snip
The second one posts a profit that is probably TEN times the
firsts. It's got to be ten times better, right?
----------
And this is the crux of the problem because it all depends on
your "investment" [or speculation] strategy, and the influence
you have with the directors of the company.

If I am a graduate of the Attila-the-Hun School of Business and
Management, working for the Engulf & Devour Corporation [AKA Gulf
& Western] the second option is by far the most attractive. It
provides immediate profits with minimal to non-existent risks and
no future liabilities (at least those arising from the specific
transaction) if it is structured correctly.

While the first option is the socially responsible one, it does
not maximize ROI [return on investment], requires continual
investment to maintain plant, equipment, and product, and
requires a long-term commitment of capital. Additionally,
governmental policy may be changed at anytime so that continued
operation is no longer financially viable (e.g. environmental
controls], or competitors may be subsidized in foreign countries
with the taxes paid by the going business [e.g. an entire series
of foreign investment and foreign aid programs ranging from the
USAID to the World Bank]

The real puzzle is not which alternative is "better," [a value
judgment and subject to endless debate] but how/why there are
*any* businesses left in the United States, other than
convenience stores such as the ubiquitous 7-11. Apparently, any
businesses remaining are not worth "rolling up" and liquidating.