your operating margin is 0. When you have money left over after paying your essential expenses, though, you can do stuff. Like, if you're Microsoft and you have 60 billion in cash, you can have a big R&D department that sometimes engages in blue-sky research.
- pbhjpbhj 13y agoDo you consider a company like Raspberry Pi or Oxfam to "exist to make money"? They certainly need money to exist.
- kenko 13y agoLots of bookstores, cafes, antique shops, whatever, are labors of love. And not only things like that. A bakery---a good bakery!---exists to make good bread. It has to sell that bread and cover its costs, etc., in order to do that, but it doesn't exist in order to make the money necessary to cover its costs. If that were why it existed, it would be easier to abandon the end of making good bread!
- pshin45 13y agoExactly, reminds me of one of my favorite quotes: "We survive by breathing but we can't say we live to breathe. Likewise, making money is very important for a business to survive, but money alone cannot be the reason for business to exist."