How does anything improve without the profit incentive...

[Redfish]

Profit has a definition.



you have to accept FACTS or you are worthless to this country

profit has a definition in accounting, in tax law, and in a much more general sense. The definition you posted covers all definitions.

You look really stupid by trying to ignore some of the definitions.

If the thread is to be assumed as using the all inclusive use of the term "profit," then it's worthless.

the OP did not limit it to financial profit. If you want to redefine the thread go right ahead.

The point remains that people invent things and innovate in order to "profit" from that activity.

 

[Indeependent]

profit has a definition in accounting, in tax law, and in a much more general sense. The definition you posted covers all definitions.

You look really stupid by trying to ignore some of the definitions.

If the thread is to be assumed as using the all inclusive use of the term "profit," then it's worthless.

the OP did not limit it to financial profit. If you want to redefine the thread go right ahead.

The point remains that people invent things and innovate in order to "profit" from that activity.

Such as paying an electric bill or filling the gas tank?

 

[Redfish]

If the polio vaccine founder was motivated by profit, he'd have patented it.

If the discoverer of penicillin use in medicine was motivated by profit, he'd have patented it.

both declined, citing ethics.

Is recognition by the medical community and humanity in general not a form of profit?

Did Salk not profit by the fact that his name will forever be remembered?

You're conflating the spirit of the discussion.

Is helping humanity in general not a "profit" in your use of the word?

Sure, but the OP is referencing Capitalism, not "every invention ever was made because the inventor had a reason."

It's just useless psychobabble.

OK. lets go back to the cave man who invented animal skin clothing.

there was no money in those days, and no accountants.

But the guy "profitted" by having a longer life, more females, more food, and a higher place in the tribe. and yes, the whole tribe profitted from his invention.

Take money out of the thinking and maybe you will understand what "profit" really means.

 

[The Rabbi]

Also - profiting from your idea doesn't automatically make profit your motive for creating it.

No but usually it's the case.
What hangup do you have admitting people generally do things for profit? I mean, that is the case overwhelmingly. The number of counter examples is absurdly small and trivial.
Oh yeah, the left considers money and its pursuit somehow evil. Like medieval priests did.

So we're shifting from all to usually?

Sweet, what do I win?

So if you can show one case in thousands of years where someone did something out of completely altruistic motives then you win the debate? Sweet, where do I sign up for that deal?

The truth is that the vast majority is as I and other say. The very tiny minority are outliers. Penicillin was discovered, not founded, by several people. Thus no patent.

 

[Redfish]

If the thread is to be assumed as using the all inclusive use of the term "profit," then it's worthless.

the OP did not limit it to financial profit. If you want to redefine the thread go right ahead.

The point remains that people invent things and innovate in order to "profit" from that activity.

That's not a point, at all.

It really isn't.

No person, EVER, doesn't know that.

If he is better off after the invention than he was before it, has he not profitted from it?

 

[Indeependent]

The OP explicitly mentions Business.

 

[Redfish]

If the thread is to be assumed as using the all inclusive use of the term "profit," then it's worthless.

the OP did not limit it to financial profit. If you want to redefine the thread go right ahead.

The point remains that people invent things and innovate in order to "profit" from that activity.

And by the way, the OP only references financials.

Most college economists don't believe in profits, is what he said.

If he's using the term the way you're trying to use it, meaning "any benefit period," then his statement is beyond retarded that they don't "believe" in it.

Of COURSE he's talking about financials.

many college econ profs tend to be far left liberals, I think that is what he meant.

 

[Redfish]

The OP explicitly mentions Business.

Ok, business only.

No business can continue to operate by just breaking even (not making profit).

If the business chooses to plow the profit back into the business or to pay it to the employees to avoid having it taxed does not negate the fact that it collected more than it spent in its business.

 

[Redfish]

Redfish I'll save you some time.

If you're defining profit as "any benefit period," NOBODY IS ARGUING WITH YOU, NOBODY WOULD ARGUE WITH YOU, AND IT'S A MEANINGLESS DISCUSSION.

You're consistently responding in such a manner that you think that anyone is arguing with that.

Nobody is. Which means - if the OP is referencing the word "profit" to mean "any benefit period," it's a dumb ******* thread because EVERY PERSON EVER knows that inventions/advancements are made for "some benefit period."


The others are having the ACTUAL discussion: which is financial profit vs. other motives. The discussion you're having is meaningless.

I did not take the discussion there, I was merely pointing out the errors in thought processes of others.

If we want to limit it to financial profit, fine.

Now, let me save you some time. Yes, some people have invented things without the profit motive, but the vast majority of inventions have come about because the inventor believed that he could sell his invention and make a PROFIT.

 

[NYcarbineer]

thats funny, do you think the CEOs of your credit union and power company do not get paid? All "non-profit" means in these cases is that they have no "taxable" profit. They make a profit from operations and then either pay it to the employees as bonuses or put into expansion of the business.

I am not making a value judgement on whether that is good or bad, just pointing out that you do not understand how it works.

You have no idea what a profit is.

Nope, thats you. Profit is the difference between income and expenses. Non-profits make that number a zero by spending or distributing "profits". Your power company is probably a co-op that gives each subscriber a rebate at the end of each year rather than declare a profit.

We are trying to educate you, but you have to pay attention.

Which means that my power company has no incentive to make a profit because it has to give it back to the customer.

And yet it is a better deal for the consumer than an electric company that has a profit incentive.

My credit union is owned by the customers. They are customers and shareholders. There is no incentive for the credit union to make a profit, because the profit would come from the customers,

and then go back to the customers who are also the shareholders.