Was going to post this in an existing thread, but thought it might inspire a deebate on it's own.


I read the following statement a couple weeks back:

"Profit should be a means to an end. It should not be an end in itself."


It's had me pondering ever since. id be interested to hear others thoughts on this statement.

yehbut_nobut wrote:

Was going to post this in an existing thread, but thought it might inspire a deebate on it's own.


I read the following statement a couple weeks back:

"Profit should be a means to an end. It should not be an end in itself."


It's had me pondering ever since. id be interested to hear others thoughts on this statement.

I'll have a go
Profit is used to measure the success of the enterprise. The work done was valuable and highly beneficial to society and I am rewarded with profit.
The energy or resources were correctly directed as perceived by my peers(society). Profit is the reward which allows for the successfull individual to apportion more energy and resources, the reason being is that they were once successfull in directing resources, then they might be successful again.
If resources are wastefully employed or directed, as seen by society, then there is no profit, i.e its harder for you now to try again.

Its like a numerical interpolation calculator. Profit in the market ensures that resources are distributed by the best at delivering those resources.

Respvblica wrote:

yehbut_nobut wrote:

Was going to post this in an existing thread, but thought it might inspire a deebate on it's own.


I read the following statement a couple weeks back:

"Profit should be a means to an end. It should not be an end in itself."


It's had me pondering ever since. id be interested to hear others thoughts on this statement.

I'll have a go
Profit is used to measure the success of the enterprise. The work done was valuable and highly beneficial to society and I am rewarded with profit.
The energy or resources were correctly directed as perceived by my peers(society). Profit is the reward which allows for the successfull individual to apportion more energy and resources, the reason being is that they were once successfull in directing resources, then they might be successful again.
If resources are wastefully employed or directed, as seen by society, then there is no profit, i.e its harder for you now to try again.

Its like a numerical interpolation calculator. Profit in the market ensures that resources are distributed by the best at delivering those resources.

good response. In your analogy, is the goal the use/ distribution of energy and resources? The benefit to society? Or the creation of profit? Or maybe there's more than one goal, but which one is the most important?

yehbut_nobut wrote:

Respvblica wrote:

yehbut_nobut wrote:

Was going to post this in an existing thread, but thought it might inspire a deebate on it's own.


I read the following statement a couple weeks back:

"Profit should be a means to an end. It should not be an end in itself."


It's had me pondering ever since. id be interested to hear others thoughts on this statement.

I'll have a go
Profit is used to measure the success of the enterprise. The work done was valuable and highly beneficial to society and I am rewarded with profit.
The energy or resources were correctly directed as perceived by my peers(society). Profit is the reward which allows for the successfull individual to apportion more energy and resources, the reason being is that they were once successfull in directing resources, then they might be successful again.
If resources are wastefully employed or directed, as seen by society, then there is no profit, i.e its harder for you now to try again.

Its like a numerical interpolation calculator. Profit in the market ensures that resources are distributed by the best at delivering those resources.

good response. In your analogy, is the goal the use/ distribution of energy and resources? The benefit to society? Or the creation of profit? Or maybe there's more than one goal, but which one is the most important?

Well the goal shouldnt be the profit, but the allocation of resources to those who need them. Those who cant afford them need to work to get a profit in their own business(or work for someone who makes a profit). Thats what makes their work purposeful to society(or the section of society that is interested in what they do, which is the market). Money is evidence of profit, and that the work done served a purpose.

The fact that people want more and more things, and that that has generated lots of profit and hence wealth, is not a problem with the system but more one with human nature or those individuals who cannot be satisfied by mere food and shelter.
I suppose the alternative to profit is to set up a group or a single person with power to subjectively decide the price and the value of labour. This usually tends to be inefficient because it the people involved are not actually interested in the actual transaction.

Profit comes from the added value generated by the work put into producing something. In an economic system in which one person can employ others for wages, an individual can come by a lot of profit, which they in general invest in something else that will result in profit. It is a part of a spiral process of expansion.

