Cecil King's busmessmen
Sir: It's a sad thing to see Cecil King writing (and you printing) that fatuous old incantation that "men are in business for profit" (Notebook, January 12). It is hardly ever true — not even for those who actually believe it:iat'man goes into business for exactly the same reasons that any man goes into any career (education, agriculture, the arts, or whatever): it is because his selected career gives him the best chance of (a) eating regularly, and (b) achieving whatever other satisfactions are to his personal taste. These satisfactions can include profit, but there are hundreds of others — fame, power,
long holidays, social usefulness, creative achievement, and even early retirement.
However often British businessmen turn to face the City and intone, with reverent sincerity, "We're in business to make •a profit," they are merely reciting a subjective superstition. The hard objective pivotal fact of business life is that "We have to make a profit to stay in business." If Cecil King doesn't believe me, or thinks that I am engaged in word-play and academic niceties, perhaps he will give a moment's attention to Peter Drucker:
"Profit is not the explanation, cause, or rationale of business behaviour and business decisions, but the test of their validity. The problem is not the maximisation of profit but the achievement of sufficient profit to cover the risks of economic activity and thus avoid loss."
If your readers also think that I am dealing in academic niceties, should we not remind ourselves that we are in an unprecedented national mess? And wonder whether it really is so academic to recommend making a clear distinction between ends and means, cause and effect, forward and reverse, and indeed heads and tails? Don Peters 69 Renters Avenue, London NW4
Previous page
