As a society, we need to have a dialogue about profit and make some decisions

[Skidmore]

about what role it should serve. We have witnessed blind pursuit of profit for profit's sake over the past two decades for certain. CEOs and other types of upper level managers have taken obscene profits while driving their employees into penury. Professions have ignored their ethical codes in pursuit of profit. Legislators and others in the public sector have subverted ethics and corrupted the legal codes they are charged with constructing to ensure profit for themselves and their families. We are have witnessed the financial sector, pharmaceutical and insurance companies, petroleum industry, mining industry, and others demand that they be assured profits while demanding that they be excused from risk or responsibility for poor practices, quality, and the outright murder and environmental mayhem they have visited on the nation and the planet.

Profit taking is part of capitalism, but it seems to me that profit taking needs to be reined in and there needs to be an insistence that meaningful rules around it be created. As far as I'm concerned, a very basic place to start would be that profits cannot be taken until all obligations are met. That a corporation or entity is responsible for the costs of its own R&D and the cost of any problems it creates.

Now I'm not an expert the ins and outs of economics or business practice, but I don't believe that the bottom line is just black or red. The bottom line also must be tinged with shades of ethics and social justice. If corporations insist on being treated as citizens, they must be held to the same responsibilities and sanctions that individual citizens are expected to observe.

[Little Star]

1. k&r

[havocmom]

2. Society can discuss it, come to some solid decisions that profits should not justify any means, but

it won't change things so long as sociopaths are the ones in charge.

Edited to add: and the pols are NOT the ones in charge. They are just sycophant patsy middle management to the real power.

[MIprogressive1]

3. Do you not like capitalism?

I think that some corporate leaders broke the law to get their money, buti dont feel someone who does it the right and legal way should not be able to make as much as he wants. My family has a small cable company and it is about red and black. If we go into the red we are in trouble, we need to keep up our profits or own company fails and my family will have no money at all. I hate to shut people's cable off, but when they owe us $200 we have to do something because they are not paying us. Simple as that.

[laughingliberal]

9. I believe a better question is whether we believe profits take precedence over everything else

Let's take the example of hospitals since the advent of for profit, publicly traded hospital corporations. Prior to those days hospitals may not have been entirely altruistic but I could, generally, get the administration's attention about staffing levels if I appealed to a fear of lawsuits. After the sociopathic business models became the norm, their cost/benefit analyses showed they would increase profits by short staffing and paying a few wrongful death or malpractice suits. This is much the same scenario as Ford Motor Company's decision not to fix the defect in the Pinto as that was more expensive than letting a few people fry and paying off their surviving family members. Do I not like capitalism? No, not much. Not when it's seen as a justification for murder.

[Hannah Bell]

10. the big boys feel the same way as your family; thus our present trials.

if there's not enough profit, businesses go under or lose to the competition; thus the incessant, ruthless quest for more profits.

is there a point at which your family would decide they had "enough"? (don't mean to make it personal, just an example)

the businesspeople in my family say no: it's never "enough," because there are people to provide for, unseen challenges ahead, etc.

the big boys feel the same way.

[MIprogressive1]

11. So if you started a business you would be fine making just enough for your

family to just get by? What about expanding your company, you need money to do so. I understand that the big boys took up bad practices but not every business is like that. and I don't want to settle for just making enough. The more I make the more I give, if I just made enough money I would not give to charities.

[Hannah Bell]

12. exactly.

[MIprogressive1]

13. How would you help your community? How would you help your family in tough times?

I want to earn money to help my children go to college or buy them a car. I don't want my children to worry completely about money while trying to get an education and better themselves. I want to have a comfortable life knowing my children will have the best chance at making it as well as helping my community out. So I guess if you want to make enough for yourself, I wont be knocking on your door for donations to a worthy cause.

[Hannah Bell]

15. exactly. there's never enough. not a criticism, just an acknowledgement as to how the system works

[MIprogressive1]

16. So how to you propose we fix it? what would YOU do?

[Hannah Bell]

18. lol.

[MIprogressive1]

19. ok? You would do nothing? Do you know how to answer the question?

[Hannah Bell]

20. lol again.

