Allow Businesses to be Independent

I don't know why you are getting confused. You keep on stating the obvious as if it's wisdom. The interests of the 3 are different. Not insightful. No one is arguing with this. People are saying that their interests are intertwined and there is co-dependency.




The individual end user would like to see businesses taxed at 50% of their income and that money returned to the consumer. Would that be a smart strategy, o strategist?



You are always talking about Linden Lab and profit. You never figure in time span and you never figure in motivation of owners. Classic oversimplification -- get out of the theory and into the real world. Benchmark Capital cares about one thing -- maximizing their returns. They will achieve returns through two paths: an IPO or an M&A exit. They aren't exiting through a discounted cash flow analysis -- I repeat that Linden Lab will not be valued purely by profit. Their margins are important, but so is growth and so is revenue (turnover for you Brits) ... people will be looking at many metrics and Benchmark will push LL/SL to maximize the characteristics that buyers find most sexy at the moment.

Then you have the owners within Linden Lab. My guess is that Philip is motivated by more than the dollar signs. He may not be a majority owner, but the point stands. Within a business, the majority owner has the right to run their business for profit, yes, or according to other lines and other agendas. I cannot speak for him, but your endless repetition of business=profit is getting old. This is not a publicly owned company where such basic theory holds more true.



yes, there are some silly people



in this we agree

I wish everything was so goddamn black and white.

"Business isn't the most important thing there is. This proves that business has absolutely no importance whatsoever."

This is an excellent example of idiot logic.

Here is another fine example.

Buster

Get off of your high horse. Your remarks/invalidations get you nowhere. They only make you appear pompous.



This is not based in any point. If you do not know that the best interest of Linden Labs is profit, you do not know what a business is. Any other speculations you proposed have nothing to do with what LL is. You do not know the difference between objective and strategy. The objective of LL and any business is profit. Time span or not, profit now, or years to come, profit will always and forever be the objective of the business. Otherwise, it would not be a business. It doesn’t matter what LL will be valued as or what people look at in an IPO. In the end, it is always for profit. No matter what LL or any business does for strategy or source. Their end objective is maximizing their profit. It doesn’t matter what the time frame is. Should I take $1 now or $100 next week? All of that is strategy and not objective.

Why would they do all of those things you proposed? For one reason only. Because it is profitable. Why as you state “figure in time span and motivation of owners”? Because it is profitable. You are equating business objective and strategy. You seem to be under the impression that it is LL’s business objective is to “figure in time span and motivation of owners”. It is not their objective to do so. It is their strategy. Their objective is profit and only profit. Everything else is strategy. Their strategy involves figuring in time span and motivation of owners. Or whatever you seem to think LL is.



Cry all you want, it changes nothing. The best interest of a business is profit. It is because you refuse to understand this that you continue with your pompous mindless babble. You are completely impolite, and have no respect for yourself.



Let me repeat because you do not seem to understand. Business = profit. A business has no other objective than profit. If they did, they would not be a business. Every business has this objective. The refusal to separate objective and strategy achieves flawed results.



Right that is because it doesn’t matter what LL does or does not. If you cannot understand the motivating force behind EVERYTHING a business does, you cannot get proper results. It doesn’t matter what LL does. Why would LL do X? Why would LL do Y? Because it is profitable and only because it is profitable. Otherwise, they have no reason to do it.

When I mention “best interest”, I am discussing motivation. When you mix up objective with strategy, you get nonsense theories such as:
“It is “ALWAYS” profitable in every situation for LL to not take advantage of others.”
“It is “ALWAYS” profitable when doing business to be fair to the other party.”

Not taking advantage of others is not an objective. It is a strategy. If you do not wish to discontinue treating strategies as if they were one and the same as motivation/objective, you will be working off of a flawed angle. It is not realistic. Being fair in dealings is not what motivates a business. It may be a strategy of a business. Profit is what motivates a business.



People are motivated by lots of things that are not necessarily profit. People abide by ethical standards. This is why people are people and businesses are businesses. When we treat them as if they are one and the same we are operating off of a slanted paradigm.

After analyzing figures risks and everything involved, it might be profitable for me to kill Person X.
Although there is nothing stopping me, and it would clearly be profitable, I would not do so because I abide by ethical standards. I would never under any circumstance take a person’s life.

