Jimquisition: Companies Exist To Make Money

[Darth_Payn]

So bottom line is : it's ok to make money, but it has to be for something people want to buy without feeling like they're being shit on.
And what THE FUCK were those animals in the video?! Jesus, Jim, how do you find such High Octane Nightmare Fuel?!

 

[XelaisPWN]

Companies exist to make money.

So stop giving them money.

If you can't handle that (e.g. you can't help but spend $60 on Mass Effect 3 even though Origin [insert everything bad here]) then it's probably not that big of a deal.

 

[Ryan Hughes]

Actually, the idea that companies exist to make money is relatively new. Adam Smith would have found the notion horrifying, as he would likely have said that companies exist to further moral sentiments and examples. In fact, in America you used to have to prove that your company benefited its community at large or they would revoke your incorporation.

Beginning in the 1800's, the idea the companies exist to make money began, but it really did not begin to take hold until the post-war era, reaching its zenith in the Regan era.

wow what are they teaching in school nowdays?

i think rockafeller, andrew carnegie and a number of other of business titans, whos sole purpose in life was money over anything, a consequence of which many of our nations infrastructure was built, would like to have a word with you.

that fact that the word monopoly was over and one with decades before regan was even born and i find the notion that somehow the regan era is now seen as the height of greed is good.

study some history.

I have, quite a bit more than you it seems. The reason the Regan era is seen as the era of "Greed is Good," is largely because of Michael Milken, who said those very words in an address at the Dow Jones a few years before his arrest. Also, because of the deregulation of the financial sector begun with Nixon and the undermining of the Bretton Woods system, and continued by Regan and Jesse Helms.

Also, are you talking about the same Rockefellers who murdered their own employees at the Ludlow Massacre in Colorado in 1914? Because if you are, then you are literally holding up murderers as paragons of American progress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Milken
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Companies do exist to make money. As a human construct, that is it's sole purpose, it's singular reason for being. Attempting to deliver a crippling broadside speaking about about the presumed moral shortcomings of this construct are folly simply because the only moral standard inherent to a company is to make money. This is the fundamental problem with attempting to personify a fundamentally inhuman structure like a company: good or bad cannot actually apply. If one actually wants to unironically judge the relative worth of such a thing, it must be on the basis of if it efficiently and effectively fulfills it's purpose.

This places a company in an interesting position. You can judge the actions of the people who work at the company by a moral standard, certainly but it all becomes very nebulous very quickly. Who precisely, for example, was responsible for a man in my camp in Dragon Age constantly asking for more money? Since it becomes impossible to track this down for a consumer (and in many cases difficult for anyone in the company in question to determine with any certainty) we project the presumed morale shortcoming into the corporation itself.

That said, it does offer a fairly unique relationship. If you accept that a company exists to make money and actions that further that end are morally correct, it stands to reason you have an easy solution to this moral conundrum. If a company takes an action that you believe to be immoral, simply do not give them money. By supporting a company that engages in a practice you do not agree with, you torpedo any argument you might otherwise have about the presumed rights and wrongs of the world. If you insist on applying a moral framework to an idea so nebulous as the corporation, to support a company that you believe does wrong goes beyond hypocrisy. You become a collaborator, a traitor, the very agent that allows the action you despise to happen. By contrast, if you refuse to buy a product from a company that has taken an action you find despicable, you have achieved the seemingly impossible: you've made the action the company took that offended less moral by undermining the effort of said company to make money.

Don't voice a strongly worded condemnation of a shady practice and then turn around and buy a product. A half measure achieves less than nothing. This is not an industry that produces things you need. There is no sophie's choice to make here. Morality of a corporation is determined by the consumer's willingness to give said corporation money.

 

[Ryan Hughes]

Companies do exist to make money. As a human construct, that is it's sole purpose, it's singular reason for being. Attempting to deliver a crippling broadside speaking about about the presumed moral shortcomings of this construct are folly simply because the only moral standard inherent to a company is to make money. This is the fundamental problem with attempting to personify a fundamentally inhuman structure like a company: good or bad cannot actually apply. If one actually wants to unironically judge the relative worth of such a thing, it must be on the basis of if it efficiently and effectively fulfills it's purpose.

This places a company in an interesting position. You can judge the actions of the people who work at the company by a moral standard, certainly but it all becomes very nebulous very quickly. Who precisely, for example, was responsible for a man in my camp in Dragon Age constantly asking for more money? Since it becomes impossible to track this down for a consumer (and in many cases difficult for anyone in the company in question to determine with any certainty) we project the presumed morale shortcoming into the corporation itself.