[MIprogressive1]

21. Good to know. This is the same reaction I get from the teabaggers when I ask them questions

they never know how to respond.

[Hannah Bell]

25. i know how to respond to the all-purpose "where's your 10-point plan?" question.

if you're interested, i recommend you do some study.

[MIprogressive1]

27. down with all corporations

[laughingliberal]

30. Nope.

Just reinstate all the regulation which was overturned starting with the Reagan presidency and up through now.

[MIprogressive1]

32. I agree, we just need more transparency so the new regulators don't get too comfortable in their

position.

[laughingliberal]

24. I would reinstate the regulations we spent 30 years dismantling. nt

[laughingliberal]

22. I don't believe the discussion here is about family run or small businesses...

... but the excesses of the corporate culture. It has become common among conservatives these past 3 decades to scream against regulation while pretending their 'concern' is for 'small business.' We own a small business and most of the policies they oppose out of their 'concern' are policies which would, actually, protect us from some of the more egregious abuses of capitalism.

[bobbolink]

31. Ah, yes. So, all laws are right, and the laws made BY the rich themselves should never be ?

(should never be questioned.)

We should never have to rethink our core values.

Do I have it right?

[KonaKane]

41. Which capitalism?

The crazy, unregulated, cannabilistic winner-take-all and destroy everybody else....or a more ethical, tempered profit taking with an eye on the greater society?

Personally, I like...and practice..the latter.

[fascisthunter]

53. this is capitalism? Really???? No it's not... it's corrupt and leans fascist

[TampaAnimus2010]

4. Well technically - without profit we would all be dead.

Profit is getting back more then you put into something. If you put seeds into the ground and didn't get back more then you put in, you would starve pretty quickly. I think you need to be more specific about what it is your talking about. You might be referring to profiting "at the expense" of others?

What does that mean and who can judge that? If I plant oranges and my neighbor plants apples - we trade our "excess" fruit, we both gain. I guess you could say I gained "at the expense" of him losing his extra apples -- but so what? He gained "at my expense" of my extra oranges. Trying to calculate the sum total of losses and gains from all the transactions going on currently is beyond the capability of even the most powerful supercomputer - much less a few politicians.

[Hannah Bell]

17. if you get back more than you put in, who or what put the rest in?

"If I plant oranges and my neighbor plants apples - we trade our "excess" fruit" = nothing to do with capitalism or profit.

[TampaAnimus2010]

28. ok... uh, yes it does.

That was useful.

[Hannah Bell]

42. oh, uh, no, it doesn't.

1. the two farmers are exchanging surplus fruit. there's no profit, just a trade of different kinds of fruit. if you think that's "profit," you don't know what profit is.

2. they're exchanging fruit, i.e. bartering. no money economy.

3. they're neighbors, i.e. they both know the worth of apples & oranges in that market, so again, no possibility of profit, such as is possible with some kinds of mercantile trade where you arbitrage goods from different markets.

4. so far as the story described, there's no hired labor, just two neighbors who grow fruit & trade with each other.

i think you really don't get what capitalism is. these stories about neighbors trading goods with each other have nothing to do with capitalism. it could be two cave men just as easily.

simple trading isn't capitalism. even selling goods isn't capitalism, just on its own.

capitalism requires additional ingredients.

but it's good if people mistake any exchange of goods or services for "capitalism" cause that way it's easier to keep robbing them.

[TampaAnimus2010]

46. You need to tell Websters to use your definition then...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism

Main Entry: cap·i·tal·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈka-pə-tə-ˌliz-əm, ˈkap-tə-, British also kə-ˈpi-tə-\
Function: noun
Date: 1877
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
------------------

1. Profit is getting back more then you put in... they put seeds in the ground so they already made their profit. Now they are diversifying and both benefited.
2. The definition does not require money to be involved.
3. The fact they are neighbors has no relevance to the definition.
4. Hired workers again, have nothing to do with the definition.

As you can see in the definition - all thats required is that they own the land (which was assumed since they control the output - the fruit), that they invest their goods (they traded with each other), and they set the exchange rate of apples to oranges... Sounds to me like it meets the definition perfectly.

