Subject:
|
Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 30 Dec 2004 12:20:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
9223 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richie Dulin wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ken Nagel wrote:
| |
Except what I know is that Lego is by definition a failure as a company.
|
|
SNIP
| |
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
|
Except Lego is not publicly owned. It is owned by people with increasingly less
wealth. -Ken
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
| (...) You are correct in saying that it is not publically owned, but why do you say 'except'? It makes no difference. There are plenty of non publically owned companies that do not exist to make a profit. (...) Is it? How do you know? Cheers Richie (...) (19 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
| (...) Lego is by definition a failure as a company? An interesting assertion. (...) I think it might be... (...) No... a company exists to pool resources and to protect shareholders. A company will often (but not always) seek to give a return to (...) (19 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
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
|
|
|
|