It is possible to operate more or less "not for profit" i.e. taking out a wage and putting the rest back into the business. I do that myself. There is a lot of pressure though to expand and to "provide for a rainy day".

Cool responses. Just to be clear, I'm not advocating an alternative to profit, and I dont think the article I read was either.
There are some interesting terms used here, I assume they were consciously chosen: "need to work"; "purposeful to society"; "human nature"; "added value" ; "work put into producing
something" "employ others for wages"

I think it all comes down to "latent human potential" which, when you think about it is a non-physical reality. By utilising this potential, we can create "surplus" to our needs, which others can use, hence profit.

Profit is a tool which allows more basic needs to be met (food shelter etc). When these are met it allows us the freedom to develop our capacities and strive to become fully rounded as human beings (Sometimes called self actualisation). This is as true for the girl at the checkout or the guy with the shovel as it is for the Astronaut and the university lecturer.

Creating things (whether goods or services) that individuals and humanity need also leads to fulfillment, development, and betterment. Profit is a means to delivering this end, by freeing up the latent human potential.

When profit is seen as an end in itself however, the human aspect is forgotten. Human potential gets treated merely as another comodity, as "labour" to be bought and sold. Our ability to work is something that is non-physical, (dare I say even a spiritual capacity?) "Work" is seen as something that enables us to "live", but could it better to see "Life" as something that enables us to "work"?

Turnover is vanity, profit is sanity but cash is king.

Interesting stuff alright. I still don't really understand your angle cactus - I'll have to think about it a bit more. What Respvblica is saying is an angle I hadn't appreciated so much before - profit is largely a measure of the success of a business and the sign of sustainability of income (it's like a mine).

What you're saying yehbut_nobut is stimulating too - that there is a lot more than profit driving profit-makers and I'm a fan of Maslow's hierarchy of human needs and self actualisation too. This is a very benign and rose-tinted views of it but sure why not; - Overall we could as a society be striving to fulfill as many of those basic needs as we need and a lot of this might be done unconsciously. As a societal group I think there is more worth in effort put in on a co-ordinated scale like a beehive or anthill - strength in numbers - so perhaps business people strive to profit because subconsciously it is sustaining the world around them too ? I don't believe we're as gullible to buy rubbish as we think but I'm not too sure about this - I think we were suckered into buying over-inflated houses and even new cars of late when we perhaps should have had a better attitude to renting or driving second hand cars. A lot are suffering now because of that peer-pressure.

Because there is profit there is an incentive for other businesses to also grab a share of that same business. Someone creates a new market (a pc manufacturer for a new, small model for example - a netbook - or a flatter one e.g. Apple Airbook - which fell flat on its face if you ask me) so other manufacturers want a piece of that now i.e. the prospecting has been done and the oil is flowing. Some evil comes into it when a company wants desperately and greedily to protect that profit margin. In some cases the copyright or patent protects it but this is unjust in itself towards society who should dictate how long a patent can be monopolised. Some monopoly has to be allowed sometimes especially when there's plenty of risk involved (the Macbook Air again) and so profit is also a way of covering that risk.

If ibis turns up he'll say profit is what the buyer is willing to pay over and above what you paid for to create it. Or the price of something is what the buyer or market is willing to pay in general. Where human labour comes in is interesting - if I own a forest and want to spend my time cultivating and cutting down and chopping up trees for firewood using my own labour then I may see the profit or margin from that activity as of more value to me than doing another job with 'more' profit....

The reference to Maslow's hierarchy is enlightened by the way.