That said, it does offer a fairly unique relationship. If you accept that a company exists to make money and actions that further that end are morally correct, it stands to reason you have an easy solution to this moral conundrum. If a company takes an action that you believe to be immoral, simply do not give them money. By supporting a company that engages in a practice you do not agree with, you torpedo any argument you might otherwise have about the presumed rights and wrongs of the world. If you insist on applying a moral framework to an idea so nebulous as the corporation, to support a company that you believe does wrong goes beyond hypocrisy. You become a collaborator, a traitor, the very agent that allows the action you despise to happen. By contrast, if you refuse to buy a product from a company that has taken an action you find despicable, you have achieved the seemingly impossible: you've made the action the company took that offended less moral by undermining the effort of said company to make money.

Don't voice a strongly worded condemnation of a shady practice and then turn around and buy a product. A half measure achieves less than nothing.

In a way, I see your point. But as I stated earlier, many of the people seen as the founders of capitalism (in as much as such a vast structure could be narrowed down) like Adam Smith would be horrified by the very notion that anything could exist solely for making money. Adam Smith wrote "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" before he wrote "Wealth of Nations," and simply assumed that the foundations of moral sentiments would exist as the primary basis for action in his laissez faire economic system that he envisioned. This system should be separated from the laissez faire proposed by Milton Freedman, though, as Freedman's system makes no account for moral basis for actions.

 

[aelreth]

Companies do exist to make money. As a human construct, that is it's sole purpose, it's singular reason for being. Attempting to deliver a crippling broadside speaking about about the presumed moral shortcomings of this construct are folly simply because the only moral standard inherent to a company is to make money. This is the fundamental problem with attempting to personify a fundamentally inhuman structure like a company: good or bad cannot actually apply. If one actually wants to unironically judge the relative worth of such a thing, it must be on the basis of if it efficiently and effectively fulfills it's purpose.

This places a company in an interesting position. You can judge the actions of the people who work at the company by a moral standard, certainly but it all becomes very nebulous very quickly. Who precisely, for example, was responsible for a man in my camp in Dragon Age constantly asking for more money? Since it becomes impossible to track this down for a consumer (and in many cases difficult for anyone in the company in question to determine with any certainty) we project the presumed morale shortcoming into the corporation itself.

That said, it does offer a fairly unique relationship. If you accept that a company exists to make money and actions that further that end are morally correct, it stands to reason you have an easy solution to this moral conundrum. If a company takes an action that you believe to be immoral, simply do not give them money. By supporting a company that engages in a practice you do not agree with, you torpedo any argument you might otherwise have about the presumed rights and wrongs of the world. If you insist on applying a moral framework to an idea so nebulous as the corporation, to support a company that you believe does wrong goes beyond hypocrisy. You become a collaborator, a traitor, the very agent that allows the action you despise to happen. By contrast, if you refuse to buy a product from a company that has taken an action you find despicable, you have achieved the seemingly impossible: you've made the action the company took that offended less moral by undermining the effort of said company to make money.

Don't voice a strongly worded condemnation of a shady practice and then turn around and buy a product. A half measure achieves less than nothing.

In a way, I see your point. But as I stated earlier, many of the people seen as the founders of capitalism (in as much as such a vast structure could be narrowed down) like Adam Smith would be horrified by the very notion that anything could exist solely for making money. Adam Smith wrote "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" before he wrote "Wealth of Nations," and simply assumed that the foundations of moral sentiments would exist as the primary basis for action in his laissez faire economic system that he envisioned. This system should be separated from the laissez faire proposed by Milton Freedman, though, as Freedman's system makes no account for moral basis for actions.

The bretton woods situation was created because the the politicians & the american people were unwilling to give up their welfare state. Whatever we have now has been described by Bastiat.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

In a way, I see your point. But as I stated earlier, many of the people seen as the founders of capitalism (in as much as such a vast structure could be narrowed down) like Adam Smith would be horrified by the very notion that anything could exist solely for making money. Adam Smith wrote "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" before he wrote "Wealth of Nations," and simply assumed that the foundations of moral sentiments would exist as the primary basis for action in his laissez faire economic system that he envisioned. This system should be separated from the laissez faire proposed by Milton Freedman, though, as Freedman's system makes no account for moral basis for actions.

That's the catch - when you deal with people, there are all sorts of moral considerations to make. But a company, in spite of the fact exists with many of the same rights as a person, is not a person. It is a construct designed to a particular end - the efficient acquisition of money. Like other constructs, to attempt to judge the morality of the thing is impossible to achieve without sounding very silly.

