Live data from Hacker News

Working with Purpose, Forever

hakaimagazine.com

41–50 of 74 posts

Re: Working with Purpose, Forever

#41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

VCs only want profitable companies so that they can get that sweet sweet exit payday. CEOs of larger, listed corps are competing in the same markets as startups and so are forced to pursue the same or risk looking like they're failing in the market. Ultimately everyone(customers, employees, the company, longer term investors) loses except the investors who are able to influence the company's direction and priorities.

And in a world without value investing then everyone loses. Profitable companies must be providing valuable goods and services to customers. In the long run the customer is king.

>In the long run the customer is king.

Traded companies don't exist in the long run, they exist to the quarter and if they 'screw up' (whatever that means) they are punished by the short sellers.

Companies can work just fine for some period of time providing nothing of value and long as they can keep investors hooked to the slot machine. I mean, this is typically how every boom/bust cycle works. The problem with boom/bust cycles is they can have society destabilizing effects if they are large enough. They key is moderating behaviors to avoid the worst outcomes.

Let's play with a silly analogy to example this. Farmers find out they can make a lot of money very quickly growing a cash crop of drugs. It only takes a few months to grow so they can harvest a few times a season. Huge numbers of farmers jump on this and achieve record profits... Then fall comes around and everybody starts asking "Where's the food at".

Re: Working with Purpose, Forever

#42

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.

If companies and persons are legally equivalent, I'm not sure why this is so perverse to you. There are many people in the world who do not have "purpose", their personal philosophy is that they need/want to go out and "make a profit" so that they can survive. Are they perverse? 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, ha…

I'll believe that companies are the legal equivalent to persons when Texas executes one of them.

Re: Working with Purpose, Forever

#43

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.

[deleted]

Re: Working with Purpose, Forever

#45

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.

VCs only want profitable companies so that they can get that sweet sweet exit payday. CEOs of larger, listed corps are competing in the same markets as startups and so are forced to pursue the same or risk looking like they're failing in the market. Ultimately everyone(customers, employees, the company, longer term investors) loses except the investors who are able to influence the company's direction and priorities.

> VCs only want profitable companies

In the US at least this hasn't been true for a very long time. You only have to look at "YCombinator Top 100" to see multiple companies losing hundreds of millions and billions of dollars of investor money for years

Re: Working with Purpose, Forever

#46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes the system is broken

What is the broken part? There is a difference between investment and donation, should investors be forced to invest in ventures which don't explicitly promise them financial return on the investment?

The broken part is when the investors sue the company for not making maximal profit possible, ethic be damned. This is exactly where choosing to be a social purpose corporation might help.

Re: Working with Purpose, Forever

#47
post #33
post #15

This sounds like just a fancy version of a co-op, which has been a thing for a very long time.

Those two organizational models are fundamentally different. The PPT is a top-down approach which sets firm company values with little room for deviation, ensuring consistency but limiting individual input (admittedly mostly executive/company officer input). 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. Whil…

To extend the thought experiment further, imagine if, in the co-op scenario, a survey was run to collect information about whether employees still wanted the company to buy local fish...and then the employees who didn't were slowly whittled down to a minority through selective firings.

The tendency for the most ruthless in leadership to "take the wheel" by excising any from the organization who aren't on board with increased ruthlessness is a common one (see the current GOP in the US, various stories of Soviet leadership, and common trends in executive-turnover-immediately-preceding-layoffs).

Re: Working with Purpose, Forever

#48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Not to burst your bubble, but B corp certs (I know it's slightly different than SPC, but similar concept and related in your wiki.) isn't exclusive nor hard to get. [0] [0] https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20240202-has-b-corp-cer...

Nothing is perfect, but some things are better than the others.

Re: Working with Purpose, Forever

#49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes the system is broken

What is the broken part? There is a difference between investment and donation, should investors be forced to invest in ventures which don't explicitly promise them financial return on the investment?

> What is the broken part?

"most investors want to invest in companies whose explicit purpose is making money for the investors".

Rational investors should favor companies whose explicit purpose at least resembles a value proposition, which "PROFIT$!" does not.

Re: Working with Purpose, Forever

#50

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.

Alan Kay mentioned this recently at a UCLA talk [1] in February. It's known as the "The Friedman doctrine" after the American economist Milton Friedman.

A) Milton Friedman: Shareholder profits > All. "...the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. This shareholder primacy approach views shareholders as the economic engine of the organization and the only group to which the firm is socially responsible. As such, the goal of the firm is to increase its profits and maximize returns to shareholders." [2]

B) Peter Drucker: Customer has primary focus. "A company's primary responsibility is to serve its customers. Profit is not the primary goal, but rather an essential condition for the company's continued existence and sustainability." [3]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZQ7x0-MZcI&t=5205s

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Drucker

Post reply on HN