The Living Profit

Zonitics.com ^ | March 19, 2002 | Edward Boyd

[Zonitics]

Thanks for posting it. I hope that people will see the wisdom - unchecked competition is destroying small business in this country.

[John Jorsett]

I love pieces like yours that illustrate the absuridity of the other side's position by going them one better. I plan to talk up the Living Profit wherever I can.

[Logophile]

You heard it here first. Now join the effort to establish Living Profits ordinances in your community. Next we will campaign to raise the minimum profit.

After that, we'll pass Guaranteed Happiness laws!

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I believe that the actual figures are something like 90% of all businesses fail within the first 5 years.  Of these, around 90% fail because of lack of forethought and planning.

So, if you do your planning properly, you actually have a 90% chance of success.

So how wise is his redistributionist policy?  Not very.  The problem isn't unchecked competition, but rather unchecked protectionism.

[Stultis]

LOL!

But, should I be laughing? Today's satire could be tomorrow's Democrat policy initiative.

[boris]

Hmm. This would violate a fundamental law of the Universe: Boris' law of conservation of Italian Restaurants.

The number of Italian Restaurants is constant; each time one closes another one opens somewhere. The "IR" number of the Universe is preserved, sort of like Boson number...

--Boris

[MarkWar]

>Accordingly, I propose that state and local governments across the United States adopt "Living Profits" laws.

As I was laughing at your funny post, it occurred to me that it actually might not be too bad an idea if there was something like an "initiative fund" which in some way rewarded people who, at least, took some initiative and tried to make a go of something.

Of course, just starting up a small business in itself shouldn't count. Somebody would have to figure out a way to weed out people just going through the motions, and people coached by do-gooders, etc. But it seems to me that people who have energy and passion and self-direction actually are a resource to a society at large, and, one way or another, we all benefit from having such people around. If such people do fail in this or that particular instance, it is to our own benefit to find a way to keep such people around, rather than driving them to suicide or brainless day-jobbing...

Of course, the hard part is figuring out how to separate the real deals from the posers.

I have no idea how it could be managed. My only point is that, if we're day dreaming here, it would be a good thing if such a thing could be managed...

Mark W.

[CaliforniaDreamer]

Are you sure you didn't get this from the Boxer staff?

[Zonitics]

The SBA says that it is 60% fail within 6 years. How dare you be so willing to consign 90% of entrepeneurs to the poor house. You're so heartless.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

It simply isn't fair for some to do so well, while both owners and employees suffer merely because they can't produce profits.

So true, so true. But first, let's work on the ugly/attractive problem. It is not fair, even cruel, that some people are attractive while others have to struggle through life being ugly and unwanted. To be fair, the attractive should have to pay for plastic surgery for the ugly, or, conversely, the ugly should get to mar and maim the attractive in order to make them ugly. It is only fair.

[ppaul]

A "Living Profit"

[Teacher317]

a living allowance, a living retirement income, a living college stipend, a living food allotment, a living luxury allotment...

a living conjugal allotment? We have NEEDS! =^)

[Teacher317]

Wasn't that a short story by Robert A. Heinlein?

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

The SBA says that it is 60% fail within 6 years. How dare you be so willing to consign 90% of entrepeneurs to the poor house. You're so heartless.

That's a remarkable improvement then, because not too long ago it was a 90% failure rate.  And do I consign 90% to the poor house, or do I suggest that 90% should succeed but fail to do so because of the lack of proper forethought and planning?  I still stand by my assertion that misguided protectionism hurts more than it heals.

[Logophile]

But first, let's work on the ugly/attractive problem. It is not fair, even cruel, that some people are attractive while others have to struggle through life being ugly and unwanted. To be fair, the attractive should have to pay for plastic surgery for the ugly, or, conversely, the ugly should get to mar and maim the attractive in order to make them ugly. It is only fair.

What about the intelligent/stupid problem? It is not fair, even cruel, that some people are intelligent while others have to struggle through life being stupid.

Perhaps intelligent people should be forced to wear headphones that continually play speeches from our leading Democrat politicians.

[Zonitics]

You do understand that it is satire, don't you?

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

You do understand that it is satire, don't you?

Got me on that one!!!  No, I didn't know that.  Oh well, 2 points to you. :)

[aardvark1]

Are you running for President? Where can I send my campaign contributions--limited though they may be?

[Zonitics]

Based on my e-mail you weren't alone. Next time I'll put a "/satire" tag at the end.