What is Profit?

[whitehall]

It is about making money. Don't ever ask "what is profit" at a big flea market or you might be placed in the autistic row.

Your thoughts seem half formed or half baked. I cannot explain your odd reference to a flea market. But why do you think life is all about money? So what about attaining inner peace or at least emotional stability with the world? The pursuit of money brings with it endless troubles. I'm not saying money is not valuable, it is, but if all we do is promote narcissism through profit, we are in danger. Narcissism lends itself to intolerance and fascism.

Let''s do another example, don''t ever ask "what is profit" when filing your IRS return or you might find yourself in federal prison.

 

[gnarlylove]

Clearly you arent trying to have a rational discussion.

 

[Avorysuds]

Can't have a honest discussion with a nutter like the OP. Remember Gnarlylove, if you keep arguing... that makes you right.

 

[whitehall]

Profit is good. Even left wing propaganda political action groups understand the difference. A "non-profit" status secures a tax-exempt entity. Small businesses operate on a profit margin that spells the difference between employing people or going on the government dole which is supported by the profit margin of bigger corporations and when they fail to meet the profit margin they are in turn supported by the profit margin of bigger corporations. The government doesn't earn a dime that isn't confiscated from the profits of smarter people.

 

[oldfart]

But you had a tinge of frustration for lack of a better word. Frustration over the fact you thought I was incomplete.

No, I just have a very low tolerance for tripe.

why in the world would you think I am suppose to have a thorough system laid out in each of my posts?

I don't. I spoke to the narrow issue that when you dismiss measures such as GDP without an alternative, the discussion goes nowhere. Would you agree?

I have answers to your questions but I don't want to let you get away with your nonsensical approach of critiquing someone.

As I said, I have a low tolerance for cant and tripe. Maybe you should learn to write arguments rather than borrowed slogans. If your feelings are that delicate, maybe I'm not the guy you want to have a discussion with.

Just ask me questions and leave out your bitter flavor of absurd expectations. I ask that you can recognize this shortcoming and don't let it infect our debate. It does nothing to advance dialogue nor should it be expected that each person post is a full coherent system in and unto itself (like Hegelian or Kantian system). So take your foot off the accelerator and lets discuss this like adults.

I have treated you as my professors treated me and I treated my students. This IS the Economy forum, and if you don't like how economists deal with issues, maybe you should stick to politics. And about advancing dialogue, you don't seem to have done much of it.

I don't know why you think I'm ideological. Maybe that's just your standard word for those in whom you find fault. I'm completely open to reality and think it's the foundation for understanding. Your questions are entirely valid and we must assess them using reality, not ideology.

It has something to do with your overuse of left wing slogans instead of economic arguments. You can drop the Hegelian references.

The fact is GDP doesn't correspond 1:1 as a measure of well being.

I am unaware that anyone made such an assertion. So far it is a straw man argument of your own creation.

The last link was posted in order to have a clearer understanding of how the financial system of speculation has little to do with the real economy yet we understand the economy to be doing OK when poverty is growing every day. It's only doing OK because a few people are doing so well that it balances out the measurements.

You have still failed to make a logical connection between financial markets and your OP. Or is this all just a free-flowing manifesto of yours?

You know this and I don't mean to insult your intelligence. I'm sorry your finding no relevancy for the last link, but just as our measurement that includes Wall St and Corporate profits in the well being of the economy, similarly, GDP is less a reflection on human well being and more a reflection on domestic products or an isolated aspect of human activity. Humans think in compartmentalized ways but this only tricks us into believing the rigidity of something when it's only one tiny aspect of reality that has vapid meaning in isolation.

While you obviously find all this profound, I fail to see how it bears on your OP. You may be interested in following this winding thread, but I look for a thesis and try to stick with it. You are not giving me much to work with.

In the 90s Greenspan was propounding "worker insecurity" as a major reason the economy was doing so well then. Turns out that this rubric has very little to do with the well being of a nation and a lot more to do with how well a few centers of wealth are doing.

An observation that is relevant to the OP. I'm not sure what Greenspan quote you are referencing, so I can't directly comment on it. Greenspan did have a tendency to look at a few figures from the financial markets and extrapolate from that to the general economy. This is a persistent problem with central bankers as a group; after all the regulation of financial markets is their job.

first of all, its technically a fallacy to stick with weak rubrics or positions simply because you are unaware of alternatives or that those alternatives yet to exist. That's by no means a legitimate critique! But luckily I'm not the only person who thinks this and so there are alternatives that did not exist just a decade or more ago. You're smart and can find plenty of alternatives because like I said, I'm not the only person who thinks this. So let me proffer one of the best one's I've seen. It's called the Happy Planet Index.

