Why should any organization have net profits at all? "Loses" here is being used to mean "spent". You can't just keep stacking up cash forever. That would be pointless and stupid.
There are incorporated entities which don't, in terms of actual economic activity -- they're not-for-profit charities, generally.
They _still_ need to have some source of income, however, generally through donations, though other sources may exist (foundations, grants, some operate revenue-generating services, direct government aid, etc.).
The reason for the balance of inflow and outflow is based on how our economic system works: there are demand bidding rights which are handed out every so often (dollars, pounds, euros, yen, yuan), whose creation is limited to specific entities (national mints, central banks, and banks generally, via loans).
Being able to freely create those demand rights without limite doesn't work on a few counts.
The general principle is that the bids you take in have to match, over time, the ones you hand out (when you're bidding on goods or services). There are exceptions: bids can be borrowed, those debts can be dismissed, and a bunch of other stuff. But it's complicated.
A company is essentially a flow box which accepts and issues those bids. And over time, the bids in have to match the ones out (or you get to the complicated situations listed above).
In the case of Alphabet, it can continue to operate money-losing companies, but only by diverting bids (at the rate of about $900 million/year) from its other companies. Since one of those (Google) essentially mints cash, that's not a large concern.
Net profits are how you pay shareholders dividends, which are often demanded, and the futurr promise of which are the root basis of how the company can attract money through IPO
That's a sort of quaint belief about the market but it's degenerated into straight up gambling. Let me put the question a different way: why should any company have positive retained earnings?
They _still_ need to have some source of income, however, generally through donations, though other sources may exist (foundations, grants, some operate revenue-generating services, direct government aid, etc.).
The reason for the balance of inflow and outflow is based on how our economic system works: there are demand bidding rights which are handed out every so often (dollars, pounds, euros, yen, yuan), whose creation is limited to specific entities (national mints, central banks, and banks generally, via loans).
Being able to freely create those demand rights without limite doesn't work on a few counts.
The general principle is that the bids you take in have to match, over time, the ones you hand out (when you're bidding on goods or services). There are exceptions: bids can be borrowed, those debts can be dismissed, and a bunch of other stuff. But it's complicated.
A company is essentially a flow box which accepts and issues those bids. And over time, the bids in have to match the ones out (or you get to the complicated situations listed above).
In the case of Alphabet, it can continue to operate money-losing companies, but only by diverting bids (at the rate of about $900 million/year) from its other companies. Since one of those (Google) essentially mints cash, that's not a large concern.
TL;DR: We don't live in a moneyless society yet.