>You should only be profitable if you make constant improvements.
What? You should be profitable if you provide a good or service that people want for a price they can pay. If you're not profitable, you'll go out of business. The idea that you must always be improving can be really, really negative.
>If you're going to stagnate and stay profitable by hiding your process, it might as well be run cheaper by the government
Sure, the government should take over running KFC because they won't publicize the herbs and spices.
The are bold, but not ridiculous. Look at the restaurant market, for example. Everybody's constantly working to improve things. And you find the best restaurant scenes in places with the highest competition. In contrast, a lot of bad restaurants I've eaten at are in places with low competition where some owner is just coasting.
>Look at the restaurant market, for example. Everybody's constantly working to improve things.
Not really - I'm actually in the restaurant business, so it's funny you use that as an example. There are consistently profitable businesses that have made things the exact same way for many years. Keen's steakhouse, for example, has been famous for their mutton chop for 130 years, and the pipes in their collection are just as old. Competition amongst NYC steakhouses is very steep, but they don't need to constantly improve to stay profitable. They just need to maintain a high degree of excellence, which they do.
Sure, to be on the cutting edge of the industry you need to change things, but not everyone wants to "improve" barbecue, for example.
When a restaurant coasts, you're really not talking about them making the same great dishes over a long period - you're talking about them cutting corners.
To me, the idea that you must constantly be changing to be profitable is ridiculous. The idea that the government should take over any business (and that it could run it cheaper!) that doesn't want to share its process is ridiculous. Neither is a particularly bold idea, they are simply bad ideas.
I am pretty sure the average age of restaurants is not 130 years. I don't think an outlier makes for a great general-case example. If you'd like to argue that the median restaurant never changes, feel free to make your case, though.
It's not really about being a general case example.
It's about this statement: "You should only be profitable if you make constant improvements." - do you think that restaurant deserves to be profitable?
You seem to be treating a generalization as an absolute. I don't think that's what the original author meant and if it were, I don't know that I'd agree. Did you have a point beyond picking a very small nit?
I don't think it's small. Unfortunately, neither you nor I can tell that the original author meant anything other than what they said, and I am not in the habit of assuming people mean something different than what they post; it's demeaning.
So if they said "You should only be profitable if you make constant improvements." Then that is what they meant. They didn't say "You should only be profitable if you make constant improvements or if your product is good or if you serve a genuine need or if...etc."
In fact, the OP said "The constant need for improvements is why we use capitalism at all." Which leads me to believe that they meant exactly what they said. It happens to be false, but totally conforms with their absolutism about profitability.
I obviously don't agree. There are many companies that make good products and are profitable and I believe should remain profitable without the need to change the products they make. You seem to agree. That is good, because "You should only be profitable if you make constant improvements" is a ridiculous statement.
That's my point. I don't know what's bold about it or why anyone would agree with it generally and I think logically it's easy to counter.
What? You should be profitable if you provide a good or service that people want for a price they can pay. If you're not profitable, you'll go out of business. The idea that you must always be improving can be really, really negative.
>If you're going to stagnate and stay profitable by hiding your process, it might as well be run cheaper by the government
Sure, the government should take over running KFC because they won't publicize the herbs and spices.
These are ridiculous statements.