On the business of life
Jan. 18th, 2007 10:46 amI'm mostly dumping this here so I can reference it later, but commentary is welcome. This came out of a discussion of the relationship of WiiTID to the profitability of the enterprises that employ people like me:
Profit is like health, to a corporation. You have to have it, and more is good. But it's not the reason for existence.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-19 03:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-19 02:07 pm (UTC)- the stated purpose of a corporation may be to make profit, and other concerns should not enter into the equation, except that...
- corporations are composed of, and must hire/depend on, moral beings (people).
Therefore, it is impossible to achieve profit goals without factoring in the very moral principles that corporations supposedly excluded by design.
What's not clear to me is how he thinks that ought to be implemented in practice. Drucker's mostly a theorist so I don't completely hold against him this lack, but my thinking is still cloudy.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-19 06:25 pm (UTC)Weaver mostly decries the long-term effects of the overly-cozy government/corporate relationship, but he also unveils many of the post-Smith pre-Nash assumptions which went into the formulations of legal corporate infrastructure.
All this is a long-winded way of saying that Drucker overstates his case when he (correctly) claims that "other concerns should not enter into the equation". That's the way we've currently got it, but that's not the way that it should be (according to Smith's analysis of mercantilism distinguished from capitalism, and Nash's analysis of optimal outcomes).