31–40 of 74 posts
[flagged]
> A Perpetual Purpose Trust (PPT) is a legal and organizational structure that allows a company to operate with a focus on achieving their overarching goal of creating purpose or impact rather than focusing on maximizing profits alone. Patagonia and Bosch are the well known examples of this ownership structure.
This sounds like just a fancy version of a co-op, which has been a thing for a very long time.
In contrast, the co-op is a bottoms-up model which empowers every employee to have a say, making the company dynamic and responsive to collective decisions.
While both might aim beyond just profits and share goals like amplifying employee voices, their execution is markedly different. For example, in an employee cooperative, major changes can happen quickly through collective decision-making. Conversely, in the PPT model, even unanimous agreement on change could be denied.
As a thought experiment, imagine what would happen in both scenarios (co-op vs PPT) if every single employee (including executives/company officers) decided they didn’t want the business to buy local fish anymore.
Call me crazy, but the idea that a company can be formed with no purpose other than to make a profit strikes me as somewhat perverse and malign. All companies should exist for a specific purpose, and when that is achieved (or no longer needed, or no longer possible), they should be wound up.
You can form companies with all kinds of specific purposes, however, if you want to attract investors (or even attract general public investment by being a publicly traded ompany), then don't be surprised if most investors want to invest in companies whose explicit purpose is making money for the investors.
Call me crazy, but the idea that a company can be formed with no purpose other than to make a profit strikes me as somewhat perverse and malign. All companies should exist for a specific purpose, and when that is achieved (or no longer needed, or no longer possible), they should be wound up.
You can form companies with all kinds of specific purposes, however, if you want to attract investors (or even attract general public investment by being a publicly traded ompany), then don't be surprised if most investors want to invest in companies whose explicit purpose is making money for the investors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can form companies with all kinds of specific purposes, however, if you want to attract investors (or even attract general public investment by being a publicly traded ompany), then don't be surprised if most investors want to invest in companies whose explicit purpose is making money for the investors.
If you actually want to dedicate your company to a purpose, it should be something like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_purpose_corporation
[0] https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20240202-has-b-corp-cer...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Making profit is always a goal you achieve while doing something else: selling local seafood, writing software, designing chips, mining ores, whatever. So making profits and doing something else cannot be harder than just making profits. Also, companies receive and pay back loans all the time, it's quite a common procedure. Why should it be any different here?
> Making profit is always a goal you achieve while doing something else: selling local seafood It's selling expensive local seafood when your competition selling cheaper imported frozen stuff. > Also, companies receive and pay back loans all the time, it's quite a common procedure. Why should it be any different here? If there was no difference, then there would be no need in inventing alternative capital formation l…
Call me crazy, but the idea that a company can be formed with no purpose other than to make a profit strikes me as somewhat perverse and malign. All companies should exist for a specific purpose, and when that is achieved (or no longer needed, or no longer possible), they should be wound up.
Call me crazy, but the idea that a company can be formed with no purpose other than to make a profit strikes me as somewhat perverse and malign. All companies should exist for a specific purpose, and when that is achieved (or no longer needed, or no longer possible), they should be wound up.
A company isn't perfectly equivalent to a person, but does exist as a tool so people can accomplish goals. If two people have no calling, have no passions, and they start a company that expresses their personal goals of survival, what's wrong with that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can form companies with all kinds of specific purposes, however, if you want to attract investors (or even attract general public investment by being a publicly traded ompany), then don't be surprised if most investors want to invest in companies whose explicit purpose is making money for the investors.
Yes the system is broken