Various businesses abide by ethical standards. These standards do not in anyway coincide with their motivation for profit. In other words, it would not matter how much money a business loses. It would not even matter if a business goes bankrupt. Ethical standards are abided by without regard to profit or loss. The problem that we come across with regard to people intermeshing objective with strategy is they tend to believe that ethical standards is and always is profitable. Ethical standards are the opposite of business motivation. Business = profit and only profit. That is the sole objective of the business. Ethical standards do not in any way hold profit in any relevance. Ethical standards are in no way strategy.

When people talk about these things as if they are all one and the same, progress deteriorates.

You and I aren't going to see eye to eye so might as well stop now. Best of luck, Boyfriend.

Boyfriend, if you really accuse Forseti of not accepting this fact you must have overlooked a lot of his posts in the past weeks and months

If I look at the discussion here and try to take away the emotional outbreaks, it seems to me, that the biggest difference between your standpoints (besides "whats the correct definition of term XYZ" is Forseti's set of opinions that

1. It might make sense for the Lindens to forego an opportunity to make a profit now to make a much bigger one in the long run. (Maximize DCF over 5 or 10 years instead of maximizing this quarters/years earnings.)
   
2. helping business people in SL to make a profit might result in a more profitable SL for Linden Lab in the long run
   
3. helping business people in SL to make a profit might result in a more enjoyable SL for non-business-doing residents
   
4. business people in SL, non-business-doing residents and Linden Lab can never be "independent" but are inherently dependent on one another
   
5. some people at Linden Lab - King Philip among them - might have additional motivations for running the company; not just "making a profit" (mind you "additional" not "instead of"

Good arguments pro and contra this opinions have been brought up here and in other threads.

BTW: I tend to agree with Forseti

you know, Pham, thinking on this last night, a lot of this dancing in circles depends on how Boyfriend is defining profit.

Within a business you have operating profits (from an accounting or cash flow perspective) and from an owner's perspective you have investment profits. To calculate profitability, you also need to set a time span, since ($in - $out = profit) is a pretty simple equation but one that changes depending on the start time and end time.

In my last big post, I was honing in on the differences, but I'm guessing especially after his response that Boyfriend is using the term in a much broader sense -- sort of a sweeping, overall "profit" and from that perspective there may not be anything to argue about. Although I don't even know at this point if he is just talking about monetary profit or agrees that an entrepreneur can have emotional returns as well as financial that can be equally valid in decisions that affect a business' lifecycle.

I am going by what Foresti has presented. The idea that a business has any other objective or motivation than profit. I’m not confusing people with businesses. LL is not a person.

As I have stated before:
1. All (profit) businesses are defined by being an entity for profit. (Of course, there are other uses for the word which are non-profit or something else. The term business we are all using here is specific to profit businesses.)
2. The single and only thing that defines a specific business is their source method(s) of revenue. Any and all ways a business receives money is how it is specifically defined. Your source of revenue of selling hamburgers, selling shoes, fixing cars, selling video games, performing at shows, or whatever it may be is what a business is structured around. You may tell people that you buy/sell land. That is perfectly fine. They know what you do. When it comes to looking at your source method of revenue, it is not buying/selling land. It is land sales. It is this that you structure everything else around.
3. Ethics/strategy/structure are all how one would go about maximizing their profit. Whether the strategy is for the long run or for the short run, it is irrelevant. It is strategy none the less.

I hope I did overlook whatever posts Forseti might have had, and does accept this fact. It would not be practical to discuss different things as if they were the same thing.



Of course it might. It may or may not. That is all strategy, and not the subject of this thread. Whatever strategy they may have, their best interest is maximizing their profit. Whether long term or short term is beside the point.



It very well may. And I stated this many times. The point is whatever they choose, their best interest remains the same. To make the right choice for the most profit.

Forseti can complain all he wants about how I am always talking about Linden Labs and profit. The point is not to delude anybody into intermeshing everybody’s best interest with one another. When discussing the best interest of Second Life, I keep it totally separate from discussing the best interest of Linden Labs. When I discuss the best interest of Linden Labs, I stay focused on what is and what is not profitable for Linden Labs.

Thereby I can say X supports with the best interest of Linden Labs and the end user. Y conflicts with the best interest of Linden Labs and the end user. By understanding that each of the three are separate, and understanding what each of their separate best interests are, we can have a discussion about how X or Y may or may not support the best interest of each party.



I never mentioned non-business doing residence once. I repeated over and over how end-user is not the same thing as non-business doing residents. I have clearly defined what an end user is, and people continue to subjectify the interpretation.

