The second conclusion is that a business cannot be defined or explained in terms of profit.
第二個結論是:我們不能單單從利潤的角度來定義或解釋企業。
The average businessman when asked what a business is, is likely to answer: “An organization to make a profit”.
當問到企業是什麼時，一個普通商人的答案通常是：“一個創造利潤的組織。”
And the average economist is likely to give the same answer.
經濟學家的答案也如出一轍。
But this answer is not only false; it is irrelevant.
但是這個答案不僅錯誤，而且答非所問。
Similarly, there is total bankruptcy in the prevailing economic theory of business enterprise and behavior: the theory of the “maximization of profits” — simply a complicated way of phrasing the old saw of “buying cheap and selling dear”.
同樣，今天有關企業及企業行為的經濟理論——利潤最大化的理論——其實只是換個更復雜的說法來說明“低價買進，高價賣出”的傳統模式罷了。
This theorem may adequately explain how Richard Sears operated.
這個理論或許可以充分反映理查德·西爾斯的經營方式。
But it is bankrupt precisely because it cannot explain how Sears, Roebuck — or any other business enterprise — operates, nor how it should operate.
但我之所以說它完全錯誤，是因為這個理論不足以解釋西爾斯公司或其他企業的運營方式，也無法說明應該如何經營企業。
This shows clearly in the attempts the economists themselves must make to salvage the theorem.
經濟學家在努力拯救這條定理時，清楚顯示了這點。
REFERENCE:
conclusion 結論business 企業define 定義explain 解釋，反映in terms of 從…角度profit 利潤average businessman 普通商人organization 組織likely 通常，很可能economist 經濟學家not only 不僅false 錯誤irrelevant 答非所問的，不相關的similarly 同樣bankruptcy 破產prevailing economic theory 主流經濟理論behavior 行為maximization of profits 利潤最大化simply 其實a complicated way of phrasing 複雜的說法the old saw 傳統模式，老套說辭theorem 理論adequately 充分Richard Sears 理查德·西爾斯operate 經營bankrupt 破產bankrupt precisely 完全錯誤（total bankruptcy）Sears, Roebuck 西爾斯公司show 顯示clearly 清楚attempt 努力salvage 拯救
本文內容來源參考書籍《管理的實踐》
The Practice of Management
Peter F. Drucker
* 本書為第一部從實際執行層面立論的管理學書籍，第一部兼顧管理現有企業和創新未來企業的著作