On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 01:16:14 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 21:25:39 -0800, wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 19:52:37 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 16:10:26 -0800, wrote:

Corporations have a fiduciary responsiblity to their stock holders to
try and achieve profits. That is why they are in business. To
suggest that government should force corporations to develop and
produce a product without a profit motive is totally unrealistic.

PS, this discussion should be taken offline before it turns political.

Huh? You never heard of the gov't requiring car manufacturers to
produce things like tanks, bombers, etc?


No.

http://www.allpar.com/history/military/preparing.html

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3428500013.html

You think this was done without gov't incentive?

Do you think there was no profit motive?

"Chrysler would get a 4% commission for building the factory and
another 4% for building tanks."

Do you think they could have done better if the economy was better? As
I said, the gov't gave them financial incentives.

Again, why should a profit motive drive what's needed for people's
health and welfare? You don't need to explain basic business concepts
to me, as I probably have a better education on the subject than most
here.


If you want a corporation involved, there has to be a profit motive.

Why? There are lots of non-profits in the US.

None of them are producing much innovation.

Producing much innovation? You mean innovating. See the Drucker
Institute for how non-profits innovate.

If you're talking about product innovation, I don't think you want to
use a US car company as an example.