Nobody is talking about being dependent on one another either. X’s best interest is X’s best interest period. X’s best interested is independent of all other things. It is completely separate, and must be treated as such. You are taking what I am saying, and turning it into something else. You are turning what I am saying around as if I am stating that no one entity ever depends on the other. I never said that. You cannot talk about their all of their best interests as if they are one and the same. It is not realistic.
If we focus upon the end-user, we can see how businesses in SL are important for the best interest of the end user. This does not in anyway mean that the best interest of the end-user and the businesses are one and the same.
It is extremely important to understand. What Linden Labs wants is profit. Whatever strategies they can use to maximize it is a different discussion. What the businesses want is profit. Again, their strategies are a different discussion.

When regarding Linden Labs, we need to ignore everything else, and ask ourselves: “All other things being equal” what would be most profitable for them. Then work from there.

When regarding the businesses, we need to ignore everything else, and ask ourselves: “All other things being equal” what would be most profitable for them. Then work from there.

When regarding the end-user, we need to ignore everything else, and ask ourselves: “All other things being equal” what would be in their best interest for them. Then work from there.

I mention ignoring everything else, and allowing all other things to be equal. This means disregarding the best interest of the other 2.
For example, we might completely focus on the question about what will be most profitable for Linden Labs. We might say that supporting the businesses is most profitable for Linden Labs.

What people are doing is going about and twisting what I say in their own minds. As if I am saying focusing only on Linden Labs means that their strategy for profit is would be to not support the businesses. This is a total twist of what I am saying. Strategically, Linden Labs might support the business. They might do so because it is profitable for them to do so.

When you change the definition of the discussion, you are not discussing the same thing.



I have never been unclear about what profit means. Profit is what you have left over from what you make and what you spend.



That is all fine and good. This changes nothing. Nobody is discussing profit in those terms. In the end, the objective of any and all businesses are to maximize their profit/increase their financial wealth.



What is in question. I never stated an Entrepreneur cannot have emotional returns. This is all taken into consideration when discussing strategy.
I clearly stated:

Businesses themselves have one objective profit. What business owner wants to do with profit is a separate story, and best kept alone.

If we want to discuss what is most profitable for LL financially, we are discussing what LL might do to gain the most money. What LL can do for the most profit is different from what they will do. Ethical standards might prevent them from doing something that is most profitable. Other factors might prevent them from doing what is most profitable. The point is to have a clear picture of what would be most profitable, and work from that. If you do not have a clear picture of what would be most profitable without regard to ethical standards or anything else, you are not working in reality.

At least we dropped the "profiteer" label.

Most businesses in SL operate in the red, a few actually turn a slight profit or break even.

My costs to run my business is my teir and game costs, not to mention my time and efforts. My sales receipts equal my costs, so I get nothing for my labor. Basically I'm breaking even minus labor.

In the processes I am providing a place where new users can learn the basics. In some people's eyes I'm making a profit and paying for my game with it. But I could as easily have used a basic account costing me nothing. I wouldn't be providing the services and content, I'd just be an end user, sucking up resources without returning anything to SL other than my presence.

Who should LL support more? Who should LL listen to when planning major changes? The basic user or the people who make the world fun for the basic users?

Tough choice

You forget the fact that the consumer often can get cheaper products when the companies have to pay less to make them. This is not always the case, but if one country is willing to give you widgets for $2 and another is asking for $10 with equal quality, which one are you going to choose. One job disappearing is not the end of the world. It means you have to adapt and find what your niche is.

Just like a company has to change what they make when they are no longer needed for that purpose, the individual has to change what they do when they are no longer needed for a purpose.

The thing I would be more concerned about is the fact that some of these countries that produce cheaper abuse their employees. I would be more concerned about finding a way of convincing these countries to protect the interest of their workers. It is sad when someone loses a job, but they can always do something else. If a person is stuck in a country that lets companies work them 12 hours days with almost no pay, that causes me much more anger.

It is a fact that many corporations care about nothing but money. To brand "all businesses" with this mantra is beyond wrong. I find it personally offensive. I've been running businesses all my adult life, and I have plenty of motivations besides making a profit. Making a profit is only one factor in leading a happy business life. It is necessary to turn a profit, or break even anyway. It is absolutely necessary.

It is idiotic to assume that just because something is necessary that it is therefore the only consideration. Idiotic.

