avevale_intelligencer (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
avevale_intelligencer) wrote2011-01-11 09:39 am
avevale_intelligencer) wrote2011-01-11 09:39 am
Rethinking profit
Okay, the feeling of the meeting seems to be that profit can never be defined as "money you need."
I could sort this by redefining "need" for individuals to include books, CDs, a holiday every couple of years, that nice almost-Tiffany lampshade you saw in B & Q, or the Xbox Kinect that little Darius or Tiffany absolutely HAS to have or his/her life will be OVER--but then it would doubtless get redefined for corporations in the same way. Whether a corporation needs to go on holiday, or redecorate its offices top to bottom (while simultaneously laying off twenty per cent of its staff), or whether Monstrous Megacorp really needs to engulf Gargantuan Holdings because all the other cool corporations are doing it, is a moot question.
But this is the answer to Magician's point; si profitum requiris, circumspice. You and I take our profits in tangible form, as books and toys and musical instruments, or as it might otherwise be described, clutter. If it gives us pleasure, makes us feel better, gives us a reason to go on working, then it's profit. Whether that's a need or not is up to the individual to decide; again, if it is, it's a need that corporations, as such, don't share.
Speaking of shares...buying a share in a company is a one-off payment, and if it indicates a belief in that corporation and a desire to assist it in its work then that's very laudable. As far as I know, shareholders aren't required to go on paying every time the company needs a hand, and they're still regarded as holding their shares, so they don't lose out unless the company actually goes bust. I'm not sure how this bears on the question at this stage.
But I'm okay with it if people feel that the only difference between £875m declared by Colossalcorp and the £25.80 you or I might have left over at the end of the month is one of degree. It's a pretty large degree, is all.
I could sort this by redefining "need" for individuals to include books, CDs, a holiday every couple of years, that nice almost-Tiffany lampshade you saw in B & Q, or the Xbox Kinect that little Darius or Tiffany absolutely HAS to have or his/her life will be OVER--but then it would doubtless get redefined for corporations in the same way. Whether a corporation needs to go on holiday, or redecorate its offices top to bottom (while simultaneously laying off twenty per cent of its staff), or whether Monstrous Megacorp really needs to engulf Gargantuan Holdings because all the other cool corporations are doing it, is a moot question.
But this is the answer to Magician's point; si profitum requiris, circumspice. You and I take our profits in tangible form, as books and toys and musical instruments, or as it might otherwise be described, clutter. If it gives us pleasure, makes us feel better, gives us a reason to go on working, then it's profit. Whether that's a need or not is up to the individual to decide; again, if it is, it's a need that corporations, as such, don't share.
Speaking of shares...buying a share in a company is a one-off payment, and if it indicates a belief in that corporation and a desire to assist it in its work then that's very laudable. As far as I know, shareholders aren't required to go on paying every time the company needs a hand, and they're still regarded as holding their shares, so they don't lose out unless the company actually goes bust. I'm not sure how this bears on the question at this stage.
But I'm okay with it if people feel that the only difference between £875m declared by Colossalcorp and the £25.80 you or I might have left over at the end of the month is one of degree. It's a pretty large degree, is all.
no subject
They lose out because their shares are worth less.
Who do you think shareholders are? This table shows a breakdown of categories of UK shareholders (along with an unhelpful 'rest of world' category).
Of them, I'd say that the beneficiaries of pension funds certainly spend their money on necessities and the kind of luxuries you describe. So do many individuals. For example, I sold some of my stocks and shares ISA to pay for my wedding.
Charities and churches use their profits to provide services and/or 'tangible' goods to people. Similarly, insurance companies provide a service.
My financial literacy isn't really good enough to tell you what the others do, but I think what I'm saying is that the £875m translates into lots and lots of £25.80s for lots of people.
no subject
But yes, exactly. Buying shares is the same sort of investment as buying a house (except less useful to the shareholder, because they can't live in a company's office, and a lot more volatile because house prices go up and down slowly in general, whereas shares can rise or fall by factors of 10 or more within a year). A "stocks and shares" ISA or other similar investment simply means that the money is spread across several institutions so that hopefully they won't all go bust at once.
Note that a lot of outside determinations of a person's monetary 'worth' include things like shares and house ownership even though those things can't easily be turned into cash (if you inherit a house, for instance, you will likely not be eligible for income support and the like because you are 'worth' thousands of pounds, even though you can't sell it immediately). So many people who the papers say are "worth millions" actually could never realise that money if they needed it because it's tied up in companies (as they could lose it all if the companies fold, I have several friends who were 'paid' in shares by their companies and those shares are now worthless, no one wants to buy them).