islander wrote: 
Thanks for being an awesome businessperson.   And yes to all your points.

Unfortunately, the math works out that thoughtful companies like yours are a pretty tiny portion of what supports the culture, arts, health, social, and environmental needs of our country.

My argument is for people to look at what the government does for us.  It is H U G E.  Companies and individuals could not and would not make up the difference.  And we wouldn't just lose a Weird Artist Grant here and there. 

It is an absurd diversion to talk about making government significantly "smaller".  It is also absurd to talk about lowering taxes.  I wish Americans would grow up and look at their budgets and decide how to pay for all the wonderful things that surround them. Let's talk realistically.  Let's debate how to make government more efficient — instead of the circus of religious posturing and wild promises of lower taxes.

(And again — I'm not arguing with you... )

 hippiechick wrote: 
Agreed. In fact the things that make some one a good business leader, make them a poor politician, and vice versa.

 rosedraws wrote: 
I know this was broadly directed, but I feel qualified to reply.

Many businesses do this as part of their charter. Many do it as part of their work. There is even a new(ish) company form called an l3c - Low-profit Limited Liability Company just for the purpose of focusing on lessor profits, while delivering other positive impacts, but not being restricted by the non-profit regs.

In all cases, businesses will be run by their boards at the behest of their shareholders. If their shareholders are institutions like CalPERS, then there is a board there making decisions for their members/shareholders/trustees... in the end it's all people. If people are greedy and make demands for profits and short returns for stock performance, then that is what the companies do. Corporations are not inherently evil, they just do the bidding of people. People may be short sighted, and may force poor choices, but that is not the fault of the corporation.

I operate a company that is in the free market. We are definitely interested in making money. We do a lot of things that are for the greater good. Some of those have a profit component, some do not. Often these things go hand in hand - case in point: I'm an environmental nut - I've happily worn the tree hugger label. My company does uses a phenomenal amount of electricity (Power bill last month was well over 6 figures). We've done a lot of work on efficiency systems to limit the wasted energy and to utilize systems that simply work better. I spent almost $400,000 extra on some new technology chillers a couple years ago. I did this because they use less energy. Yes there were rebates, and yes I had to substantiate the decision with a business case, but in the end we bought more expensive gear, because it was more efficient.  I also spend extra money that I don't have to on health care for the employees - not just because healthy employees are more productive, but because it's the right thing to do - I like my crew and want them to stay healthy. We support community and educational groups. We give to charities. No one forces this on us, we do it because we want to.

I also bitch about regulations that don't make sense, and complain when we are forced to pay leasehold *and* property taxes on the same equipment - not because I'm cheap and hate my local .gov, but because I want things to make sense. I'm also trying to be responsible to my shareholders who want me doing smart things with their money, not tossing it away on government waste. We are happy to pay where we owe and it makes sense, but reluctant to pay more 'just because the .gov does some good stuff with it'. 

Personally, I'm undertaxed. I readily admit that and lobby for change. But I want systemic change so that it makes sense, and will address the structural issues, so I'm not going to just "write a check to our government to limit my guilt". But that's a whole 'nother rant.

 islander wrote: 
I didn't say it was bad. I am not making a judgment. I have nothing against being rich, although I have never had an interest in being wealthy.

Social welfare programs require compassion, not a bottom line. And our country is not a company, and should not be run like one.

 islander wrote: 
Yes, it is the right of institutions to make a profit if they choose to.

However, profit-making is often in contradiction to other goals which serve society, such as energy, health, environment.

(following rant not directed at islander...)

There must be entities that look out for a greater good, and more far-reaching goals.  We have many non-profit institutions that serve these functions, but the general public will never choose to fund them unless they are forced (ie, via taxes) to do so. 

Our government is charged with serving the greater good, and looking out for the big picture.  It does a really really good job of this.  Not perfect, but gotdamn, we have it REALLY good in the US.  The problem is, we want all these good things, but are balking at the price tag.  We are way undertaxed compared to the good life we are provided by our government.

There is nooooooooooooo way the free market will look out for the greater good.  As a person with very wide and intimate roots in non-profit organizations, I KNOW the culture and arts and humanitarian and environmental endeavors will COLLAPSE without the full, deep commitment of the government.

I know there's not a lot of agreement here about this, and I wish I was articulate enough to explain what I know, so that all this ridiculousness about "less taxes" would stop.

 oldslabsides wrote: 

The advent of profit-sharing was/is an attempt to put employees in that category of own/invest.

 

 islander wrote: 
there is a segment of the population who believes that the purpose of a company is to provide employment for people.  not sure where that entitlement attitude comes from.  the purpose of a company is in fact, to make money for the people who own it/invest in it.

 hippiechick wrote: 


Many companies in the private sector are publicly traded and held by wide swaths of the public.
Institutional investors like CALPERS demand a focus on the bottom line,a do many of the shareholders.it's that not their right?

 miamizsun wrote: 
I know what private means. It means that the bottom line is most important.

 hippiechick wrote: 

• belonging to or concerning an individual person, company, or interest

 miamizsun wrote: 
Private does not mean better. It often means greedy.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 

 miamizsun wrote: 
Amusing link from that page... you're going to need those gloves.

 hippiechick wrote: 
don't know

generally prisons are a waste of money

another government handout to their coporatist cronies

i'd like to see them (prisons) phased out

 miamizsun wrote: 
Will they do as good a job as the private companies who run the prisons?

 Manbird wrote: 
i kinda know this guy, or you could say i know enough about him to rec his work

Park Privatization

Public-Private Partnerships in Recreation

 cc_rider wrote: 
Ya think?

By the way, my daughter works for the BLM in Idaho, and this is exactly what she sees at her job.

 hippiechick wrote:
  Yeah, he gave away gazillions of dollars in mineral rights and grazing contracts. For pennies per acre. Funny though, all of the outfits that made those deals were big businesses, not Mom and Pop ranchers. Strange, huh? It's almost as if those businesses made massive campaign contributions to GOP interests, in exchange for sweetheart deals on publicly-owned land.

 cc_rider wrote: 
California already wants to shut down 40 or 50 of its beautiful state parks because of budget problems.
I can't imagine they could fund all the national parks as well as the state parks. 

 Romulus wrote: 
I don't know about that. Bush tried hard to gobble up as many resources out of the national lands as possible.