[jlarocco]

> It's asserting that they only exist to make money. Or that that is in any way natural.

There are plenty of companies that exist to make money and have additional goals.

But, gigantic, publicly traded corporations don't fall into that category, and they exist exclusively to make money. If they tell you otherwise, their PR people are trying to fool you.

I'm also tempted to say a business whose number one goal isn't making money for its owner and employees should probably be registered as a non-profit or a charity or something else, and not a corporation, but I guess there's no reason they couldn't be a corporation.

[thaumasiotes]

> I'm also tempted to say a business whose number one goal isn't making money for its owner and employees should probably be registered as a non-profit or a charity or something else, and not a corporation, but I guess there's no reason they couldn't be a corporation.

Um, what does "corporation" mean to you? Can you identify anything that you would call a "non-profit" that is not also a corporation?

[ajdlinux]

To many people "corporation" == "for-profit corporation", even though that's definitely not true with the standard legal definitions of "corporation".

[andrewaylett]

At least in the UK, there's the concept of an unincorporated association. The one I chair is definitely non-profit, and (not being incorporated) we're not a corporation.