<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.11" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Relationships in Business</title>
	<link>http://www.fourgroups.com/blog/archives/14/relatiionships-in-business/</link>
	<description>Linking Behaviour to the Bottom Line</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 20 Jul 2008 00:06:57 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.11</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Kaleem Aziz</title>
		<link>http://www.fourgroups.com/blog/archives/14/relatiionships-in-business/#comment-4</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Feb 2005 20:38:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.fourgroups.com/blog/archives/14/relatiionships-in-business/#comment-4</guid>
					<description>Very valuable thoughts, and I also liked the fact that you see value in relationships and people types.

"The key issue here is how to place a value on relationships. Share prices are easy, as they are highly transparent, can be quickly compared and valued, This is far harder when it comes to business relationships. This is primarily because:

• There is no common currency to describe the nature or value of relationships
• Relationships are inherently subjective and different people will have different perceptions of the same relationship"

I agree with all of that, and go further to say that even share prices, investors' evaluations are deterministically based on "people and relationship" types and value from it. Only it requires you to "aggregate" the individuals values of the all people in the equation. 

For instance, in a stock dealing, it would be the values of everyone involved in running the company as well as those buying from the company -- recursively. Ditto in the case of investor scenario -- one would need to recursively aggregate all people involved. One must use people as the primary criteria (even if recursively), and use resources involve as the secondary criteria -- to be successful in both stocks and investments (and in everything in life, including barter exchange).

I write more about this Economics on my blog. I'll appreciate your feedback.

Best regards,
Kaleem.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very valuable thoughts, and I also liked the fact that you see value in relationships and people types.</p>
<p>&#8220;The key issue here is how to place a value on relationships. Share prices are easy, as they are highly transparent, can be quickly compared and valued, This is far harder when it comes to business relationships. This is primarily because:</p>
<p>• There is no common currency to describe the nature or value of relationships<br />
• Relationships are inherently subjective and different people will have different perceptions of the same relationship&#8221;</p>
<p>I agree with all of that, and go further to say that even share prices, investors&#8217; evaluations are deterministically based on &#8220;people and relationship&#8221; types and value from it. Only it requires you to &#8220;aggregate&#8221; the individuals values of the all people in the equation. </p>
<p>For instance, in a stock dealing, it would be the values of everyone involved in running the company as well as those buying from the company &#8212; recursively. Ditto in the case of investor scenario &#8212; one would need to recursively aggregate all people involved. One must use people as the primary criteria (even if recursively), and use resources involve as the secondary criteria &#8212; to be successful in both stocks and investments (and in everything in life, including barter exchange).</p>
<p>I write more about this Economics on my blog. I&#8217;ll appreciate your feedback.</p>
<p>Best regards,<br />
Kaleem.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
