Re: [NTLK] Quote of the day!

From: Steven Scotten <>
Date: Fri Jul 13 2007 - 15:26:51 EDT

On Jul 13, 2007, at 11:29 AM, Martin Joseph wrote:

> On Jul 13, 2007, at 9:25 AM, Steven Scotten wrote:
>> Companies do *not* exist to make money
> Companies do not exist to provide a social benefit. Wake up and
> smell the coffee.

Don't think I'm so na´ve as to think that corporations are something
other than profit machines; I get that. However, even if you only go
to work because you want the paycheck and for no other reason, the
only reason that your boss signs those checks is because you do your
job. Stop doing your job and the paychecks stop coming in. Not always
true, but it's the basic principle. From your point of view, maybe
you even think that your only purpose is to make money, but unless
you've found a way to cheat the system, your purpose is the benefit
that you provide others, for which you get compensated. Even if you
are cheating the system, you're probably at least causing others to
believe that you are providing benefit.

Even in a world as corrupt as ours, a company whose only purpose is
to make money, which does not provide benefit, real or perceived,
will not survive. Motivation and purpose are not the same thing.

As a consumer, I only care about the benefit that comes to me. The
company's profit is what we give them in return for their products
and services. Their products and services are what permits a company
to survive. Do you think that the tobacco industry would be
profitable if there were no demand for cigarettes?

Does Apple's continued survival justify the disappearance of
someone's favorite product? Sure, but only because we like those
other products. It means that we balance the benefits we continue to
get from their goods and services against the loss of the benefits
and services we can't get from them any more. It doesn't mean that we
stop saying that the loss of benefits and services was somehow not a
loss. It's simply a justified loss.

People like to see thinks in simple terms: black or white, good or
bad. The next step is to understand that there's a middle ground:
shades of gray. The next step is to understand that there is *no*
middle ground. There are only interconnected---even interdependent---
patterns of right and wrong. Understanding that a rose can't survive
without thorns doesn't mean that we roll around in a bed of thorns or
that we pretend that the rose plant is a statistical average of
flower and thorn. It means that we exercise caution, aware of the
thorns as we go about appreciating the flower.

This is the NewtonTalk list - for all inquiries
Official Newton FAQ:
WikiWikiNewt for all kinds of articles:
Received on Fri Jul 13 15:26:55 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jul 13 2007 - 18:30:01 EDT