The Infinite Game

by Simon Sinek

It is a kind of bastardized capitalism that is organized to advance the interests of a few people who abuse the system for personal gain, which has done little to advance the true benefits of capitalism as a philosophy (as evidenced by anticapitalist and protectionist movements around the globe).

Weird! Is this a claim that anti-capitalist movements are actually a "cure" for capitalism? It'll be sad, it this is the case. The most vocal anti-capitalists are the ones never lived in socialism.

The Economic Policy Institute reported that in 1978, the average CEO made approximately 30 times the average worker’s salary.

...and how many times more responsibility did that average CEO hold?

“After me comes the flood.” In other words, the disaster that will follow after I’m gone will be your problem, not mine. A sentiment that seems to be shared by too many finite leaders today.

Entrepreneurs are not immune from the pressure either. In their case, there is often intense pressure to demonstrate constant, high-speed growth. To achieve that goal, or when growth slows, they turn to venture capital or private equity firms to raise money. Which sounds good in theory. Except there is a flaw in the business model of private equity that can wreak havoc with any company keen to stay in the game. For private equity and venture capital firms to make money, they have to sell. And it’s often about three to five years after they make their initial investment. A private equity firm or venture capitalist can use all the flowery, infinite game, Cause-focused language they want. And they may believe it. Up until the point they have to sell. And then all of a sudden many will care a lot less about the Just Cause and all the other stakeholders. The pressure investors can exert on the company to do things in the name of finite objectives can be and often is devastating to the long-term prospects of the company. Long is the list of purpose-driven executives who say that their investors are different, that they do care about the company’s Cause . . . until it’s time to sell. (The ones I talked to asked that I not mention the names of their companies for fear of upsetting their investors.)

And if shareholders really were the owners of the companies in which they invested, that is indeed how they would act. But in reality, they don’t act like owners at all. They act more like renters.

“Without a sense of purpose,” he explained, “no company, either public or private, can achieve its full potential. It will ultimately lose the license to operate from key stakeholders. It will succumb to short-term pressures to distribute earnings, and, in the process, sacrifice investments in employee development, innovation, and capital expenditures that are necessary for long-term growth.”

In our modern day and age, it is the employee who bears the most cost for the money companies and their leaders make.

#woke #socialism

People want to be treated fairly and share in the wealth they helped produce in payment for the cost they bear to grow their companies. I am not demanding it—they are!

#woke #socialism

We need to replace Friedman’s definition with one that goes beyond profit and considers the dynamism and additional facets that make business work.

This failed multiple times in every single country, which tried to "fix capitalism".

In other words, a nation committed to protect its people, offer an opportunity of economic gain and advance the ideology of communism.

...and how well did that work?

Translated into business terms, it means that a company’s goals must also align with people’s goals, not simply the goals of shareholders.

Socialist Nonsense! The biggest award comes after the highest risks!

Anyone who offers their blood, sweat and tears to advance a company’s goals is entitled to feel valued for their contributions and share in the fruits of their labor.

We are all entitled to feel psychologically protected at work, be fairly compensated for our effort and contribute to something bigger than ourselves.