My new point is that there should be no competition. Business for profit should never venture into the non-profit arena unless they can offer the same value for less. The term “market” should never be employed to characterize a segment of people that should never be utilized. The semantics reminds me of the time my Dad told me the world was going to hell in a hand basket when “Personnel Managers” suddenly became “Human Resource Directors” back in the 70’s. These subtleties, however seemingly benign, are once again “intentioned” symbolic and real labels devised to shift our views and ideas of things.

We have given up so much ground to business here in the U.S> and now in the world. These seemingly harmless bits of news are the fabric of what people have to deal with 30 years from now. Just me on the soap box I know, but I prefer to stand up here in the precise knowledge that I am neither obtuse, stupid or woefully clinical over black and white subjects.

For any of my readers who have their own pulpits to cry from, would you like to be considered a “market” or a “human resource” if your belly were empty and hope was a mirage in the distant heat of poverty? I think not.

Always,
Phil

Of course if you can’t actually hit your target price because you’re a bunch of overpaid consultants and academics, then that will of course muddy the waters a bit, but that’s your problem, not your competitor’s. It certainly doesn’t indicate moral turpitude on your competitor’s part.

It’s common enough to feel sour grapes when your competitor beats you on the same ground (even though that appears not to be what’s happening here). But we adults get over it.