Apropos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfNzW9YY8QE#t=70

 

Thank you all for your concern about my business.

I can assure you that Studio T is alive and as well as the day it was founded and has continued to growwww....

The sole purpose of business is generate a profit for the owners, or share holders.

I don't know how it works in the US, but when I studied business at University (the American model) I was quite taken by the observation

'The basic aim of business is survival.'

But setting that aside, in the UK the aim of any company is set out in what is known as

The Articles of Memorandum and Association

These may be as general as

'To make a profit'

or they may contain restictions such as

'To mine chocolate profitably'
Which would make the company legally unable to diversify into cheese mining without a change to its 'Articles'

 

Studiot,
How much money was spent on a "tomorrow's technology" business by the governments only to have them "go bankrupt" within five years. Once the government money ran out, so did the "business"..

Which of tomorrow's technology is bankrupt? Renewables are still growing, and hybrid autos are still in business, despite the end of government subsidies.

 

Thank you all for your concern about my business.

I can assure you that Studio T is alive and as well as the day it was founded and has continued to growwww....

I'm very happy to hear it, studiot, seriously. I like to see all entrepreneurs and businessmen/women succeed.

So, your diversification into solar energy production/distribution has gone well, then?

 

The real reason that solar panel pricing is increasing in the US is because the US government has instituted tariffs against Chinese imports. see: http://www.greentechmedia.com/artic...i-Dumping-Tariffs-in-US-China-Solar-Panel-Tra This is a bit of a joke, considering the company "SolarWorld" is a German owned company.

What is the joke? SolarWorld is a US Corporation. A US manufacturer, a US employer and a payer of US corporate taxes that serves the US market and was suffering from Chinese dumping of solar panels. The fact that all of SolarWorld Corporation's shares are owned by SolarWorld AG (a German entity), is meaningless.

 

'The basic aim of business is survival.' ...

I assert that this is a fundamental aim of all 'living' organisms.

That such a goal should be extended to a business, or any complex organization, seems natural and obvious to me.

EDIT: Should a business aim not to survive?

 

In the U.S. unless you incorporate where there is an articles of incorporation, everyone resource on starting a business recommends a "business plan" which I assume is very similar to your Articles of Memorandum and Association. The exception being it is not a requirement, so, some do and some don't.

Now, when the business files their income taxes, especially the sole proprietor, the "business" reports their generic association using the appropriate code.

I never doubted you were doing well enough to suite yourself and I'm sure that since you lasted as long as you have, you could be a mentor to another in your country. The school of hard knocks is one that you won't forget soon.

As far as that young man doing the survey, it's a nice educational exercise, but once he puts the rubber to the road in a business, it will be sink or swim. That doesn't mean he can't learn some of the pitfalls in the exercise.

Being competent in electronics is one thing. If your a small shop, you'll have other duties, including marketing, accounting, sales, and other business major traits. That's a pretty diverse background in itself. That's the bane of most electronic service shops out there today. The competency is there for the business service line. The running a business knowledge is the weakest link.

To paraphrase May V Smith, the only place you will find success before work is in the dictionary.

 

Renewables are still growing, and hybrid autos are still in business, despite the end of government subsidies.

There are companies that received a lot of government money who failed. Those competently run are still around, but, how much was wasted on the failures that some bureaucrat decided they were "good on paper"; and were granted the government startup money.

 

What is the joke? SolarWorld is a US Corporation. A US manufacturer, a US employer and a payer of US corporate taxes that serves the US market and was suffering from Chinese dumping of solar panels. The fact that all of SolarWorld Corporation's shares are owned by SolarWorld AG (a German entity), is meaningless.

Why would you say that that it is meaningless to be a German entity that is protected by US tariffs? Isn't it more important that green technologies are implemented to reduce dependence on imported fossil fuels? You are talking about protecting the profits of a German company.... sure they have manufacturing in the US & pay taxes, but so do all the small companies involved in solar installation, etc. They will be hurt when fewer installations occur as will the US importers/sellers of panels.

 

The running a business knowledge is the weakest link...

From an engineer's stand point, I've found the "running" part relatively easy. I mean, fundamentally, it's just numbers. And numbers are what I do.

My weakness has always been marketing. No matter how good your product or service, if customers don't know you exist, you're going nowhere.