Well if you don't make a profit you are done and your house or any other collatoral is gone. You do not give a rat's ass about anything else. Worker's don't work for a company they work for a paycheck every Friday. Ye might be thinking of volunteers which is a different animal. If you are unable to pay your workers they forget about all the prior paychecks and they sue you.

youngdan wrote:

Well if you don't make a profit you are done and your house or any other collatoral is gone. You do not give a rat's ass about anything else. Worker's don't work for a company they work for a paycheck every Friday. Ye might be thinking of volunteers which is a different animal. If you are unable to pay your workers they forget about all the prior paychecks and they sue you.

The old paycheck is a nice thing. I vaguely remember getting them - it was like Christmas every Friday. Profit and a paycheck are different things, I think. A person can make a profit while they are lying on a beach in the Bahamas, if their money is in the right place. A paycheck means you have to be at a place of somebody else's choice and work for them.

Less at the beach than there was this last year I would guess. That is right he that pay's the piper calls the tune and we have to work for that paycheck

cactus flower wrote:

youngdan wrote:

Well if you don't make a profit you are done and your house or any other collatoral is gone. You do not give a rat's ass about anything else. Worker's don't work for a company they work for a paycheck every Friday. Ye might be thinking of volunteers which is a different animal. If you are unable to pay your workers they forget about all the prior paychecks and they sue you.

The old paycheck is a nice thing. I vaguely remember getting them - it was like Christmas every Friday. Profit and a paycheck are different things, I think. A person can make a profit while they are lying on a beach in the Bahamas, if their money is in the right place. A paycheck means you have to be at a place of somebody else's choice and work for them.

isnt that the odious thing about socialism or communism. relying on a paycheck is akin to slavery. You should be encouraged to work for yourself - to be free. With communism everyone is working for the paycheck from the state. We've become more and more like automatons and less and less like free people, but at least we can still choose.

Respvblica wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

youngdan wrote:

Well if you don't make a profit you are done and your house or any other collatoral is gone. You do not give a rat's ass about anything else. Worker's don't work for a company they work for a paycheck every Friday. Ye might be thinking of volunteers which is a different animal. If you are unable to pay your workers they forget about all the prior paychecks and they sue you.

The old paycheck is a nice thing. I vaguely remember getting them - it was like Christmas every Friday. Profit and a paycheck are different things, I think. A person can make a profit while they are lying on a beach in the Bahamas, if their money is in the right place. A paycheck means you have to be at a place of somebody else's choice and work for them.

isnt that the odious thing about socialism or communism. relying on a paycheck is akin to slavery. You should be encouraged to work for yourself - to be free. With communism everyone is working for the paycheck from the state. We've become more and more like automatons and less and less like free people, but at least we can still choose.

Ooh. Where's my popcorn?

Ibis wrote:

Ooh. Where's my popcorn?

I'll share my umbrella with you if you share the popcorn.

youngdan wrote:

he that pay's the piper calls the tune and we have to work for that paycheck

Two Questions: Where does the "paycheque" come from? What is it for?

Hermes wrote:

Ibis wrote:

Ooh. Where's my popcorn?

I'll share my umbrella with you if you share the popcorn.

Hurlers on the ditch!

Respvblica wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

youngdan wrote:

Well if you don't make a profit you are done and your house or any other collatoral is gone. You do not give a rat's ass about anything else. Worker's don't work for a company they work for a paycheck every Friday. Ye might be thinking of volunteers which is a different animal. If you are unable to pay your workers they forget about all the prior paychecks and they sue you.

The old paycheck is a nice thing. I vaguely remember getting them - it was like Christmas every Friday. Profit and a paycheck are different things, I think. A person can make a profit while they are lying on a beach in the Bahamas, if their money is in the right place. A paycheck means you have to be at a place of somebody else's choice and work for them.

isnt that the odious thing about socialism or communism. relying on a paycheck is akin to slavery. You should be encouraged to work for yourself - to be free. With communism everyone is working for the paycheck from the state. We've become more and more like automatons and less and less like free people, but at least we can still choose.

