[h2zizzle]

>As it should be.

No, this is just the (insane) status quo. Ideally, however, businesses exist to carry out a mission (beyond making money). Part of this mission is supporting the livelihoods of employees; part of it is giving a return to investors; part of should be some social net good (maybe within a larger societal context, if not unilaterally). Much as "maximizing" the price at which you sell yourself (ick) often ends in workaholism, broken personal relationships, unhealthy relationships to material goods, and a generally deleterious existence as the opposite of a happy, upstanding, and well-loved member of society, "maximizing shareholder value" usually ends in a business that is either a hated monopoly or a bankrupt shell (often both, in that order). In both cases, hyperfocus has lead to the loss of the entire reason for pursuing the venture in the first place.

Profit is just a KPI for something else that you're supposed to be doing (and often a bad one, depending on what that something else is).

[mrangle]

This is cringe idealism. It bears no resemblance to the way things work.

[SR2Z]

> Ideally, however, businesses exist to carry out a mission (beyond making money).

I mean, sure, but the defining difference between a business and a nonprofit is making money.

It's important for companies to provide value to society but the way we measure that is by how much they earn. Despite several hundred years of people trying to come up with better ways to do this, this is the only one that seems to work.

[h2zizzle]

Non-profit organizations are often colloquially called "non-profit businesses" in recognition of the fact that they are organized and operate as any other business would - in developing business plans, filing with the IRS, hiring employees, minding balance sheets, etc - except in ways related to their purposely not seeking a profit (though revenue is another matter).

>but the way we measure that is by how much they earn

Again, it's a flawed heuristic. Military contracting is wildly profitable. Value to society is questionable.

>this is the only one that seems to work.

Analysis of the subtle successes of social democracies and "Gross National Happiness" are just two examples that put the lie to this myth.

[SR2Z]

> Again, it's a flawed heuristic. Military contracting is wildly profitable. Value to society is questionable.

It's not questionable at all but if you don't already see that I'm not interested in arguing it with you.

> Analysis of the subtle successes of social democracies and "Gross National Happiness" are just two examples that put the lie to this myth.

GNH is cope from the Dragon King of Bhutan to justify the poverty and ethnic cleansing of his nation in the international community. The Nordic countries all have very high per-capita GDP.

If you wanna call my claim a myth, citing a few metrics which correlate really well with GDP is not very convincing.

[h2zizzle]

You actually do seem to want to argue.

Militaries exist expressly to destroy (enemy) societies. Even if you agree with the reason for a war, that fact doesn't change. So "preservation" of one society (if becoming beholden to a MIC doesn't change that society) versus the destruction of another. Questionable value.

>GNH is cope from the Dragon King of Bhutan to justify the poverty and ethnic cleansing of his nation in the international community.

The commencement of measuring GNH coincided with marked increases in Bhutanese living standards by traditional measures. Nordic countries have roughly the same GDP per capita as the US. Countries like Japan and France feature lower GDP per capita and, while not traditionally considered social democracies, feature comparable approaches to social welfare, income equality, etc.

Free-Market Capitalism as the only way, or even best way, to prosperity is indeed a myth. Even at its best or most successful, it has to be tempered with robust social policy and economic controls, lest people fall to excess and the economy itself burn out. That's called, "Late-Stage Capitalism", and you'd best start believing, because we're in it.

[d0gsg0w00f]

> No, this is just the (insane) status quo. Ideally, however, businesses exist to carry out a mission (beyond making money).

Well, that's the beauty of the system. You can go and be the change you want to see in the world.

[dns_snek]

That's the standard conversation line that sounds oh-so optimistic but it's not actually true, is it?

As soon as you need to raise money, or as soon as you need to compete, the system will either beat you into submission or you'll get out-competed by companies that don't concern themselves with any missions other than making the maximum amount of money possible.

The most ruthless, dirtiest, immoral players can cut the most corners, grease the most political wheels and offer products and services at the lowest prices.

[Nemi]

This is true, and what Machiavelli was talking about in his book The Prince. He is not talking about HOW to be an asshole ruler, he was talking about what other asshole rulers WILL DO, and how you will need to deal with that (as a ruler that does not wish to be a tyrant).

[Capricorn2481]

While it certainly reads satirical, in the sense that someone writing a book like this now would come off comically evil, there is nothing to suggest it was a satire. That's just a reddit thing that's been trending, and largely put forward by one historian a long time ago.

There's plenty of reason to think he wrote this book earnestly to boost his own political standing with the Medici family. It was not written for the common man, it was written as a resumé for political leaders to peruse. However, he distanced himself from the book in his later work.

[ever1337]

The whole world is a cartel. Not because it wants to be - quite the opposite. But because it is a necessity.