Businesses are owned and operated by people. People do all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons.

Get off your own high horse.

Buster

Etiher way you are an end-user. You play SL. Nobody is sucking up anything. Your use of verbage is completely loaded. You are not doing anybody any favors simply because you are a premium player and not a basic. If you want to do anybody any favors, that is aside from any point presented. The facts still remain. You, and all of the people that have businesses in SL whether for real proftit or for play are responsible for your business.

If you have the feeling that you are doing people favors, that is fine. Everybody appreciates your contributions. Alot of people have businesses that are fun, and help other players around which is all good and fine. People may be thankful and appreciative. That doesn't mean you are not solely responsible for your own business. Nobody needs to take care of you. Nobody needs to give you any considerations.

What we do is our choice. Nobody is asking us to be here or do anything. You speak about basic players as if you are better than them. As if they are just here sucking up resources while you are so great and wonderful for what you do. No player is better than any other. You are not better than any other. Basic players and premium players alike make up the SL commmunity. I'd prefer to do without eletists if it means the loss of whatever elitists provide. You are not better than others, and you do not desreve more than others. If you want to contribute wharever you want, it is fine. You do not HAVE to. Nobody should be treated as if they HAVE to. A person does not desrve any less respect and consideration if they do not.
I don't care if you are a basic player playing for free, a premium player, or a total devoted player. We are all members of the community, and desrve the utmost respect and quality service. None more than the other. The only way I would say you would not deserve anything is if your'e an elitist that believes certain people should have priority over others. I could be considered an elitist in a way that I consider elitists with less reverance.

When the government considers changes to laws and regulations, it listens to lobbyists because businesses create the income people use to pay taxes. The concerns of the special interest groups and people who want certain changes are weighed fairly. The government often sides with business because businesses create the jobs, pay the taxes, etc that keep people off welfare. So, we might say, in RL businesses create jobs that feed families, support government, offer healthcare, and keep people off the welfare rolls. Therefore, goverments provide tax cuts(take less from businesses) and other incentives to get a company to set-up shop in their town/state/country.

SL is much the same. For LL to keep the production of new, exciting content/services coming, which will attract more users and keepcurrent users, LL must cater to those who make it happen.


LL could hire people to create free stuff for you to use, but then they would have to charge you to be able to pay the creators.

Must be a business-model in there somewhere....

I definitely agree with that. Unfortunately, with regards to RL, this is not a good thing. The model you presented is the model RL society lives by. It is a flawed model that does not solve desperation, but causes it.



Disagree.

1. LL is very different from an RL economy. Necessity plays a large factor in an RL economy. Necessity places zero factor in the SL economy. This is a major difference.

2. Sure there are bonuses and incentives for the businesses in SL as a feature for all end-users to attain. This is great. But there should in no way be any catering to any business/businesses/industries. In the long run Linden Labs profit less if they cater in the slightest to businesses in any way. They have everything to win by focusing 100% on the end-user with no regard to what the effect will be on the businesses. Business should for the betterment of the SL community, and the profitability of Linden Labs, remain 100% independent.

3. LL needs not hire any content creators. As long as LL allows businesses to remain independent, and continues to improve end-user functionality without regard to anything else, everybody wins. Those that suffer because of any changes made to improve end-user functionality will be replaced. There will always be businesses. There will always be content creators. As long as LL remains end-user focused, there will be a far better SL, more membership, more and better content, more functionality, and ultimately more profit for LL.

Catering to the end-user, and only the end-user while allowing businesses to fend for themselves is the best thing SL can do to improve the content/functionality/overall gaming of SL, and the most profitable thing they can do for themselves and their reputation.

You discredit your own argument by taking such an extremely absolute position. Not only are you completely wrong, you aren't even persuasive.

Too much focus on business is bad. Zero consideration for business is also bad.

Buster

Poof?
How will SL not benifit overall if the end-user remains the only focus?

I have stated why LL has every reason to remain focused on the end user in the same way as every other MMORPG is. True enough, LL is very different from other games. The points still remain.
It will be profitable for LL. It will increase the standards of the community. It is better for Second Life in every way.

Necessity does not drive the Second Life is not an economy. It makes no difference if somebody is making their living in SL or if somebody is using their business income to cover their monthly costs of playing SL. They need to allow SL to be independent and free to improve end-user functionality/game play. SL needs to allow busineses to fend ofr themselves, and not worry if something will put people out of business.