[smbullet]

I'll admit I was a bit snarky but my thanks was genuine - I enjoy learning why people believe the things they do.

Anyways, my final argument is if an individual asset of a company doesn't directly generate revenue yet increases company profit, would it not be "un-capitalistic" if that company were to extinguish that asset? It seems to me that throwing away profit would be antithetical to that definition of capitalism.

The $30k espresso machine in the Google office does nothing to generate revenue, however it helps Google become more competitive in the labor market which (at least they think) increases profit. None of these situations are edge cases, they are just natural outcomes that exist when people are free to compete. If it is expected that a decision will lead to a profit, it seems straightforward that one would make that decision.

It was fun discussing this with you, I hope you have a good day.

[SpeedilyDamage]

That sounds capitalistic, just not "straightforward" is all I was trying to say.