For example, a hammer is just such a construct. It serves to apply high impulse force to a small area to, for example, drive a nail. But it's purpose is not to drive the "correct" nail, or drive a nail in the "correct" way or indeed even to drive a nail. It's purpose is simply to apply force. A "good" hammer allows for the efficient and precise application of sufficient force, a bad hammer does not. A sledge hammer used to smash a window in a riot does not become a bad hammer; a reasonable person directs the moral outrage to the person swinging the hammer.

But, in our very particular case, we decry the evils we see and yet we buy the products anyhow. They aren't things we need by any common use of the word. These are trivial things we want for petty amusement. If the company exists to make money and they are selling a thing we fundamentally do not actually need, why are we so eager to cry foul and then giving them our money anyhow thus allowing the company to fulfill it's fundamental purpose? Does that sound like the sort of action that results in a change? Does that moral condemnation really seem to have any teeth?

That reason alone is sufficient cause to consider a company as a money making construct above all else. Because it gives you, the consumer, the ability to do something besides wring your hands.

 

[Ryan Hughes]

The bretton woods situation was created because the the politicians & the american people were unwilling to give up their welfare state. Whatever we have now has been described by Bastiat.

Bretton Woods was created to prevent capital flight from re-emerging economies that were wrecked during WWII. It placed very few restrictions on the trade of goods, but heavy restrictions on the trade of capital and currencies, in order to make sure that the countries that were ravaged by the war were not bled dry of what little resources they had left, and it and the Marshal Plan were massive successes that led to growth not just for Germany, Japan, France, Belgium, etc, but also for the US. Simply put, these two together may be the greatest economic successes in human history.

 

[plainlake]

This video is relevant to bronies. It seems like the majority will take bullets for Hasbro no matter what they do to them. And that is another thing, these large companies does not need your protection, they have accumulated enough wealth and power to do that themselves.

 

[scw55]

I agree.
I believe in ethical business practise for the consumers and manufacturers.

Yes, by being a dick you may make a lot of money now. But by being not-a-dick you ensure income for the future, long term. For some reason (which is strange), human beings like people who are not dicks. And tend to hate dicks.

It's funny. Steam used to get a lot of slack for Hats. And stupid keys to unlock chests. Now they're eclipsed by everyone else.

they're HATS

they are for the purpose of BEING ON HEADS

we're talking about exploitation and you're angry at the hats in a now free to play game

At no point did I say I was angry. Thank you for putting words in my mouth so-to-speak

In fact, Jim talked about exploitation. You aren't.

 

[level27smartass]

Actually, the idea that companies exist to make money is relatively new. Adam Smith would have found the notion horrifying, as he would likely have said that companies exist to further moral sentiments and examples. In fact, in America you used to have to prove that your company benefited its community at large or they would revoke your incorporation.

Beginning in the 1800's, the idea the companies exist to make money began, but it really did not begin to take hold until the post-war era, reaching its zenith in the Regan era.

wow what are they teaching in school nowdays?

i think rockafeller, andrew carnegie and a number of other of business titans, whos sole purpose in life was money over anything, a consequence of which many of our nations infrastructure was built, would like to have a word with you.

that fact that the word monopoly was over and one with decades before regan was even born and i find the notion that somehow the regan era is now seen as the height of greed is good.

study some history.

Do you even socioeconomic studies? In all sincerity Rockefeller, Carnegie and all the other minds of guild-ed age did way more evil than good. I kid you not these men had a private army to break strikes, kill union bosses, and frame-workers, you probably know them as the Pinkerton Detective Agency. A privatized police force bought and payed for by those you idolize. In 1914 a strike broke out in the Ludlow, Colorado the coal miners there where sick of working for days at time with underground and with fresh air. The miners went out to build a tent encampment outside the company land(before you ask these people where homeless to begin with even though they where working. Colorado Fuel & Iron Company camp guards(Pinkerton trained) and the US National Guard torched the encampment 1,600 people mostly women and children and begin to open fire with machine guns. 18 people died 11 of them children. This was just one strike broke by Rockefeller's goons

 

[T_ConX]

Companies do this because it works. Enough people buy this crap, be it overpriced DLC, on-disc DLC, or yearly rehashes, to justify the practice. The most anyone can do to stop this trend is to not buy into it.

I'm still waiting for the version of Mass Effect 3 that comes with the full game, and doesn't require me to drop an extra $30 on content that was cut from the first release so it could be sold separately. Sorry ass-hats, but I'm under NO obligation to buy this game, so until you get your act together, I'll be buying what I like to call 'FINISHED PRODUCT'!