First, I posted that the second article in your list led back to a measure that I spoke of approvingly. I also mentioned I was aware of similar measures which had been developed. I suggested one path forward was to discuss such measures.

That said, the "Happy Planet Index" is a crock. It is based on measures of satisfaction, ecological sustainability, and life expectancy. It is not an economic measure. It is a measure of bovine utopia.

But what the real root of your problem with my language is that you align yourself with American political spectrum. You understand the parameters of debate to be right or left as defined by the establishment and media outlets. Your pursuit of truth within this narrow spectrum of thought is noble but its like banging your head on a wall because you confine yourself to limited understanding. If I am to respond on these pre-set terms of debate, you are right. We have very few alternatives to GDP within the spectrum of thought you seem to be focused on.

You have some awfully firm opinions about what I believe. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to my academic career, business endeavors, religious affiliation, political party registration, and general life experience.

What is preventing us having a productive discussion is your inability to pick a subject and stick to it. Now again, what does this exchange have to do with the concept of profit?

However, if you want to step outside of this box and ask some more foundational questions like, what should society be doing? Well, if you have a moral compass instead of a narcissistic one, we can begin to understand the reasons why GDP is flawed or more importantly, what might replace the aim of increased GDP; so simply stop concerning ourselves only with producing maximum amount of products (most are shoddy and contain planned obsolescence, the precise opposite of the concept of economy/efficiency). Instead, let's focus on building communities and outlets for activity (work, volunteer etc) that actually benefit the people and the community. Outsourcing makes total sense when you don't concern yourself with the well being of a society. It makes no sense from the perspective of human existence since it leaves millions without decent opportunities for contributing to society. 1 in 6 Americans are unemployed. We have massive resources that are not being used in capital and labor but somehow GDP is growing. Our "recovery" is totally anemic because a small sector is doing so well while the rest of slipping away into poverty. 60% of Americans will face poverty for one year or more (wikipedia "Poverty in US").

Princeton just released a study a week or so ago showing only 11% of folks who are currently unemployed can expect to find work in any given month. That means long term unemployment will continue to rise and the study concludes this trend will not reverse (how convenient it is not calculated in our ~8% unemployment measurement).

This demonstrates that the economy does not exist for humans, it exists for those at the top to plunder the rest and the world's resources. So we need to step outside this narrow paradigm of standard political discourse of the last 30 years and start asking some more foundational, moral and honest questions instead of running like a rat on a wheel with a pre-determined range of debate that precludes sensible discussion and human flourishing.

I've had this discussion with students a thousand times and frankly, it's not worth the effort. It's sophomoric in the original sense (look it up). Let me know when you find the purpose of life and can design a statistically valid and reliable way of quantifying it. Then it would be economics. As stated by you, it's pop philosophy.

The rhetoric in the last sentence is soaring. Why cannot you be motivated to have that discussion?

 

[percysunshine]

What is Profit?

So...pretend you are 5 years old, and you have a lemonade stand.

You buy lemons for 5 cents, sugar for 2 cents, squeeze and mix them with water, and then sell them to a thirsty person for $10 per glass.

You just made a profit. Everyone volunteered for the transaction.

But it wont last long, because the little red head girl next door is setting up a stand to sell the same thing for only $5 per glass....and the other neighborhood kids are watching...and getting ideas.

 

[gnarlylove]

That said, the "Happy Planet Index" is a crock. It is based on measures of satisfaction, ecological sustainability, and life expectancy. It is not an economic measure. It is a measure of bovine utopia.

Why did you spend so much of your post saying nothing but little digs and quips? This was the only meaningful thing you said because it shows the core of your belief system is not based on humanity, but is buttressed by some fundamentalist notion of Economics. The rest was reiterations of this core belief: your personal style of feigned rational disapproval without cogency or argument. Your sentence like "drop Hegel" had no meaning, as did virtually the rest of your post.

You offered no arguments; you just said "yes" "no" and "that's a crock." Well, I won't waste any more of my time. You can somehow feel like you spent time rationally critiquing my reply when all you did was waste your time convincing yourself how right you are. I was very excited for some genuine discussion but instead you revealed your desire to deny without cogent assessment of really anything I said except that you don't like it one bit. Good to know. Wish I knew why, or rather, I don't given your substance-less methodology.

Economics is at best a failed methodology for how to perceive the world. I mean how did economists not see the only thing economics is suppose to study in the housing crisis? It's because your version of economics is a fundamentalism, a dogma of markets. You wouldn't begin to think that markets have long been abandoned by states for highly interventionist policy but you continue on cloud 9 acting like because you know economics that you have any knowledge about the real world, you know, the lives of each and every human being. But what does economics really do? It is a blanket justification for abuse of human life and ecology. People should not be externalized. Systemic risk should not be externalized.