[Hannah Bell]

48. webster's being the ultimate in economic references.

they put seeds in the ground - so the "profit" from my backyard garden is no different than the "profit" at archer daniels midland, eh?

Stone Age Tribe X:

1. Individuals own their own stone tools = "private ownership of capital goods"
2. Decide when & what to make, grow, hunt = "private decision-making"
3. Trade the things they make inside & outside the tribe = "prices, production, distribution decided 'mainly' by competition in a free market"

lol. nothing missing from *that* definition at all, oh, no.

Yes, capitalism has always existed, will always exist, there's nothing BUT capitalism -- except, of course, for soviet-style state control.

lol. no wonder the country's in trouble.

[TampaAnimus2010]

49. I think you need to be more specific about what your saying...

Capitalism HAS always existed...because included in the definition of Capitalism is those 2 farmers or cavemen or whoever, voluntarily trading.

What you may REALLY be upset about is "Corporatism" or "Mercantilism" -- and if you asked me, I would agree with you. Both of those are awful.

[MadHound]

50. No, capitlalism has not always existed

It arose out of the feudal age. True capitalism didn't arise until the advent of the industrial revolution.

[TampaAnimus2010]

51. Did you even bother to read the thread?

"True capitalism"... another person who doesn't like Websters definition and wants to write their own.

[MadHound]

52. You know, Webster's isn't the be all and end all of what is true,

Relying on Webster's for the truth simply isn't going to get you far.

I am, among other things, a historian, complete with degrees, publications, etc. I know history, I know economic history.

My wife is an economist, again, complete with degrees, publications, etc. She know economics, including the history of economics.

The fact of the matter is that capitalism has not always existed, it evolved over time, like any other system. True capitalism, or if you prefer, modern capitalism didn't take shape until the advent of the industrial age, when they brought the means of production, labor and technology together under one roof (known as a factory).

Now if you want to continue to rely on your Webster's fine, I'm not going to stop you. However I will have a hard time not laughing at you, having read many of the economic greats, you know, Smith, Malthus, Hume, Marx, etc. etc. I suggest you do the same, educate yourself, otherwise you're going to go through life with people snickering behind your back wherever you go.

[TampaAnimus2010]

54. So what I'm hearing is...

So rather then just deal with the facts, you want to prattle on about your wondrous credentials. Good for you if they are in fact real. It matters not. Oh, and I see you want to define "modern capitalism" now as well... modern capitalism. Good for you! No where in the definition does it require a factory. Thats the problem with definitions... they have a tendency to not allow you to get away with just making up stuff like that.

Webster set the definition, you want to change it... you cant. Thats the end of it. According to the dictionary definition, two farmers who trade "their" wares are in fact the most basic example of capitalism there is.

[MadHound]

55. Two farmers who are trading excess fruit is called the barter system

Go look it up.

Meanwhile, capitalism is a bit more complicated that that.

Question for you, have you read any economic books whatsoever? Taken something like macro-economics in high school or college. If not, you really should at least read up on it. It's all about the supply and demand curves, how they interact. Then perhaps you should read some Adam Smith, or even Marx. You see, I'm not the one defining what modern capitalism is, they are the ones who already defined it for us.

You see, words mean things. Your example of two farmers exchanging surplus fruit is the barter system. This isn't capitalism, in fact there isn't even any money exchanged, just fruit. Cash is an important part of capitalism ya know.

Words mean things, and when you use terms like capitalism, they mean things and simply can't be changed to fit your own personal concept. Websters, while good for basic usage of certain terms, isn't long enough or detailed enough to cover the complete spectrum of concepts or history of something like capitalism. If you are going to base your be all and end all definitions of concepts like capitalism solely on the Webster dictionary, you are leading a very limited intellectual life, and your perception of the world is likewise limited. I would suggest reading Adam Smith, "The Wealth of Nations" along with Marx's "Das Kapital" and "Theories of Surplus Value."

Or hell, you can go just one step up from Websters, maybe, to Wiki and see the definition of capitalism yourself.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism>

Oh, wait, even Wiki(something more your speed) mentions the scholars that I do, the works that I mention, and even agree that capitalism arises from the feudal system, that it hasn't always been around.

