[Dani]

Originally Posted by pdnewbie

As for making zero profits, I'm not sure I understand what the problem is. I'm talking zero profits after all expenses have been paid. I'm not just talking about factoring in the budgets of each department. I'm also talking about factoring in the company's commitment to shareholders, to community organisations, and to other third parties, and even an 'emergency fund contribution' (call it what you will), into the selling price of the goods/services.

If that is what you mean, then all companies currently break even by your stand point. Companies don't have money floating around in the ether. All of it goes somewhere and gets used.

Originally Posted by pdnewbie

What I'm saying is changing the definition of what profit means. Consider insurance against insolvency (in the form of a reserve fund) as an asset in the balance sheet (in total) and an expense in the p&l statement (for each year). Consider payment of dividends to shareholders as an expense. This means to me that profit is then spillover, or a deviation to targets, rather than something to maximise.

As Ahimel said, it would better to define a new term than redefine an old one. No one will ever be able to understand you because they already know what profit means.

You are basically starting a new language by redefining the meaning of words.

Originally Posted by pdnewbie

I acknowledge that in times of growth, there will be some profits going the business's way. You'll need them to keep up with demand. There will also be times of decay, and in those times there will be some losses going your way. I agree that a cash buffer should exist within the company at all times to weather the hard times. Again, it can be factored into the selling price of the goods/services produced. The premium will depend on the volatility of the business, I imagine.

But I feel that the goal should be break even. Not continnual growth, but stability. Not money making, but offering goods/services according to what's best for society. For example, not soft drinks and fast food, but healthy food.

Back to communist / socialist thinking. I had the same thoughts myself a while ago, but it is something that would be impossible to enforce without being a dictatorship.

Conversely it is something that would happen naturally if we lived in a truly enlightened society.

This sort of paradigm shift would require all of society to become altruistic people. Possible, but not likely.

Same flaw as socialism/communism, it requires an enlightened populace to actually work. Because greed, and fear will always disrupt it.

Originally Posted by pdnewbie

If a business wants to stay afloat during periods of low demand, but keep its principles, it can innovate, and it can consolidate.

If a business cannot run under the conditions I am prescribing, I am suggesting that it is not being 100% socially responsible for its actions. It's less than perfect.

Companies not %100 socially responsible Impossible!

I think you will find that only something like 1% of companies or less are actually truly socially responsible.

What you are also suggesting, though not directly, is that a company does not fight for for it's survival, but instead operates purely in the 'best interests' of the community. Which may mean it shuts it's doors if it is no linger in the public interest to stay open.

Who defines what is the best interests? Should Ford/GM/Toyota fire all their employees and shut down their companies devastating millions of lives, because cars could be considered socially irresponsible?

You are asking companies to commit suicide if they no longer meet the needs of society. As that is the only way for them to remain socially responsible. To dissolve when no longer needed.

That is a -tough- request. Almost as tough as asking someone to die because they can no longer contribute to society.

Technically, it makes perfect sense logistically but its a rough deal for those involved.