We get it. You're a Libertarian and you don't think anybody should be able to tell anyone else what to do. But there are a lot of us here who want to leave behind a healthy, living planet for humans (and all living things) to thrive on for as long as possible. And I'd hazard a guess that there are also a lot of us who don't believe it's possible to leave that planet for others if we don't get off this treadmill of eternal growth. And I doubt if we are suddenly going to change our mind about that. I'm also guessing that most people are here (reading this sub stack and others) to brainstorm about ways to fix things but you always seem to come here just to disagree with EVERYTHING. If you are not a troll then prove it.
Once in a while, I review "stuff" and this was a post included in my "stuff". I noticed that VB actually asked a very important business question with a future-forward point-of-view:
"Assume Acme Corp has 50 employees and requires 2000 sq meters of floor space to build their widgets. They construct a building to house the equipment, office space, and infrastructure to produce a million widgets per annum. Growth of the company (because Wile E. Coyote is a good repeat customer) amounts to 3% annually, which means in ten years they've now grown to 67 employees producing 35% more widgets. The space is no longer adequate to house operations. Do they (a) remodel or (b) relocate? Either way, the company has grown outside of its ability to be sufficient for employee comfort and productivity. So naturally, when and if they decide to relocate, do they look to find an existing structure or build to suit with an expected growth rate for the next 20 or 25 years? What does that then look like? I genuinely ask because I don't understand the concept of growing productivity/output without SOME kind of commensurate growth in building and infrastructure requirements to make that happen. Or are businesses not supposed to grow at all? Am I missing something?"
This is standard fare for probing for solutions when doing the analysis for future needs. VB asked some rather decent (if simplified) questions of you, Geoffrey.
Instead of answering the BUSINESS questions, you went after his political outlook - and failed to address even a single question or issue in any kind of meaningful manner. The closest to an answer that I can figure out is "if we don't get off this treadmill of eternal growth".
Which is to say:
1) no, "we" will not allow you to expand to meet the consumers' demands for your product.
2) You shouldn't have been allowed to start a new company (which is an expansion from nothing so it IS growth all on its own) in the first place.
So other than a quick rant, and since some time has passed, what WOULD your rational answer be to VB's scenario?
And no, it has NOTHING to do with "you don't think anybody should be able to tell anyone else what to do".
Without sufficiency, everything else is window dressing.
"Sufficiency" is a new term for me. But it's importance is inherently obvious. Thanks for introducing me to this new way of thinking.
What I've been preaching for decades.
Glad to know that the building world is catching up with me.
We get it. You're a Libertarian and you don't think anybody should be able to tell anyone else what to do. But there are a lot of us here who want to leave behind a healthy, living planet for humans (and all living things) to thrive on for as long as possible. And I'd hazard a guess that there are also a lot of us who don't believe it's possible to leave that planet for others if we don't get off this treadmill of eternal growth. And I doubt if we are suddenly going to change our mind about that. I'm also guessing that most people are here (reading this sub stack and others) to brainstorm about ways to fix things but you always seem to come here just to disagree with EVERYTHING. If you are not a troll then prove it.
If you can't answer the question, just say so.
Once in a while, I review "stuff" and this was a post included in my "stuff". I noticed that VB actually asked a very important business question with a future-forward point-of-view:
"Assume Acme Corp has 50 employees and requires 2000 sq meters of floor space to build their widgets. They construct a building to house the equipment, office space, and infrastructure to produce a million widgets per annum. Growth of the company (because Wile E. Coyote is a good repeat customer) amounts to 3% annually, which means in ten years they've now grown to 67 employees producing 35% more widgets. The space is no longer adequate to house operations. Do they (a) remodel or (b) relocate? Either way, the company has grown outside of its ability to be sufficient for employee comfort and productivity. So naturally, when and if they decide to relocate, do they look to find an existing structure or build to suit with an expected growth rate for the next 20 or 25 years? What does that then look like? I genuinely ask because I don't understand the concept of growing productivity/output without SOME kind of commensurate growth in building and infrastructure requirements to make that happen. Or are businesses not supposed to grow at all? Am I missing something?"
This is standard fare for probing for solutions when doing the analysis for future needs. VB asked some rather decent (if simplified) questions of you, Geoffrey.
Instead of answering the BUSINESS questions, you went after his political outlook - and failed to address even a single question or issue in any kind of meaningful manner. The closest to an answer that I can figure out is "if we don't get off this treadmill of eternal growth".
Which is to say:
1) no, "we" will not allow you to expand to meet the consumers' demands for your product.
2) You shouldn't have been allowed to start a new company (which is an expansion from nothing so it IS growth all on its own) in the first place.
So other than a quick rant, and since some time has passed, what WOULD your rational answer be to VB's scenario?
And no, it has NOTHING to do with "you don't think anybody should be able to tell anyone else what to do".