Subject:
|
Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 30 Dec 2004 05:53:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
9167 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ken Nagel wrote:
| |
Except what I know is that Lego is by definition a failure as a company.
|
Lego is by definition a failure as a company? An interesting assertion.
| |
That’s not even debatable.
|
I think it might be...
| |
A company exists to make a profit.
|
No... a company exists to pool resources and to protect shareholders.
A company will often (but not always) seek to give a return to shareholders
-making a profit is but one way of doing this.
Cheers
Richie Dulin
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
| (...) No as I said this is only part of the puzzel. This decision on it's own would mean nothing (...) Absolutly. You have to be making a lot of poor decisions to be loosing money for as long as they have been. (...) While this is the view of the (...) (19 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
257 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