That is the choice we are often told we have - wage slaves or automata with no freedom. The other eventuality is to be unemployed. The fruits of your past work went into someone else's profits and the most you will get back is a one-off redundancy pay, maybe social security, at subsistence level, having lost one's home. That is at the moment the only option for a lot of people - nearly 2 million I think in the UK and forecast to go to 3 million people. Another option that Pax and WorldbyStorm put forward here is the Workers Co-op. In China they recently went through a phase of companies that were set up by towns and villages, in which everyone had a share, that was very successful according to Stiglitz. That means people have a say and are working for themselves. Workers Co-ops in Catalonia in the 1990s had a good record of surviving recession better than private firms - do you know if they are still going strong, or what happened to them?

China also had a system going for a while of parallel state and private production, with the marginal private production setting the market price.

The cooperatives are quite popular all over Spain, although I didnt think there was anything special about the ones in Catalonia. If I find anything I'll let you know.

There certainly has to be more openings/choices for those that become unemployed. For a start (and before we address the issue at a fundamental level) I think we've got to examine and remove all the different obstacles that people have in finding work. The monopolies , patents and trademarks, the idea of a job for life, red- tape etc.. They are all preventing people from starting their own ventures or businesses. I think a coop of small businesses in that context is a good idea.

Respvblica wrote:

The cooperatives are quite popular all over Spain, although I didnt think there was anything special about the ones in Catalonia. If I find anything I'll let you know.

There certainly has to be more openings/choices for those that become unemployed. For a start (and before we address the issue at a fundamental level) I think we've got to examine and remove all the different obstacles that people have in finding work. The monopolies , patents and trademarks, the idea of a job for life, red- tape etc.. They are all preventing people from starting their own ventures or businesses. I think a coop of small businesses in that context is a good idea.

There used to be loads of co-ops here - agricultural. Most sold out for shares in the late 1990s early 2000s. There were worker run soviets here too at one stage - most but not all agricultural, mainly in Munster. The Co-op Stores in the UK johnfas was saying used to be huge. The Credit Unions were set up in a voluntary, community way too: they could fund small business start up. There is plenty of capacity in Ireland to get things going if people wanted/needed to do that.

The paycheque comes right out of the owners bank account. The owner had better have the cash in there as the worker always goes straight to the bank to cash. As far as the worker is concerned that is the end of it. Not so for the owner though. He must now write a cheque to the government for taxes, medicare, social security, and if he is in Massachusetts he keeps writing as the state wants 5.3% and a cheque for workman's compensation. By this time the worker if he is lucky is enjoyng a few brews and complaining about the taxes he paid. He is with friends so nobody points out that it is the owner who has written the cheques for the taxes and not him. That is why we have withholding taxes so as the worker never wises up.

As regards what is the paycheque for. Well it is for whatever the hell the worker want's it to be for. He can pay his bills or he can put it up his nose. That is his business but he had better have his ass at work again in 60 hours to keep this sorry cycle of slavery going for another week.

youngdan wrote:

The paycheque comes right out of the owners bank account. The owner had better have the cash in there as the worker always goes straight to the bank to cash. As far as the worker is concerned that is the end of it. Not so for the owner though. He must now write a cheque to the government for taxes, medicare, social security, and if he is in Massachusetts he keeps writing as the state wants 5.3% and a cheque for workman's compensation. By this time the worker if he is lucky is enjoyng a few brews and complaining about the taxes he paid. He is with friends so nobody points out that it is the owner who has written the cheques for the taxes and not him. That is why we have withholding taxes so as the worker never wises up.

As regards what is the paycheque for. Well it is for whatever the hell the worker want's it to be for. He can pay his bills or he can put it up his nose. That is his business but he had better have his ass at work again in 60 hours to keep this sorry cycle of slavery going for another week.

Sad, but very accurate, description of small business. You forgot to mention that the business owner works an average 70 hours a week, has to pay for his/her own pension and does not get any benefits or payout if things go sideways. Next week he may be much worse off than the employee, who is entitled to redundancy and benefits if the company closes.