If you think somehow air, water, and biodiversity are external to the survival of mankind, you'd about the dumbest person ever, or the most educated, I can't tell the difference sometimes. If I'm understanding you correctly, externalization is the foundation of what you call "Economics." With that being the case, "Economics" is not about reality, its about some notion of market perfection that clearly no one takes seriously in policy in a developed society e.g. France, US. If you have any sensible background in academia, especially if you're a professor, I'd expect some cogency. Instead you end with such dribble like "honestly, I've had this conversation a thousand times and I'd rather not offer cogency, I'd just refer you other times when I've felt like I was right and to trust me that I'm right." Such convincing nonsense, to you. I can only expect more of the same nonsense so this conversation is done. Don't waste your time replying.

 

[oldfart]

That said, the "Happy Planet Index" is a crock. It is based on measures of satisfaction, ecological sustainability, and life expectancy. It is not an economic measure. It is a measure of bovine utopia.

Why did you spend so much of your post saying nothing but little digs and quips? This was the only meaningful thing you said because it shows the core of your belief system is not based on humanity, but is buttressed by some fundamentalist notion of Economics. The rest was reiterations of this core belief: your personal style of feigned rational disapproval without cogency or argument. Your sentence like "drop Hegel" had no meaning, as did virtually the rest of your post.

Ok, my standard method is not working with you so I will be a little more direct. My main problem with your posting is that it is superficial; you raise an issue and then proceed to be all over the place. I kept trying to steer you back into a discussion of anything discrete and you keep wandering. I understand that many people think this way. If you are one you need to learn not to write this way if you want an intelligent response.

Now on to "it shows the core of your belief system is not based on humanity, but is buttressed by some fundamentalist notion of Economics. " I am an economist. I defend how economists think about economic problems. You are writing like a bad sociologist. My objection to the "Happy Planet Index" is that it is not any kind of economic measure at all. I expressed interest in the "Genuine Progress Indicator" you apparently never got to which was referenced in your second link.

Redefining Progress - Genuine Progress Indicator

I invited you to discuss what makes a good metric. I'm waiting. Is that specific enough for you? Do you have a clue yet?

Instead of debating issues or ideas, you persist in picking fights over drivel. Stop it and reply to something concrete for a change.

You offered no arguments; you just said "yes" "no" and "that's a crock." Well, I won't waste any more of my time. You can somehow feel like you spent time rationally critiquing my reply when all you did was waste your time convincing yourself how right you are. I was very excited for some genuine discussion but instead you revealed your desire to deny without cogent assessment of really anything I said except that you don't like it one bit. Good to know. Wish I knew why, or rather, I don't given your substance-less methodology.

Good God, get a grip. You're whining now.

Economics is at best a failed methodology for how to perceive the world. I mean how did economists not see the only thing economics is suppose to study in the housing crisis? It's because your version of economics is a fundamentalism, a dogma of markets. You wouldn't begin to think that markets have long been abandoned by states for highly interventionist policy but you continue on cloud 9 acting like because you know economics that you have any knowledge about the real world, you know, the lives of each and every human being. But what does economics really do? It is a blanket justification for abuse of human life and ecology. People should not be externalized. Systemic risk should not be externalized.

OK you don't think economics is legitimate. So why the **** are you posting here? Go hang out with your Hegelian friends and discuss Marxist dialectic to your hearts content in the politics or philosophy forums.

By the way, you clearly are unfamiliar with my posting history. I told you I was a Fabian, but apparently you don't know what the term means. I'm a pretty severe critic of conservative economics (which has become an oxymoron). But my tolerance for bad analysis is not any lower for the left than it is for the right.

You might want to learn some economics. You throw out a lot of buzzwords like "systemic risk" which I see no evidence that you understand. I would feel differently if you showed some understanding of any economic term beyond is superficial meaning, but you are consistently shallow in your argument.

If you think somehow air, water, and biodiversity are external to the survival of mankind, you'd about the dumbest person ever, or the most educated, I can't tell the difference sometimes.

Good way to persuade people to your view. Name calling.

If I'm understanding you correctly, externalization is the foundation of what you call "Economics."

Find where I ever said that. It's another straw man you made up because you can't think and express yourself clearly.

With that being the case, "Economics" is not about reality, its about some notion of market perfection that clearly no one takes seriously in policy in a developed society e.g. France, US. If you have any sensible background in academia, especially if you're a professor, I'd expect some cogency. Instead you end with such dribble like "honestly, I've had this conversation a thousand times and I'd rather not offer cogency, I'd just refer you other times when I've felt like I was right and to trust me that I'm right." Such convincing nonsense, to you. I can only expect more of the same nonsense so this conversation is done. Don't waste your time replying.

You think putting words into people's mouths is an effective way of arguing?