Give it up, you're wrong, and now you're just making a fool out of yourself.

I suppose that

[TampaAnimus2010]

56. You like spouting a lot of things except the facts...

The tired appeal to argument via authority is exactly that. You reach for it because you have no REAL ammo to show that what I said is in error. Actually, I'm laughing at you for such an obvious attempt at misdirection. Let me put this down one more time so you can re-read it between all the name dropping and pseudo-intellectual allusions. If you put more effort into developing those logic circuits instead of your "status" circuits, you might be able to see that the given definition is SOOOOO obvious a child could see it. Only deliberate mental evasions on the magnitude of your own attempts could fail to see it. Let's see if we can get through a single post without you pining on about other books and degrees. The only item in question is the given definition and example. Spare me the rest, because I really dont care.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism

Main Entry: cap·i·tal·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈka-pə-tə-ˌliz-əm, ˈkap-tə-, British also kə-ˈpi-tə-\
Function: noun
Date: 1877
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

Tell me where the 2 farmers trading does not meet that definition, or give it up.

[MadHound]

57. You know, I was getting ready to blast you,

Especially since your example of two farmers trading is contradicted by your own Webster definition (hint, the words capital, price imply cash, which isn't present when farmers are trading fruit), but then I thought, "why bother?"

You are obviously somebody who isn't well educated, either in a classroom or out of it, and furthermore you are proud of your ignorance. You don't want to have an intellectual understanding of complex subjects, and you regard such understandings with scorn and derision. You are anti-intellectual, in the grand American tradition. You are, in short, part of the problem with this country.

I have run into your kind all too frequently, and have come to realize that there is no use trying to explain things to you, you simply don't want to know. You want to keep your own world, and your understanding of it comfortably narrow. You are, in short, deeply insecure about your own intellect and rather than trying to expand your knowledge base and risk exposure of being ignorant, you would rather damn all those who do engage in intellectual disputes.

But recognize this, with our little exchange. You have already shown your ignorance, for the entire world to see, on a public chatboard. There are people laughing at your ignorance right now. So perhaps, don't you think that you should at least do some reading on the subject you wish to expound upon in order that you won't expose yourself again?

Or not, perhaps you do wish to be Green Day's American Idiot:shrug:

Barter as capitalism:eyes: Sad, really, really sad.

[TampaAnimus2010]

59. Yawn... I see a lot of bluster and no content. Heres more.

http://www.onelook.com/?w=capitalism&ls=a

Heres a number of dictionaries since you seem to think
Websters is somehow an issue. Knock ourself out. Do you have
anything other then telling me how smart you are? I grow tired
at trouncing your fabulous intellect with logic. But one more
while I'm at it...

http://www.onelook.com/?w=capital&ls=a

You'll note your words "capital,price imply cash"
indicate that you think capital is only money. Flip through
those little definitions there oh super-genius and tell me how
many of them mention capital as property (fruit)? Just about
all of em. Dont you get tired of being wrong?

[MadHound]

60. I've already given you something to read,

Or did you fail to notice my suggestions about Adam Smith, Marx, Hume, etc.?

Get back to me when you've read those, then perhaps we can talk. Until then, as I stated before, all you're doing is making a fool of yourself and exposing your ignorance on this matter.

Go read some books, educate yourself.

But hey, while you're at it, here's the definition of what your two farmers are doing

Barter: to trade by exchanging one commodity for another
<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/barter>

It's obvious that this exchange is going nowhere, you refuse to educate yourself, and I'm tired of banging my head against a brick wall. So get your last childish insult in, and we can go on our way. But again, instead of continuing to revel in your ignorance, I suggest you educate yourself. I've given you several reading suggestions, go read them.:hi:

[TampaAnimus2010]

61. Ok... I too can see it's going nowhere.

And I will tip my hat here now that this is drawing to an end. I have read Adams (was actually re-reading Wealth of Nations for about the 3rd time right now even), Marx, Hayek, Keynes, and more. I just dont rely on credentials to make my argument - I use logic.

