> Become self sustaining through investments so it can live for 1000 years.
I always wondered why more companies or organizations didn’t do this. Pile up money during the good years to allow themselves to not need continued outside income to keep going, so they can do what is right instead of compromising their vision for the sake of hitting quarterly earnings. That isn’t to say they can’t keep making money, but do it for the right reasons that will keep the core business around for the long run.
Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't seem interested in this. Their revenue is more than enough be able to invest and sustain the site forever, but they just increase expenses on non-core outgoings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CANCER
Am I misssing something or is Wikipedia net positive 200M? If this is true, that's eye opening. Weird given how much they beg for money on every article.
The amount of money moving through Wikipedia is absolutely mind blowing, and next to none of that is even being used to sustain the site. Hope those still donating to it feel smart about what they're supporting...
Because that's how you build up a foundation that will be self-sustaining when the donations run out.
It's not a bad strategy. I've looked at Wikimedia's financial statements and have no problem giving a small monthly amount to them considering how much value I get from the site.
I certainly prefer my money going to them than to Zuckerberg or Altman or MSFT shareholders.
You pay for Wikipedia because you want it to prosper. The political part of Wikipedia is vital to make it succeed. Even though everyone uses Wikipedia not everyone knows why it succeeded and why it is important.
The fluff is important to have a engaged super users. It is also important to get acceptance in certain circles.
> Pile up money during the good years to allow themselves to not need continued outside income to keep going, so they can do what is right instead of compromising their vision for the sake of hitting quarterly earnings.
Typically, individuals want to pile up money so that they don't need outside income to keep going, and the shareholders of a "quarterly earnings" company will squeeze the entity to get it for themselves in the form of dividends or higher share-price.
Money locked up in companies is managed at the leisure of its management, regardless of how good that might be for anyone else (ie. the shareholding owners). Money sitting there doing nothing is a poor use of it, so most companies are encouraged to run with only enough working capital to keep operations going.
It sounds weird, but this is better for shareholders and the economy (and companies can raise capital as needed down the line) than having all companies hold 3x the cash on the balance sheet.
The argument would be different for a foundation by wikipedia, albeit you still have problems between what the wikipedia management might want (high wages, little accountability) and everyone else.
> Money locked up in companies is managed at the leisure of its management, regardless of how good that might be for [...] the shareholding owners
But the management is aware that the shareholders can apply (direct or indirect) pressure for the money to be used in certain ways. Ultimately the shareholder can sue the management if they think the money is misused.
If a company retains earnings, it has to pay taxes on them (as profits), but the money is still at risk (from a shareholder’s point of view) if something bad happens to the company (lawsuit or market problem). Shareholders usually want to receive whatever money the company has saved up, to safeguard it from being lost for no reason, and so that they (the shareholder) can put it to use elsewhere. This would change if the government stopped taxing retained earnings.
It would definitely change, because a shareholder could then take a loan against the non-taxed retained earnings they are owed. So then it comes down to whether the tax is higher or lower than the loan interest (adjust for the risk you mentioned).
Retained earnings are not taxed per se. A company pays taxes on profits. Whether the profits are distributed to shareholders or retained makes no difference whatsoever as far as taxes are concerned.
They are taxed; they are taxed because they are a subset of profits, which is a taxed category. They are not taxed more than other profits, but that doesn’t mean they’re ’not taxed’.
I think some NGOs and privately owned companies actually do this. But most companies exist to increase the wealth of their shareholders, so if they don't consistently grow, they serve no purpose. If NVIDIA kept its exact current revenue and profits for the next two years, their CEO would be fired and their share price would be in the gutter.
Because unless the company is temporarily making losses because of temporarily macroeconomic conditions, what’s the point?
Having a war chest wasn’t going to help any of the retail companies, the technology companies who couldn’t pivot, etc. There is no reason for a company to live forever.
“A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.”
I recently visited Scotland and on a visit to a distillery they mentioned they bought land in the US to grow trees that will make their barrels one day. The trees take over 100 years to grow (if I remember correctly). How is it we can invest ~200 years into a glass of scotch, yet we aren’t willing to take the same care and long term thinking in most other areas.
Even without being around for 1,000 years, I’d think doing this would de-stress and de-risk. Somewhere along way it became a bad thing to have a good, stable, long-lasting business. The only thing that seems to matter now is growth, even if they means instability, stress, excessive risk, and a short stay.
Craftsmen care about what they make, pursuing excellence even if it may take generations. Businessmen care about robbing you now in the most efficient way.
There is also an element of tradition with scotch, which is something that can survive even the occasional craftsman who may not care as much about what they do, as long as they respect the traditions.
Humans don't live that long, and there's a constant onslaught of fleeting fancies, especially in business (Wikipedia foundation should buy some crypto for it's treasury!)
Tradition is simply brand value to be monetized for most businessmen (to add to your criticism). Just look at scotch whisky and multinational conglomerate acquisitions. They would never plant trees in America, they simply order giant vats used for the strongest PX Sherry to get maximum flavor per euro for their blending process.
Some ancient family dynasty Scotch distillery perilous existential
vulnerabilities:
[] Indifferent, spoiled rotten progeny seeking maximum return upon
inheritance, selling distillery to Seagram's for an immediate
gratification windfall fortune.
[] John Cooper VII, the last barrel maker, skill lost at retirement,
or Master Cooper VIIth lost savings to Mister Market, or an expensive
clandestine affair, extorts 16X per barrel.
[] Seagram's hires brilliant Bill Burr(Breaking Bad car wash business) to pose
as EPA agent, threatening federal lawsuit for illegal violation of
dumping distillery toxic runoff for past centuries, and/or white oak barrels
cause cancer and the distillery has killed victims for hundreds of
years.
[] A society grows fallow when old men plant trees whose shade they
know they shall never sit in, while the president's daughter
threatens to enforce federal white oak forest's toxic(false, but that's ok!)
leaching prosecution if landowners do not immediately purchase a
fortune of President altCoin.
In this painfully craven hostile world, Benedictine liqueur would seem to be more durable spirit than any Scotch.
While that is technically true I have always thought hn as a mere place to find interesting content. Of course many of us, me included, dream about finding someone who pays millions for our code. But the attitude towards businessmen is generally hostile here and for a good reason. They can't make things and they aren't even interested in making things, and overall they are more often than not just lame and boring. They are interested in making money, ripping people off, being leeches, extracting every possible penny they just can. Weird geeks are what the hacker culture is all about and politically correct c-suite suckers can go pound sand.
Scotch is aged in previously used Bourbon barrels from the US. Those Bourbon barrels are harvested from local forests (in Kentucky) which are very large and healthy. The probable reason they purchased land was for an investment or perhaps an alternate income stream or even for some sort of government tax break or credit. They may have told you it was to make barrels but it isn't at all likely that will ever happen. Good story though...
I've always wondered if increasing everybody's lifespan would result in more people caring more about the long term future. Our lives are so short in the grand scheme of things that we never bother to really thing about the grand scheme of things.
I've heard that in the Tibetan tradiation where they ardently belive in reincarnation that thinking about the consequences of your actions for the next thousand years isn't unusual
I always wondered why more companies or organizations didn’t do this. Pile up money during the good years to allow themselves to not need continued outside income to keep going, so they can do what is right instead of compromising their vision for the sake of hitting quarterly earnings. That isn’t to say they can’t keep making money, but do it for the right reasons that will keep the core business around for the long run.