You have a extremely elevated view of your own importance if you think I reply to you because of you. I don't. We have an audience. They are now convinced that you are an idiot and are probably on ignore. I left you a door above to have an honest discussion if you can find it. Again, its up to you.

Finally, I have been a professor and what I have done is called Socratic method. You need to look that up too.

 

[gnarlylove]

In regards to the dumbest person ever:

Why did I know that when I lowered myself to your own tactics of rude interaction and condescension that you would be highly, highly sensitive to it? Can't play your own emotionally stunted games? Maybe instead of removing a comment from its context, you might have noticed how I explained it was equally likely that you are indeed very educated because only academics can be so convinced. Nevermind, you manipulate words for your advantage instead of seeking the truth. You perceive yourself in a nimbus.

System risk, transaction(s) that lead to breakdown of the system, trust etc. which was dismissed thereby contributing to the risky nature of 08 crisis; the reason Geithner was so adamant about supporting post-Lehman. But naturally you'd assume I'm ignorant. I'm calling you out on your own terms of economics and you don't accept it. How typical.

Moving on to your accusation that I was inserting words into your mouth. I specifically stated "If I understand you correctly" leaving the obvious gap of allowing your own corrections. Instead, you just ***** that I've set up straw man arguments when I clearly have given you the chance to explain yourself. Given this chance, what do you do? You make no meaningful comment. You'd rather design yet another dig at me, deceiving yourself into thinking you'd made another successful point against my views.

Look, I'm not here to oppose you or be an antagonist. I'm aiming to understand other view points and evaluate mine against them to see if they hold water. I've had 4 fundamental transformations in my core belief system, very few people undergo 1. I am extremely open to cogent argument and am a trained critical thinker (philosopher) and know what is a cogent argument and what is a fallacy. Sadly you come on here to entertain an audience. Naw, but do you seriously think we have an audience? Are you kidding me? What a ridiculous comment that turned into an utterly hollow dig. "They are now convinced that you are an idiot and are probably on ignore." God I hope the 1 person reading this puts me on ignore just because I'm not agreeing with you. That one person, if you can't tell, is you.

I'm sorry you feel I've left you in the cold when it comes to criticizing the conservatives. I'm sure we could cling a couple of glasses over bashing other views but you can't seem to tolerate it when it's coming from a cogent source, so you say absolutely inane comments like "I just used the Socratic method. Best look it up" I mean how belittling do you need to be? I wish it was more obvious to you so you'd realize how hollow your replies really are. The Socratic method is not at all what you just did. You did not in any way turn my views on their head. You asked very few questions which is the basis of the method; no what you did was asserted your mouth off and declared yourself correct and Socratic. I seriously doubt you've even read Socrates. My discipline is in Philosophy and I don't have any use for you telling me about the Socratic method when you clearly have a totally specious understanding of the method and how to employ it.

One way to rethink our quandary is there is no significant difference in conservative and liberal economics in America. Do you think they are massively different?

Exploitation from wage labor is taken for granted in economics. Wage labor is founded on the idea that a worker will produce more than their pay. Say they are paid $10/hr. They must produce a surplus of goods/services that exceeds $10/hr otherwise the employer is making no profit. So fundamental to the system of wage labor is humans producing beyond their own need for the sake of some parasite, the employer, to benefit from this surplus with little effort. Thus, an internal conflict is inherent in wage labor

Furthermore, I already answered your only serious objection about the HPI during my first reply. Maybe instead of deluding yourself about how right you must be because your an economist, pay attention to what I'm saying, pay closer attention. I wrote, "If I am to respond on these pre-set terms of debate [within the discipline of economics], you are right. We have very few alternatives to GDP within the spectrum of thought you seem to be focused on."

That's why my suggestion, by no means the absolute or definitive alternative, was the HPI. My point is to reject economics as it stands. I understand this is your discipline and I don't deny you can do wonderful things for configuring economic policy that benefits the world. I also believe you aren't wasting your time. But as a whole, as Economics is taught in the university, its unsustainable. We can't keep churning out people who believe in its fundamental values. If you think it has room for improvement, tell me what would economics focus on more of?

As it stands economics is the tracking of money for the most part, and money is hardly the only valuable thing on the planet. The only economics I know of that doesn't involve money is natural capital, and that shrouds life itself in a value system defined by money, ultimately. Economics is a value system itself--Money Economics--and less so the study of intrinsic value. It' akin Freudian Psychology but you just call it "Psychology."

I did not claim I was an economist and yet you keep removing me from the discourse because I won't talk on your terms (and then when I do you refuse to acknowledge my validity). I am no expert, but then again, it doesn't take a genius to see that economics is hardly where the buck stops. It doesn't mean your discipline is worthless, but it means you should consider that I am making valid points. Instead, because it doesn't fit within economics, you consider it invalid. What an academic nightmare of a conversation.