I've hired some good marketing/sales people in my time. Almost invariably, the best ones were generally 'C' students who's primary strength was social interaction. They might not know how to add, but, dammit, they can drink with the best of them till the P.O. gets signed...

 

...Isn't it more important that green technologies are implemented to reduce dependence on imported fossil fuels?

Oh! Is that the goal?

The US has enough proven reserves right now to eliminate imported fossil fuels. Why all the hoops?

 

There are companies that received a lot of government money who failed. Those competently run are still around, but, how much was wasted on the failures that some bureaucrat decided they were "good on paper"; and were granted the government startup money.

Another good question to ask is how much has these loans paid off for the country, or for mankind in general. For example, how much economic activity was generated by ARPANET?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET

 

Another good question to ask is how much has these loans paid off for the country...

Considering the US is $17,651,316,000,000 in debt, I'd say not much.

In fact, if the US was a business, it'd have declared bankruptcy looooong ago...

 

Considering the US is $17,651,316,000,000 in debt, I'd say not much.

Well, since other expenditures, such as war funding, dwarf these programs, I'd say the debt is mostly due to other spending.

 

The US has never been debt free. The lowest it got was in the 1830s.

For example, how much economic activity was generated by ARPANET?

I'd say very little as that network is NOT the internet. It certainly evolved into the internet in the 1990s, but from the 60s to the 90s it was a network of government and the education intuitions.

Once it became the "internet" then people exploited it for profit.

I'd say those in the government spend like drunken sailors, but I would be insulting the drunken sailors.

 

Why would you say that that it is meaningless to be a German entity that is protected by US tariffs? Isn't it more important that green technologies are implemented to reduce dependence on imported fossil fuels? You are talking about protecting the profits of a German company.... sure they have manufacturing in the US & pay taxes, but so do all the small companies involved in solar installation, etc. They will be hurt when fewer installations occur as will the US importers/sellers of panels.

Maybe. But it wasn't just a US decision, the international trade commission also dinged them. As for the installers and importers, they are also treated unfairly if their business requires long-term access to Chinese government subsidized solar panels imported into the US at prices that are not sustainable. That is, what happens to installers that invest in cranes, training personnel and other tools and then the door is slammed shut by the Chinese. The same is true for US-subsidized value chains. The key difference is, the subsidy is public knowledge in the US whereas the Chinese were hiding the fact that subsidies and subsequent dumping was happening.

 

I'd say very little as that network is NOT the internet. It certainly evolved into the internet in the 1990s, but from the 60s to the 90s it was a network of government and the education intuitions.

Once it became the "internet" then people exploited it for profit.

I'd say it changed the world. The internet is possible because of it. Great change is evolutionary, and without ARPANET, there is no internet as we know it. It has changed everything, especially how business is done.

 

Well, since other expenditures, such as war funding, dwarf these programs, I'd say the debt is mostly due to other spending.

Yes, of course. GWBs fault -- It's been so long I forgot.

Seriously, though: you imply then, that there is 'good' government spending, and 'bad' government spending. I assume that 'good' spending is that which results in a positive return on investment, and 'bad' is that which results in a loss. I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but this is my perception. Correct me if I am wrong.

Remember that any resources disposed by a government first belonged to the people, and were forceably appropriated by said government.

Given that, I do not believe that such conscripted resources, even in the 'good' case, resulted in greater productive use of those resources than if they had been left in the original owners' hands.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not an anarchist. Government is a necessary evil such that men may live civilly amongst each other.

But the expectation that a government can (or should) productively utilize resources is about as naive as believing in unicorns.

 

Considering the US is $17,651,316,000,000 in debt, I'd say not much.

In fact, if the US was a business, it'd have declared bankruptcy looooong ago...

Really? $58000 per person at loan rates that are mostly influenced by actions of the federal reserve - an entity that would fail if the US government would go bankrupt. I would call you a quitter.

 

Given that, I do not believe that such conscripted resources, even in the 'good' case, resulted in greater productive use of those resources than if they had been left in the original owners' hands.

I disagree. Government can make a positive change. Government is people after all.

When I came out to NC for my job, I drove a federal highway, and was happy to do it. Not a mile one was paved by an individual