h a l f b a k e r ycarpe demi
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Treat businesses like people
We live in a monoculture of businesses. There's so many
potential economic services and products that could exist
but
cannot survive in the current economic climate.
Everyone staying at home and salaries burning through cash
reserves without any income.
It's
too tough. You have to have a lot of money or good
relationship with banks to survive as a company.
I propose there is a new kind of business model.
A corporate school is funded through government funds and
implements the basic structure of a business, so it handles
staffing, contracts, bills, taxation, accounts. It evaluates
business plans and funds the startup costs of a business.
You get 5 years to be profitable. Then you graduate and
things get tougher as you have to spin off to have your own
function departments.
Every month you have a status check with expertise to see if
you're doing the right things as a business to make money.
You have to follow the advice of the business school to stay
funded.
Idea University
https://web.archive...a/Idea_20University
Very similar. If you think of business as a study programme. (Did I delete this idea myself, or it's the disk crash of 2004?) [Inyuki, Mar 28 2020]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
> Why not think for 10 minutes and try to isolate what the real issue you are trying to deal with and then transform that into an
idea |
|
| |
Life is too difficult for companies and for people living in society. Life is not safe. It's partly a shortage of lending and huge shortage of
money* but nothing is really functioning in our society. Our society has multiple personality disorder. We have social welfare and
corporate welfare at the same time and it ebs and flows through the years. Yet it doesn't make society better for the majority of
people, it targets a couple of people at a time. We have council funded libraries and corporate bailouts. Society is still unsafe. |
|
| |
We pay so much in tax and get so little back. |
|
| |
People are miserable in the way we run our society. Life is miserable. There's too much stress. |
|
| |
There's a shortage of safety in our economy. There's too much work to do and simultaneously not enough work to do. It's paradoxical.
Job centres don't give people proper careers. |
|
| |
* Local libraries are falling apart. Any thing funded for local use is falling apart. Nobody seems to care if local services get gutted and
fall apart. |
|
| |
Young people have been royally screwed over by policy decisions through the generations voting for house price increases. Life is
unfair. |
|
| |
I want to make businesses safer to build up strength. |
|
| |
This is an attractive idea, but how does it differ from existing
business incubators? |
|
| |
This one is funded by a government pertinax |
|
| |
So the idea is, "Governments should fund business incubators"? |
|
| |
Government should fund business incubators and fund the
skeleton of a business too. |
|
| |
So the government should fund umbrella corporations. |
|
| |
To make business safer. Businesses going bust benefits only
bargain hunters. |
|
| |
See description of idea for nuance. |
|
| |
I want this to be BIG. Not just token gestures. |
|
| |
The innovation is providing the skeleton of a business in
addition to what an incubator supplies. |
|
| |
How would you resist the effects of Parkinson's Law? And what
have you got against bargain-hunters? After all, I think our own
[Maxwell Buchanan] {moment's silence} acquired his lab
equipment through the bankruptcy of a less successful biotech.
Also, one of the best employers I ever worked for acquired their
major piece of initial IP from the liquidators of another firm (and
went on to improve on it extensively). |
|
| |
Say an innovator fails to make profit in its runway of funds
for 1 year. |
|
| |
How does it benefit society if innovators do not profit from
their creations? Only second movers who have second mover
advantages can win? |
|
| |
Why is that a good society? |
|
| |
I propose companies have 5 years to try make a profit, not
limited by how much money they have. |
|
| |
Hmm not massively enthusiastic.
/You have to follow the advice of the business school/ |
|
| |
.....There are risks. Need I say more? |
|
| |
If those running the business schools are so brilliant, why are they working in a business school rather than lounging on the deck of their yacht in Monaco ? |
|
| |
If taxes are civilization insurance then why do we
keep voting for uncivil people? |
|
| |
Well, one possibility is that human beings are stupid, gullible, prone to wishful thinking, and likely to select options that seem likely to deliver maximum short-term gratification ? |
|
| |
No, it couldn't possibly be that ... shirley not ... |
|
| |
The business school is essentially an umbrella organisation
for
thousands of companies, so it handles your payroll,
accounting
and tax with accountants on hand. |
|
| |
The way authority would work is that the business school
would make recommendations and legal commandments. |
|
| |
You would have to follow the legal commandments for legal
reasons. Such as doing your tax return. But for advice, you
are
free to ignore that. But you only have five years to acquire
profitability. |
|
| |
//than lounging on the deck of their yacht in Monaco?// Because they know the work - family - society balance. |
|
| |
I like the idea but there are business mentoring schemes and government support for startups that give creative variety rather than more bricks in wallstreet. |
|
| |
[wjt], are you not making what Sherlock Holmes called the " capital mistake to theorize before one has data." ? |
|
| |
How can you construe a conclusion about work - family - society balance on the available data ? |
|
| |
What is known ? A person owns a yacht; the yacht is in Monaco; the person on the yacht shows every external appearance of being at leisure. |
|
| |
The individual on the yacht is a Russian oligarch who has become a billionaire by unscrupulous business dealings and ruthless violence against competitors, and has had several people killed including his wife. He is plotting his next business coup which involves engineering a military takeover in a third-world nation. |
|
| |
The individual on the yacht is a an entrepreneur who developed a software technology used worldwide which has benefited almost everyone and made him immensely wealthy. He sold out his invention when the strain of managing the business took a toll on his health, and is now semi-retired. Surrounding him on the deck are his family and numerous friends, who are discussing further charitable donations he intends to make. |
|
| |
Both scenarios fit the observations. Which is correct ? |
|
| |
Those are not mutually exclusive. |
|
| |
Not entirely; they could easily be made so by simple elaboration of detail, which we could do retrospectively, but won't. |
|
| |
The intention is simply to present "thumbnail sketches" of two very different individuals who nevertheless fulfill all the requirements of the original situation, a person "lounging on the deck of their yacht in Monaco". |
|
| |
But I'm ignoring your intent. Do try to keep up. |
|
| |
You are a professional journalist, and we claim our USD $5. |
|
| |
You may notice that we forewent the opportunity to make you appear foolish by retrospective editing, and even drew this to your attention. This may seem inexplicable, but of course it isn't. Our logic is as always flawless and implacable. You are doomed. Your life as you have known it is over. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Resistance is Futile. |
|
| |
// You may notice that we forewent the opportunity to make you appear foolish by retrospective editing, and even drew this to your attention// |
|
| |
We know. You're just another victim, so there's no reason to reproach yourself for your inadequacy; you never stood a chance. |
|
| |
Besides, if you want reproach, we can do it for you wholesale... |
|
| |
<Henry Crun, anguished wail> |
|
| |
"Min, Min ! Ohhhhhhhhh, Min ! There are folk in the world who ... who ... who have never read the News Chronice ! It's... the End !" |
|
| |
< Wal Greenslade reads credits over "Old Comrades March" playout/> |
|
| |
"No, it's all right, sir, we don't morally censure, we just want the money...." |
|
| |
//conclusion about work - family - society balance// |
|
| |
Not a conclusion about the diversity that is, although a rare occurrence, but more a statement of possible future direction. |
|
| |
In a quiet churchyard in La Hulpe, Mister SWIFT turns over in
his grave. |
|
| |
On the deck of a yacht in Monaco, Elon sips a cocktail and reads a SitRep on HyperLoop ... |
|
| |
Meanwhile, in a squalid backstreet, [Voice] catches the flicker of a red laser out of the corner of his eye, and wonders if he should have paid up the money while he had the chance ... |
|
| |