pelfdaddy wrote:Aren't profits merely a representation of surplus productivity?

No. Not even remotely. Profits are NEVER productivity. If you do chance to HAVE surplus productivity in your company, you might be able to use that to gain additional profits, but the profits are something else. Profit is the difference between the cost of production, and the total income resulting from it.

In addition to the three items Scholasticspastic listed in the post at position twelve, "profits" unfortunately include as well, especially now, faked differences between costs and income.

A LOT of fake profits. In addition to manipulation of currencies, and manipulation of stock values and other such non-productive, non-wealth-producing profit taking, there are many situations where real costs are artificially shifted away from the business owner, onto the populace at large, or to the customers of the business itself. Examples of this, include products and services which produce a great deal of pollution that will have to be dealt with someday, but which the profit takers avoid responsibility for; businesses which pay for labor at below the actual cost of having workers available to perform the work (by depending on the government to make upon the difference later, for example, or by using the desperation of workers to get them to shift or ignore their own costs temporarily), and so on.

As such, I would simply ask what is wrong with that.

Since you are dead wrong about what profits are, the question could be taken as moot. However, even if we entirely assume that the profits in question are pure and real as the driven snow is (usually) white, talking about profits as being
right or wrong, is precisely the MOST abusing concept infesting the world. There must NEVER be any moral value attached to profitability, in and of itself. If there is, then the product or service itself, ceases to be judged for what it is and what it does for us, and becomes merely a stand-in for the real goal, of profit-taking itself. And once you go down that road, the only logical result is pure theft. If it's profits that are good, then however you come by them is good.

I would think that every endeavor we undertake should be characterized by improvement. Perhaps when you indicate the limited virtue of profits (or, as I have stated it, profitability), you mean something else?

I never said anything about the "limited virtue of profits." You need to clarify what YOU mean by this question. All I can mention about it at the moment, is that one of the selling points of capitalism, which unfortunately only occurs in an idealized depiction of it, is that all extra profits, will be the result of "improvements" either of products and services, or of production methods.

You appear to be exactly displaying the problem viewpoint I am opposing here, which is the belief that the FACT that a profit was taken, is proof by itself, that improvements occurred.

And that isn't rational in any way shape or form.

I was going to post another thing, but I don't want to follow .

Byron wrote:Mixed-economy: nationalize natural monopolies; leave competitive sectors to the free market, but with tough regulation; provide comprehensive social insurance to protect people from misfortune.

We'll get there eventually, hopefully.

You have described EXACTLY what the most vocal and powerful voices in the United States especially, are diametrically opposed to, and what I started this thread to observe and discuss. The wildly oversimplified version of capitalism being pushed here and now, is that profits should decide everything, including morality, but amusingly (and frighteningly) NOT including responsibility for the logical and natural consequences of said profit taking.

Byron wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:What about monopolies on medicine or patents.

Different in kind from natural monopolies. As incentive to pump resources into R&D, a company gets a time-limited patent and the right to charge fees. I'd keep it relatively short, and since it's not open to competition, probably cap how much profit can be made.

Your preferred economic model is?

Actually, there is nothing natural about these monopolies. Patent protection is entirely artificial. I'm not saying I am opposed to it, but it is VERY important to recognize where we are living by artificial rules, and where we are subject to natural forces.

Part of the thinking behind the way things are in the US right now, is based on the old capitalist idea that the motivation provided by the chance for great profits, is necessary to the process. Hence the push to eliminate restrictions on profit taking altogether, and the repeated claims that regulations stifle innovation.

Animavore wrote:The leading ideology of unlimited growth is simply not sustainable. Pretty much our world is being destroyed by free-market capitalism which will always go to the source of the cheapest labour. Along with this comes incredibly poor working conditions, lack of concern for health and safety and, of course, in cutting corners the environment is of little to no concern. When the profit margin is all that's cared about, who wants to spend money on costly, clean solutions, when the dirtiest, and cheapest, and often most dangerous will do? Then there's the shipping of these goods all over the world, which adds to the carbon in our atmosphere, a 400% increase since the economic boom of the 90s. Buying local as much as possible just makes far more sense (except in cases like with certain fruits were it can be more costly for the environment to grow them intensively in glass houses than to ship them).