 

[Sonic Doctor]

Hey Jim, could you please explain how your examples/analogies are even vaguely relevant to what gaming companies are doing? (I expand further on my question below the quote.)

I always did find the "they only exist to make money" argument crazy. I mean, if I went over and stabbed a man in the dick and he asked me why I did it, he wouldn't accept, "hey, I exist to stab people in the dick," as a reason. That might be an extreme analogy but when I'm spending sixty dollars on a game and only getting fifteen hours of content, my wallet feels terribly abused.

1) You stabbed a man in the dick - you broke the law, here come the assault charges.
3) You didn't give the man a choice, you didn't ask him whether he wanted a knife in the dick or not. You simply did it, implying force.
2) You severely harmed a human being. This is a very negative thing.

So your analogy, while extreme, wasn't even vaguely on the right track. Neither were Jim's terrorism, drugs and human trafficking analogies. They are devastatingly harmful, they are forced, they break the biggest of laws. How were they relevant in any fucking way?

While they're not exactly saving starving babies with their profits, companies aren't HARMING anyone either. They may be harming gaming as a whole but that is an extremely subtle and difficult-to-measure issue, because a lot of companies are doing really great stuff as well. The extreme analogies which imply forceful harm, destruction or lives, etc 100% of the time don't goddamn apply.

You don't live under their fucking iron-fisted rule, EA is not your abusive alcohol-drinking dad and you are not 10 years old. You have options - either don't bother with the product, or boycott the company and all it's products, or buy the product and give negative feedback. All 3 options are effective to varying degrees.

Companies make money because people GIVE them money. Do I feel it's right to abuse that power? No. But do I feel it's harming mankind and the companies should be HATED for it? Fuck no! They are only taking hints from the consumer, and the overwhelming hint companies like EA/Activision have received is that consumers will willingly spend money on anything if it is marketed heavily enough. Consumers willingly give money for poor DLC practices, consumers willingly spend money on DRM-infested games. They are simply testing what they can get away with, how far they can push the boundaries. But I repeat, they are not forcing you to buy their shit, they are not mass-murdering fellow human beings.

Companies will alter their practices according to how consumers react (sales, reviews, feedback, etc). It's that simple. No need to over-complicate it or use dumb analogies.

You sir, said exactly what I wanted to say, thanks for saving me time. I just shook my head and laughed as I heard Jim make those analogies.

People in this thread have said that a company's main purpose is to provide a service/product not just make money. What people seem to forget is that companies don't have to provide the service/product in the way people want or charge only what the people want to pay. People more and more forget that they can walk away and find another company if others aren't providing what they want.

I know it is kind of hard for some people to understand, but such battles are the type that are won by retreating. The can't do the so called "bad" things to people if there aren't enough people to do them to.

 

[aelreth]

Bretton Woods was created to prevent capital flight from re-emerging economies that were wrecked during WWII. It placed very few restrictions on the trade of goods, but heavy restrictions on the trade of capital and currencies, in order to make sure that the countries that were ravaged by the war were not bled dry of what little resources they had left, and it and the Marshal Plan were massive successes that led to growth not just for Germany, Japan, France, Belgium, etc, but also for the US. Simply put, these two together may be the greatest economic successes in human history.

My bad, Mr Hughes. I stand corrected. I keep getting mixed up between that and closing the gold window.

 

[Lonewolfm16]

I feel you have somewhat misrepresented the general argument. "companies exist to make money" is only the first part of the arguement, at least in all the forms I have heard it given. The next part generally goes "you can't expect them to do anything else, such is the structure of capitalism. The only way to voice descent to a company and have them actually care is to make it so the business practices you disagree with fail to make the comany money. Don't like a games business practices? Don't buy it. Encourage others to do the same. But sitting here whining, as if you have any right to content, solves nothing. You only have right to what content the publisher offers to sell you. If you don't think a game is worth it without the DLC being free? Don't buy the game. Still like the game enough to buy it, even though on-disk DLC exists? Buy the game but not the DLC. Find the game worth the price as well as the DLC? Buy both. Thats how economics work."

 

[daxterx2005]

The poop stuff was unnecessary

 

[Nazulu]

While I agree with Jim on the first part. I find him just repeating himself here, and his argument and comparisons are very weak. C'mon Jim, you got to be ahead of the game.

