Profit

[MrGongGong]

Can we have your list of commercial high street barber shops that are 'not for profit'?

You seem to have a thing about barbers

[P. G. Tipps]

As your "personal interpretations" are usually misinterpretations (ref your 'interpretation' of Mr GG's comment about doing some things at a loss & others for a profit) I expect that ahinton does mean something else. If he has any sense he won't waste time explaining, again, to you what he meant as it was clear the first time.

So my interpretation of your own post, Flossie, is that you 'expect' ahinton DID mean something else but as it was clear the first time what he meant he shouldn't bother wasting his time revealing to me what he actually did mean?

Gotcha!

[P. G. Tipps]

Mr Tipps
You haven't answered the question about this statement of despair

What would you like explained to you, Mr GG?

It might seem like a perfectly straightforward statement of the blindingly obvious to some of us ..

[MrGongGong]

What would you like explained to you, Mr GG?

It might seem like a perfectly straightforward statement of the blindingly obvious to some of us ..

But it's simply not necessarily the case.
If you want to see folks doing the most imaginative things for little financial reward then you are unlikely to find these people in the ranks of the most wealthy.
Pretending that it's "obvious" can be a convenient mask to hide dissatisfaction but I think the mask will inevitably slip

[P. G. Tipps]

But it's simply not necessarily the case.
If you want to see folks doing the most imaginative things for little financial reward then you are unlikely to find these people in the ranks of the most wealthy.
Pretending that it's "obvious" can be a convenient mask to hide dissatisfaction but I think the mask will inevitably slip

Well, you may well be right, but we still need those with the burning desire to create personal wealth as some of them contribute quite a bit to society even if they just spend their money without necessarily hugely donating to charities as many of them do?

Your idea of 'worthwhile' may not be shared by others, Mr GG. I find the idea that we should all apparently pursue our 'imaginative' ambitions, without firstly making sure we earn a profitable living for ourselves and our families, as wholly unrealistic and, indeed, somewhat preposterous!

[MrGongGong]

Well, you may well be right, but we still need those with the burning desire to create personal wealth as some of them contribute quite a bit to society even if they just spend their money without necessarily hugely donating to charities as many of them do?

Your idea of 'worthwhile' may not be shared by others, Mr GG. I find the idea that we should all apparently pursue our 'imaginative' ambitions, without firstly making sure we earn a profitable living for ourselves and our families, as wholly unrealistic and, indeed, somewhat preposterous!

You seem to struggle with the idea of people doing things they feel are important in the world.
It seems most bizarre that at Easter you would be suggesting that it's somewhat "preposterous" to do things other than accrue more and more money.
I'm not sure we really do need those who have such a "burning desire to create personal wealth" at all, because (in your words) that wealth is precisely that, PERSONAL it doesn't really help anyone other than the wealthy. What we could do with more IMV are people who have a more collective approach.

[Flosshilde]

Many of those people who have a 'burning desire' to create personal wealth are never happy with what they have, but want more. (& wealth isn't 'created', but shifted from one person to another)

[P. G. Tipps]

You seem to struggle with the idea of people doing things they feel are important in the world.
It seems most bizarre that at Easter you would be suggesting that it's somewhat "preposterous" to do things other than accrue more and more money.
I'm not sure we really do need those who have such a "burning desire to create personal wealth" at all, because (in your words) that wealth is precisely that, PERSONAL it doesn't really help anyone other than the wealthy. What we could do with more IMV are people who have a more collective approach.

There is absolutely no 'struggle' here, I can assure you, Mr GG!!

I've already said that merely spending for oneself is contributing economically to society if one spends it in the right places and, of course, there is the big government income tax-take even if the rich stuff their money under their king-size mattresses. Again, as stated, many billionaires and millionaires contribute hugely to charities and other causes to the great benefit of society in general.

I also said that, whilst wealth is clearly not the problem, the fair distribution of it is a quite different discussion altogether. The undoubted inequalities in society are not the fault of poor old Wealth. On the contrary, many of us (if not yourself, of course) seem mighty keen to join in and get a far greater share of Wealth so they then can do some of the 'other things' currently outwith their scope and ability. A quite natural human ambition, I'd have thought.

Finally, I'm astounded that the normally eagle-eyed Flossie, ahinton & Co don't seem to have noticed the wholesale 'misrepresentation' of posts elsewhere, Mr GG ... that is most uncharacteristic and disappointing, indeed!

[jean]

(Were I from Dunsinane away and clear,
Profit again should hardly draw me here.)

[Flosshilde]

Again, as stated, many billionaires and millionaires contribute hugely to charities and other causes to the great benefit of society in general.

A few do, the majority don't. It is an acknowledged fact that poorer people give more to charities than the rich, despite headline-grabbing gestures by the likes of the Facebook founder (which, on examination, proved to be not much to do with donating to charity)

there is the big government income tax-take

Which is assiduously avoided by the mega-rich & by companies.

[ahinton]

A few do, the majority don't. It is an acknowledged fact that poorer people give more to charities than the rich, despite headline-grabbing gestures by the likes of the Facebook founder (which, on examination, proved to be not much to do with donating to charity)

Yes - the "super-rich" aren't all Bill Gateses by any means.

Which is assiduously avoided by the mega-rich & by companies.

Not all of them, but certainly many of them and it's very hard to know what can be done about it. There are, however, largely unavoidable direct taxes such as VAT and its equivalents outside UK which are generated by people rich and poor alike when they spend the money that they either cannot or can afford to spend; that's not intended as any kind of defence of the evasion of other taxes, of course.

[Dave2002]

Yes - the "super-rich" aren't all Bill Gateses by any means.

For me the jury's still out about Big Bill. Arguably he enabled many to acquire useful computer devices and software, but another argument is that he actually held back the development of better software aand systems by years. Many of the features of his original operating systems were in fact blatant copies of Unix features, and often implemented less well. His companies were aggressive in business, and involved in some major court cases, and - in case anyone hasn't noticed - probably didn't comply fully with the requirements following the outcomes.

Having now amassed a very large fortune, I applaud that he has now decided to start to give it away, and does seem to be doing good around the world. However, not all very rich people behave like that, and also it does not follow that there was a plan to become philanthropists. Do some of these people feel guilt later at having ripped off so many, so that drives them to start to give their weath away?

[jean]

Having now amassed a very large fortune, I...

Congratulations!

What are you intending to do with it?

[Dave2002]

Congratulations!

What are you intending to do with it?

Put your specs on! That's not what the sentence said - not even a typo. However, I can see how you might interpret it that way. I don't intend to reword it, but rest assured, I do not have a large fortune, so I will not be distributing fortunes to charities or other bodies, or individuals.

There must be a name for the kind of ambiguity which you have spotted. The significant thing is the transfer of subject (implied) to the writer. Maybe ff will know.

[jean]

I know it's not what you meant it to say, but one is not fully in control of these things, and one must accept the consequences...