Big business is a different kettle of fish altogether.

Big business is indeed a different kittle of fish. It is thought by some that we have a free interprise capitalist system here in the US. That is not the case. What you have is massive regulation from everything from healthcare to hairdressing. This is to protect the monopolies of the big guys who can afford to pay hundreds of billions via lobbiests to the politicians. All these rules and regulations are designed to stomp the little guy. A lad running an operation of 10 people has to pay his accountant the exact same as the accountant in a company with 50 thousand workers.

In the very unlikely event that a new party might spring up in Ireland then Co Ops would be an excellent idea. Correct me if I am wrong on this point but does Labour ever promote them. That would be real socialism but only the young have any interest in socialism.

cactus flower wrote:

youngdan wrote:

The paycheque comes right out of the owners bank account. The owner had better have the cash in there as the worker always goes straight to the bank to cash. As far as the worker is concerned that is the end of it. Not so for the owner though. He must now write a cheque to the government for taxes, medicare, social security, and if he is in Massachusetts he keeps writing as the state wants 5.3% and a cheque for workman's compensation. By this time the worker if he is lucky is enjoyng a few brews and complaining about the taxes he paid. He is with friends so nobody points out that it is the owner who has written the cheques for the taxes and not him. That is why we have withholding taxes so as the worker never wises up.

As regards what is the paycheque for. Well it is for whatever the hell the worker want's it to be for. He can pay his bills or he can put it up his nose. That is his business but he had better have his ass at work again in 60 hours to keep this sorry cycle of slavery going for another week.

Sad, but very accurate, description of small business. You forgot to mention that the business owner works an average 70 hours a week, has to pay for his/her own pension and does not get any benefits or payout if things go sideways. Next week he may be much worse off than the employee, who is entitled to redundancy and benefits if the company closes.

Big business is a different kettle of fish altogether.

Most people work in small businesses, though.

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

youngdan wrote:

The paycheque comes right out of the owners bank account. The owner had better have the cash in there as the worker always goes straight to the bank to cash. As far as the worker is concerned that is the end of it. Not so for the owner though. He must now write a cheque to the government for taxes, medicare, social security, and if he is in Massachusetts he keeps writing as the state wants 5.3% and a cheque for workman's compensation. By this time the worker if he is lucky is enjoyng a few brews and complaining about the taxes he paid. He is with friends so nobody points out that it is the owner who has written the cheques for the taxes and not him. That is why we have withholding taxes so as the worker never wises up.

As regards what is the paycheque for. Well it is for whatever the hell the worker want's it to be for. He can pay his bills or he can put it up his nose. That is his business but he had better have his ass at work again in 60 hours to keep this sorry cycle of slavery going for another week.

Sad, but very accurate, description of small business. You forgot to mention that the business owner works an average 70 hours a week, has to pay for his/her own pension and does not get any benefits or payout if things go sideways. Next week he may be much worse off than the employee, who is entitled to redundancy and benefits if the company closes.

Big business is a different kettle of fish altogether.

Most people work in small businesses, though.

How much of the profit is made by small businesses?

youngdan wrote:

Big business is indeed a different kittle of fish. It is thought by some that we have a free interprise capitalist system here in the US. That is not the case. What you have is massive regulation from everything from healthcare to hairdressing. This is to protect the monopolies of the big guys who can afford to pay hundreds of billions via lobbiests to the politicians. All these rules and regulations are designed to stomp the little guy. A lad running an operation of 10 people has to pay his accountant the exact same as the accountant in a company with 50 thousand workers.

In the very unlikely event that a new party might spring up in Ireland then Co Ops would be an excellent idea. Correct me if I am wrong on this point but does Labour ever promote them. That would be real socialism but only the young have any interest in socialism.

Labour in England used to promote them: they were a regular part of life. Respvblica says there are plenty in Spain.