I feel you have somewhat misrepresented the general argument. "companies exist to make money" is only the first part of the arguement, at least in all the forms I have heard it given. The next part generally goes "you can't expect them to do anything else, such is the structure of capitalism. The only way to voice descent to a company and have them actually care is to make it so the business practices you disagree with fail to make the comany money. Don't like a games business practices? Don't buy it. Encourage others to do the same. But sitting here whining, as if you have any right to content, solves nothing. You only have right to what content the publisher offers to sell you. If you don't think a game is worth it without the DLC being free? Don't buy the game. Still like the game enough to buy it, even though on-disk DLC exists? Buy the game but not the DLC. Find the game worth the price as well as the DLC? Buy both. Thats how economics work."

You don't help by saying every one whines about it, they can voice their complaints, and if you don't like it, you can ignore it. Saying "you can't help them do any thing else" doesn't really make sense, especially after telling us the strategy is not to buy. There are many different ways to 'reach people', giving them a bad name is possibly stopping them from doing any thing worse for all we know.

You don't think many people have avoided these certain games and tried to encourage others? I think there just happens to be so many people in the world now that it has more chance of selling. I don't have proof of that, but I reckon it's a fair assumption.

Also, what I find interesting is that you're okay if the game doesn't make enough money if people don't buy it, to stop what they do. That's an 'if' though. With no one saying any thing, they could try many other annoying strategy's, or kill the series itself (which I think EA just did).

I reckon people expressing themselves the best way they can (not whining) opens the door for criticisms, and could actually help these companies before they fuck up. I know there is always idiots, but that shouldn't stop all complaints.

 

[sadmac]

A company exists to make money, and so long as you continue to give them money you are implicitly approving of anything that company does to further that goal.

On-disc DLC doesn't exist because EA put it there. It exists because people continue to buy it. If it didn't succeed in making money, then it would have stopped.

But the argument here isn't "Is this successful?" but "Are these ethical business practices?"

Unethical business practices are successful ALL THE TIME.

These practices only affect exchange with the consumer. Ethicality is a question of the exchange continuing to be voluntary (or euvoluntary if you would like a higher bar).

Check the sidebar here for a good breakdown of the criteria:

http://euvoluntaryexchange.blogspot.com/

 

[Redd the Sock]

It's always been a concept people have gotten backwards. It's like saying a kids goes to school for good grades thus we should forgive cheating as they are just being industrious toward them achieving the end goal. In truth, the kids are there to learn the material and the grades are supposed to measure if they did or not. Companies have the same issue: they exist to produce a good or service that the public wants at the best price and quality, and making money is supposed to be the benchmark to say they are the good company offering value to the customer. The sentiment "companies exist to make money" ignores this and assumes that there is few actions that are wrong in the endeavor. I don't go to work for shits and giggles. I go to make money myself, but few would look at me positively if I did so by taking office supplies to the pawn shop or blackmailing my boss. An employee is told to be more valuable to make more money while a company is somehow allowed to do the opposite. They'll try and convince themselves that isn't what they're doing, or that they have no choice, or worst of all, that they are guaranteed a certain profit margin, and that's when we really need to quit humoring the idea.

It's a sign of the power balance shifting away from the customer. Mergers and conglomerates have made real competition a thing of the past so companies have less fear of people voting with their wallet. The gaming industry has also abused a lot of goodwill and have become reliant on nerd devotion to brands and characters to keep them in business as they take actions they'd never take if they really felt a threat by it. Or maybe that's starting to be past tense. I feel great schadenfreude watching Capcom fail to meet expectations of their big titles lately. THQ will be missed, but as series got bought by others, we have less to worry about bankruptcy costing us franchises. Square Enix seeming to fail on every level? No problem because Atlus and Xseed exist with far less bullshit. Yeah it's slow, but it could have an effect. It's sad it comes to this. Voting with the wallet may be effective, but it's also a painful process of lost capital, lost reputation, lost jobs, and lost time for companies that feel they have to see how far they can push customers before they break away in the name of making a quick buck. It's even more painful as they try to instead of meeting customer demands, try and put limits to their ability to go elsewhere. I mean, yeah they don't owe us anything, but the lengths they can go to avoid giving the customer any voice or alternative is a sign they'd rob us blind if they weren't afraid of the jail time.

 

[MB202]

Like Jim said, there's nothing wrong with wanting to make money. After all, you need money to buy clothes, food, pay bills, mortgages, taxes, etc... It's HOW you make the money that's the problem. And it really does aggravate me that some people just lay back and accept it.

Oh, and the fact that he played Rayman Origins clips in the video... it's clear he wanted to mention Ubisoft's recent dick move in the video. Probably didn't have time to, though.