What obligation does a company have to keep getting richer?

>>2450145
>What obligation does a company have to keep getting richer?

When you already have everything, and then some, there's really nothing else left to do, except to "play the game". The only thing that's left to buy for rich people, is more money. That's literally the only thing that gives their lives meaning anymore, well maybe 'ol Billy here can fool himself that the purpose of his life is to contribute to humanity's advancement, but then he wouldn't really be charging money for anything if he was such a saint.

>I just feel like if I invented a great thing that benefits mankind that as soon as "I" became financially secure I would just make it free.

By that time, you really wouldn't give a fuck, you'd be hooked on money, and getting more of it.

Now, once you've got all the money in the world, and then lost the desire to acquire more, then you'd probably just neck yourself.

Companies are not allowed to run as charity organizations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.

>>2450145
>What obligation does a company have to keep getting richer?

If it's a publically traded company, they're literally required by law to try their best to make money for their investors.

>>2450325
What about meme prices like 1$ for everything?

>>2450145
Profit is a driver of innovation

I remember on YouTube seeing comments about a video where a man was using robotic limbs. The comments said how this technology should be 'free' now. Consider how out of date it will be in five years, then ten, twenty, fifty...

Selling a good product for a good price generates growth, wealth.

There's a difference between money rich and asset rich. Bill Gates, being richest number 1-3, depending on the year, used his assets to become money rich.

To have assets, you need capital and/or credit for access to capital. This is largely why companies work to get "richer"; They either have debt or their liabilities/overhead, which only grows larger over time, has gotten too close to profitability for comfort. The company gets to that point only after everyone involved thinks they can afford to expand. Not everyone is correct.

>I just feel like if I invented a great thing that benefits mankind
You can whatever you'd like with your life. If you get a patent, it will eventually expire and become public domain anyways. If you have a company/product/property/whatever that is overflowing with honey, you can put some extra bonus into your pocket by milking your asset, albeit at the expense of the all to friendly taxman.

And then you do it all over again. I didn't quite understand this until I noticed how familiar it sounded. This sounds like dinner talk where someone in their 20s or 30s will ask why people don't retire, usually after a week of grinding and a few drinks. The answer I always give is, "Because everyday is simply another day for them." Microsoft still has plenty of engineers, Yahoo still needs plenty of accountants, Taco Bell still needs delivery, etc. Just because one persons decides to stop, doesn't mean everyone else will. As for why a businessman would still do business after having all the assets he needs and the money he can milk from them, it is simply another day for them. I imagine golfing is best done sparingly.

File: bren.png (6KB, 195x259px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 195x259px

>what is fiduciary duty

>>2450145

Rent notwithstanding (and a lot of wealth going around is solely based on rent), getting more money is an excellent real life proof-of-work example. These guys are not leveraging more money as a thing in itself, they are indirectly leveraging power (be it power to do more for others like your example or power for the sake of power), and as a rule of thumb, power likes to be concentrated; wealth inequality is a mere side effect of particularly "strong" individuals holding, acquiring, and being given, more power.

>>2450145
you type like a retard..

but it's one of these:

1. the mentality that allowed them to become rich (work hard, value your work at X, receive X) continues as the person becomes rich. they don't fundamentally change as people. they keep working, they keep evaluating their work as being worth all this extra money, and they accept that money. in their minds, it would be pointless to work for less than they are offered/free, and it would be a crime not to work.

2. a lot of rich people (who were born rich or just got lucky) believe that they are authorities over how money should be spent, simply by the virtue of having "experience" with large sums of money. so they will do anything to collect all this money in order to have "power" over how its used. the entire tech investment market is full of these people. most bankers feel this way. they believe that somebody is going to decide where that money goes, and better them than anyone else. and they compete for positions where they have the most control over the most money. innovators like Gates or Bezos don't give a shit, they just give their money away after a certain point where they can invest in the shit they actually understand.

>>2450145
a company is its own entity but it is not a person it is a beast that feeds on money, it needs money to survive like we need food, and while there is too much food for people a company can store its money and survive longer through bad times with it.

>>2450145
Wait till you get the opportunity to be a capitalist pig... It's crazy how much of a power trip it gives you.

>What obligation does a company have to keep getting richer?
The word company implies that it's not just you who is invested in it. If it's your own money you can flush it down the toilet.