Yes, two farmers trading IS barter and barter IS capitalism. You have failed to show any attribute of bartering to be outside the definition of capitalism...regardless of which dictionary we use. In a Venn diagram, bartering would be completely inside the concept of capitalism -- unless (and I'll give you one more shot here) you can identify some attribute not contained inside the definition of capitalism as outlined by pretty much every dictionary on the planet. Somehow I dont think I will get an answer to that.

[MadHound]

62. One more shot, OK

You say you've read Wealth of Nations, hopefully then this will make sense to you.

One of the two main attributes that place barter outside of capitalism is cash. In barter, there is no cash exchanged, I trade you a pound of potatoes for a pound of apples. Without cash, trade remains localized. With cash, you can trade long distances. You can also introduce pricing mechanisms into the market with cash.

Secondly, and this is more important, under capitalism, the forces of production, labor, machines, capital, are centralized. I have both the potatoes and apples, and you pay me cash for them. It is this centralization that is the key.

Cash and centralization, get it? If not, go read some more, because you obviously aren't understanding what you're reading if you think barter is capitalism.

One more thing, under capitalism you have that thing called profit. Under the barter system you don't. Don't try telling me that if you get two pounds of potatoes for one pound of apples then you're getting a profit. If you do, you're making one of two logical errors. You're either trying to compare apples and potatoes, or worse, you're simply turning potatoes into some form of cash.

Have a good one:hi:

[TampaAnimus2010]

63. Except that again your forgetting just about every dictionary on the planet...

No where in any of the definitions of capitalism, in any of the dictionaries formerly linked, does it mandate cash or centralization.

Oh, and the profit came when the farmer planted the seeds and got out of the ground more than he previously had. Of course Ive already stated that so it does appear that you didn't read the entire thread. His trading his apples for oranges just diversifies his wealth.

Let's put this side by side so hopefully you can see. I'm using Websters here, but so far pretty much all the dictionaries I've checked say pretty much the same or similar things.

Barter = to trade by exchanging one commodity for another
Capitalism = an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

We have in both cases private ownership of capital goods (fruit), invested (traded) by private decision for prices agreed upon in a free market (in this case the 2 farmers discuss and come to an agreement on trade values).

So once again... no where does the definitions of either mention cash or centralizations. Localization is also irrelevant to the definitions at hand. You keep reaching for attributes not in the definition.

[lonestarnot]

34. Your simplification of the issue of profit leaves out the theft of the water rights on the

orange grower. And in fact the greater good.

[AdHocSolver]

5. The question should be what activities should be allowed and what activities limited to make profit.

In simple terms, profit is revenue minus costs.

Farmers, shoe manufacturers, and department store operators all make profit.

Illegal drug dealers and embezzlers also make profit. Yet, because the methods they use to make profit are inimical to the rest of society, the activities they engage in to make profit are made illegal.

The New Deal legislation to regulate business, such as the Glass-Steagall Act, was designed to limit the ability of businesses to engage in economic activities inimical to society.

Similarly, the antitrust laws were designed to prevent monopolistic control of markets by individual companies and cartels, that enable them to use monopoly power to extract profit that they normally would not have in a competitive economic environment.

Moreover, labor laws, environmental safety laws, food and drug safety laws, and others were enacted over the years to protect the public against rapacious corporations which preyed on society.

On the flip side, we have to get rid of, or at least, reorganize in the public interest, corporate cartel institutions like the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO, and the Federal Reserve, as well as trade agreements like NAFTA, to rein in the power of corporations to pillage the planet for extreme profit.

In order for any of this to happen, the public needs to understand economics better, especially how mainstream economic discourse has been subverted from "real" economics to "supply side" economics. For example, the terms "free trade" and "global economy" are made up buzz words to support offshoring of jobs and tax evasion by the corporations. They have no meaning in "real" economics.

There has been a "global economy" at least since the eighteenth century with the start of European colonization of the planet.

I can't even guess what "free trade" refers to. Is it a type of barter in which no currency changes hands?

Yet economists(?), corporate spokespersons, politicians, and even DU posters use these terms as if they had any real meaning, merely to justify offshoring jobs and tax evasion.

