piclist 2007\03\20\041023a >
Thread: was [EE] Small-Production PCB Manufacturer Experiences.
face BY : Russell McMahon email (remove spam text)

{     mostly Vtialiy.
>>  probably Vitaliy
>    mostly Gerhard.
|     mostly Russell

   no guarantees :-)

{ I like this definition better (since it supports my point of view):


     2. the purchase and sale of goods in an attempt to make a
     3. a person, partnership, or corporation engaged in commerce,
manufacturing, or a service; profit-seeking enterprise or concern.

| What both these do is to say that making a profit is one of the
bases of a business - neither say that it is either the major or sole

>> Can you think of a business whose primary goal is *not* creating
>> profit?
> Lots. For example, self-realization can be the primary goal for
> someone to
> create a business. Profit is usually necessary in such a case, but
> not
> necessarily the most important thing.

{ Define "self-realization", and what the measure of this
is. Also explain how the goal of creating a profit would interfere
with it.

| "Self realisation" may mean "achieving one's aims in life". These
may include altruistic behaviour, perceived good for others, perceived
good for one-self not measure in monetary terms and more.  The
achievement of non-monetary profits would be excluded by many hard
liners from the concept of profit but, if I deem that such results
increase my perceived capital, then they do.

| One problem when such things  are debated is that some people
consider that they have a right to "make a profit" from certain things
and in certain areas "because they can" and argue that what they are
doing detracts not a white from the capital or profits of others or
abrogates any ownership by others. Alas, it's common for such
claimants to measure capital in terms only that they may agree with.
Also ownership and profit. Some would (and do) argue that if there is
material on or under your land that "you are not using" then they have
a "right" to profit from its utilisation as "you are not using it" or
"you do not own it", while paying you, at most, a consideration for
the inconvenience that they put you to by accessing "their" new found
capital via your property. {{Terms in [  ] relate to matters which are
liable to be a matter of dispute, Any terms not in [ ] generally have
a relatively commonly agreed meaning. }}

| In my case, as a specific example, I have for many years *NOT* run
my business with the sole or even major aim of maximising financial
profit. 'Self realisation' is a relatively reasonable term for what I
have been interested in achieving. In the near future I am currently
intending (hoping :-) ) to increase absolute $ profit level greatly
for a while, but even this is part of my overall desire for "self
reali[s|z]ation so maximising profit per se is still not my primary
focus. Maximum 'self realisation' may or may not include maximising
profit at any given time and, in my case, usually doesn't. [[My
projected profit levels for the year starting June 1st are $450,000
+/- $500,000. Hopefully it won't be too too close to the bottom of
that range :-) ][In case anyone missed it, that's a joke, but not
wholly without merit at either extreme. I hope, and alas :-) ]

> There are businesses whose
> express purpose is to make a loss (to provide other businesses with
> a
> possibility to use this loss).

{I don't understand, please explain.

| This is not uncommon, but arguably they usually do so in the
interests of making a net overall profit at the expense of others.
This is usually a legal albeit usually immoral enterprise.
Individuals, while making individual positive profits from directors
fees or salaries or other transactions, operate a company, or, often,
a group of companies so that money can be manipulated, so that the
company or companies invo;lved lose money. To do this they usually
need to disadvantage other people or companies. Given a suitable tax
regime the tax loss incurred can be sold, along with the company, to
another company for a positive sum, thereby contributing a negative
amount to their tax liability. Properly handled this is legal. As the
loss usually has to come from somebody else's funds they are
effectively selling the taxable percentage of someone else's funds at
a profit to somebody else. As the persons whose funds they are
benefiting from usually entered into a business arrangement in the
hope of making a profit (and of not losing their original funds) and
as these people generally do not profit when the "losses are sold", if
the endeavour is intentionally set up to achieve these ends then it is
legalised theft. Worse, the ratio of profit made to loss incurred is
relatively small (as it is some proportion of the tax due on the
amounts involved and this must then be sold at a discount to make it
attractive) then they are stealing $N for every $ they make.

{It would be interesting to hear the opinions of business owners (of
{there are many on this list). What is the primary goal of *your*

| As above.

{How do you justify it?

|' Self realisation' is a primary goal.
Profit is simply one tool amongst many.

>> Sure, and I'm not saying that it should be the ONLY goal of a
>> company.
>> Supporting the Boy Scouts, building sports arenas, and donating
>> money to
>> charities are all worthy endeavors, but none of them are as
>> important as
>> creating profit.

| They certainly could be for some.
None are for me, when put in those terms.

{You can't sustain the activities I listed above, unless your business
{profitable. You may have a different opinion, but it will obviously
{wrong. ;)

| No.
But that wasn't what was being said.
Ignoring for now the fact that it IS possible to run a profitable
business without making a profit (see scam merchants example above),
the question was whether maximising profit was the necessary aim of a
business or whether achieving a profit was the primary aim. I submit
that neither MUST be the case.

{What, besides making a profit, are some other primary objectives of a

| Making 'things' better.
| Making things different.

|Neither of these is necessarily a "do gooder" objective, especially
the latter.

| I imagine that 'Greenpeace' or "Friends of the Earth' could quite
well run businesses that meet many definitions (indeed, most
definitions) of what a business is. And some would tremble or gnash
their teeth with fury at their business aims (I won't even mention
your name and you'll know who you are :-)) (although it actually
applies to several on this list.).

| I saw an Oxfam store when I was in Oxford in 2003 - an appropriate
place for one :-). I do believe that they were running a business and
I do believe that they wished to 'turn a profit' but I'd doubt that
was top of their list of business aims.

| The Salvation  Army here (and no doubt there)(almost wherever
"there" is) run some very nice "opportunity shops". They are run as
businesses. The local manager probably IS given the aim of maximising
profit, but will have very very strict guidelines set on maximum
pricing. Overall the op shop businesses (which they undoubtedly are)
are certainly not aiming to maximise profit. Anyone, regardless of
income or capital level, can buy there at the same prices. Our local
shop is very nicely presented and sell some very reasonable product at
extremely good prices. I'm happy to buy there and they are happy to
sell to me. There is no doubt that the overall business puts
"providing opportunities for people in the community" ahead of
"making a profit for the Sallies". Some would say this is a terrible
thing to do and that such businesses should not be allowed. But not
very many :-).


<018001c76ac7$35069b10$d201a8c0@y2k> quoted-printable

See also: www.piclist.com/techref/pcbs.htm?key=pcb
Reply You must be a member of the piclist mailing list (not only a www.piclist.com member) to post to the piclist. This form requires JavaScript and a browser/email client that can handle form mailto: posts.
Subject (change) was [EE] Small-Production PCB Manufacturer Experiences.

month overview.

new search...