To protect the environment there needs to be a pretty radical overhaul on how we consume. We make far too many throw away products, always having to get something new. People upgrading their phone every year, for example, for upgrades which are barely worth it if you look at the specs objectively. This will probably be the most challenging part and would take massive campaigning. We've been convinced over a long period by advertisement that we need more shit.

Another thing we can do is take the grids back off private companies. Germany and parts of Colorado have been successful in this. You take back the grid and put in place green technologies, like solar and wind, paid for over 3-5 years in the community's bills, then after that you're more or less just paying for maintenance. Again, energy companies only care about the profit margin and will only go for the cheapest, dirtiest energy in plants already available. Why spend money on ecologically friendly infrastructure when you have lucrative paycheques to be handed out to investors?

I've more to say on this, but I should be working.

Things will start picking up now here.

You have a very common negative view of economic growth, and it is based on the fact that you don't understand the correct reason why growth MUST occur.

We don't need growth, in order to feed the unceasing egotistical clamor of the insatiable rich schlubs. We need ever increasing growth, in order to avoid repeatedly murdering large portions of the planet's population.

Now. Some states and systems of government have tried to restrict and control population, but so far, perhaps because that goes against the fundamental drive of our DNA, it has always failed, or at the least, led to massive struggles over who gets to dictate who lives and who dies and who procreates.

mrjonno wrote:Short termism is basic biology, not going to change while we are human beings. Even governments which are meant to think long term are elected by people who don't.

Spoke to my boss at work and we discussing this, if we had a project which would say make a ;arge profit over 3 years it would be rejected out of hand, as the board doesn't work on 3 years ahead, only 1 year at most. Investors wouldn't tolerate anything else

I have not seen this investigated properly, but I suspect that it is NOT the result of most human investors being opposed to long term thinking and profit taking. I suspect it is the inadvertent result of a lot of other small and large tweaks of the economy and of tax laws, which have forced a lot of people to grasp for more immediate profits. Again, as long as the overall thinking is that we ALL have to make money RIGHT NOW, this will continue to be a problem.

Animavore wrote:

mrjonno wrote:Seriously any evidence business is more short term than it used to ?, not sure how you would even measure that. You did have businesses less interested in short term profit but they tended to be state owned and I'm not sure that counts as business

I read it in this book.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/ ... -23-things

I don't have time to read that book right now, but I hope that it mentions as a PART of the cause of "short-termism," changes which were made to US tax and business management laws, after the ENRON mess, which now require all companies that are traded on the stock market at least, to make quarterly reports based on the IMMEDIATE state of profits, and thus they are no longer PERMITTED BY LAW, to take the long view on profitability. Combined with most companies making profit margins and stock value, the basis for most CEO and upper officer pay, this means that any business leader who decides to take on any long term project, will have to suffer both their personal incomes taking a huge hit, AND risk being tossed out by the board of directors, for failure to attend to the market value of the company.

By the way, this fits with one of my most basic observations: whenever a mechanism repeatedly dumps crap on your head, the most likely explanation is NOT that it is broken. It is that it has been designed, to dump crap on your head.

igorfrankensteen wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:I'm unclear about what you mean by "will of the people as expressed by the profit motive".
Could you clarify or expand?

Sure. This isn't my deduction, or even any kind of business science thing. It is modern common political manipulation. The people who push it, do so by responding to things like proposed regulation, or restriction of harmful products, by declaring that "the people have spoken by buying the product or service, and that makes it something that the government should therefore not regulate."

They also use the idea that something isn't profitable, as an excuse to declare that nothing should be done. It has long been the primary reason to oppose efforts to move away from oil-based fuels in any way, for example.

I see. Thanks for the clarification.