[flying rabbit]

6. Unbridled capitalism

kills the goose that laid the golden egg.

[Kablooie]

7. The one uncontested, eternal argument against any government control is "it will hurt our profits"

That seems to be something that is sacrosanct. You can do anything you want. Kill, mutilate, destroy generations but to decrease corporate profits -- absolutely not!

[laughingliberal]

8. K & R nt

[marmar]

14. K/R

nt

[WillyT]

23. K & R !!! - And A Banner You Might Like !!!

:kick:

:hi:

[I Am So Me]

26. Profit IS Good

There's nothing wrong with making a profit and being wealthy. Being wealthy is not in and of itself an evil thing.

What is wrong is the wealthy doing their best to consolidate their wealth and power and doing everything they can to prevent other people from achieving wealth.

And charity at the point of the gun is simply just not true charity.

The Bible has a phrase. It says "Thou shalt not covet".

[Greyhound]

36. That's funny 'cause my Bible has a lot to say on the matter and none of it

agrees with you.

The Old Testament bans usury (interest)

J.C. and his followers gave all their possessions to make life better for those with less, without depriving themselves of necessities.

I'm sure you're familiar with the money-changers in the Temple scenario.

There is a much longer list but I think this makes the point, your God does not approve of your actions.

Go yell about it on a corner under a misspelled sign.

[Hannah Bell]

45. Capitalism is all about coveting, unfortunately for your theory.

How do you think the owners of the world became so?

By coveting their neighbors' labor, land, water, resources, ideas & properties.

And they took them; by force, by slavery, by chicanery, by buying off judges & politicians, by destroying people's independent livelihoods -- and continue to do so.

[Lorien]

29. This should be pushed as a major issue in the next election

most of societies ills-and the ills of the planet-all come back to unbridled corporate greed, deregulation and irresponsibility.

[lonestarnot]

33. K & R!

Without it, corporations just continue as is and kill the rest of us.

[Initech]

35. I completely agree - we need a solution.

We're getting bled dry and these fuckers are making money hand over fist and doing nothing with it but let it sit and collect interest. Profit should serve to keep a company going and allow it to be able to pay its' employees. But it should not serve as the be-all-end-all of civilization where he who has the most money wins.

[waiting for hope]

37. K&R

[saracat]

38. K+R

[saracat]

39. Thank You.This needed to be said.Great post!

[Nikki Stone1]

40. K & R

/

[TheKentuckian]

43. We don't even have functional capitalism at this point

it has now been replaced by a casino so that all the capital is tied up in speculation rather than investment. Why do you think the 401K's were so important and why they want that Social Security money? That's the "capital" now. Investment is the new work and work the new welfare, aka the province of the suckers. The real money is in the casino nowadays and rounding up our money to put into productive areas is a sideline but the actual investment is now deemed for the suckers.

Once capitalism at least is restored then we need to evaluate the areas where there is no competition and nationalize them like for your gas and electric company. Then we need to examine areas that are vital to national security that exploit the commons like power acquisition and distribution and nab them.

That's a real start from where we are now. I think we need to back away from actual capitalism but the fraud we have now must be run away from and eliminated.

[Odin2005]

44. All corporate profit is theft of wealth from workers.

"Profit" should go to the workers, the people actually CREATING THE WEALTH, rather to the Investor Class Parasites.

[Skidmore]

47. Interestingly, Muhammed Yunus was just on Morning Joe addressing this very issue.

He was talking about redefining profit and recreating capitalism so that the goals of companies becomes something other than cash profits. He was talking about profit being focused on problem solving in society and being purpose driven to address the needs of the people. Joe went to the space of "lots of people want to give" and Yunus corrected him by saying that "this is not about writing a check." Yunus went on to clarify that what he was talking about is part of the work and the profit of an organization and that it is for the betterment of all. This is what I'm talking about. The fiduciary responsibilities of a business should have components beyond monetary profit, as should business plans.

[blindpig]

58. Capitalism is the abomination of humanity and ecological

suicide. It degrades the lives of the majority and is spoiling the environment for untold generations to come.

Kill Capitalism