Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
I just dealt with this. Why do people keep cycling back to the:
"Hes a crappy business owner!"
"Hes a bad business man!"
"His business model is flawed!!"
Do you think everyone that runs a small business is Mr. Peanut or Rich Uncle Pennybags the Monopoly Man?
Different businesses have to operate differently in order to be able to compete in different industry segments.
These industry segments have parameters that are set by both the Government and the market. The Government is local, while the market isnt necessarily.
So when the Government changes the parameters that have to be met here the businesses then have to adapt. Their competitors dont necessarily have to depending on their local legislation.
This causes some businesses to lose their ability to compete because you cannot legislate an increase in costs in an industry segment where all the factors, factors that are important to generation of revenue, do not also change.
This isnt 'bad business' or 'greedy business owners' or 'flawed business models' its a legislated inability to compete in certain industry segments due to senseless Government meddling.
And some of you think this is a good thing?
The almost $1M that this local business owner pumped into local labour is now gone. As is whatever taxes he and those employees paid on that money.
And all in the name of.........?
|
I think what people are saying is that circumstances can change unexpectedly and most successful businesses will leave themselves enough of a cushion to absorb the change. And this isn't a change that's going to affect all business owners in a manner that's going to put them out of business, and in some cases may give rise to new businesses, in which case we have a net neutral effect on the economy but a net positive effect on societal norms. Business owners don't have an inherent right to succeed at the expense of the greater good.