Morality of Profits

[MoralLibertarian]

Why should anyone profit? Why can't business be about service? Everyone can still be paid without profit, can't they?

[Ramnath]

Profits are moral because that is what supports: the business, growth, better service, and higher wages for the owners and employees.

[fahrenheit]

Without profits people would be the same, or atleast economically.
And if people are the same that means their communist.

You dont want to be a communist do you >:(

[MoralLibertarian]

At 2/26/06 08:08 PM, Ramnath wrote: Profits are moral because that is what supports: the business, growth, better service, and higher wages for the owners and employees.

Why don't all excesses go to payment of the employees instead of a bunch of rich fat cats on Wall Street? They didn't do shit, the workers did everything.

[Ramnath]

It takes an enormous amount of effort to get a business off the ground and turn it into a successful company; the "rich fat cats" didn't get to the top by doing nothing. Your average worker doesn't get paid very well, but then again, he doesn't do a lot for the company. In this day and age, companies pay people salaries, 401k's, health benefits, and any other little things. However I suppose you are talking about cheap laborers in sweatshops right?

[nukechicken]

At 2/26/06 07:43 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: Why should anyone profit? Why can't business be about service? Everyone can still be paid without profit, can't they?

As opposed to?
The whole reason one goes into business is to profit without profit motive why would anyone risk there money starting a business. If no one starts a business there would be no new video games or anything.

[someoneudontknow1]

profits are fine, as long as they dont come from the explotation of workers or customers. Take my job for example. I work at lowes. We get great benifits, like health and dental, 401k with up to 6% matching, and stock options. Yet lowes is one of the largest chain of home improvement stores. Not a bad deal I say.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 2/26/06 08:45 PM, someoneudontknow1 wrote: profits are fine, as long as they dont come from the explotation of workers or customers.

That's the definition of profits. You're charging more for a product that isn't worth as much as you're charging just so a bunch of stockowners can get rich.

Take my job for example. I work at lowes. We get great benifits, like health and dental, 401k with up to 6% matching, and stock options. Yet lowes is one of the largest chain of home improvement stores. Not a bad deal I say.

I'm pretty sure that not all Lowes employees receive health, dental, and 401k benefits, and even if they did, their wages could stand to be higher.

Let's look at the financial statements of a company everyone knows. With McDonalds, they made 2,278.5 million dollars in profits for the year of 2004. Why do they need that much money? They could certainly afford to distribute that money to their employees. They could afford to increase employee wages. They could make more charitable contributions. They could basically use that money to help the workers of their company rather than put that money on the stock market and trade it with investors. The only people that benefit from profits are investors, and investors are not the working class that essentially run the company.

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 2/26/06 08:59 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: The only people that benefit from profits are investors, and investors are not the working class that essentially run the company.

All the more reason to stay in school, work hard, and better yourself so you have the ability to invest and get profits, too.

[someoneudontknow1]

MoralLibritarian, lowes employees own about half the lowes stock. We have just as much leverage, if not more, than the corperate suits. Thats also the reason we're not unionized: we dont need them. The profits go to expanding the business, wich includes higher wages for the workers, better training, and just all around better experience for the customer and worker alike.

[someoneudontknow1]

oh, also, our benifits include long and short term disability, legal help, and a major discount on ford and GM family cars.

[MortifiedPenguins]

I feel that Moral has been the victim of the Body Snatchers.

[Shadic-1]

You know what... I'm going to pretend to be a facist if you're going to be pretending you're a communist.

[Slizor]

You know what... I'm going to pretend to be a facist if you're going to be pretending you're a communist.

Remember to pretend poorly, it's not the same unless you don't understand the arguments that you're pretending to put forward.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 2/27/06 07:33 AM, Slizor wrote: Remember to pretend poorly, it's not the same unless you don't understand the arguments that you're pretending to put forward.

Don't worry about that, it's obvious Shadic thinks that fascism is classical liberalism. Oh, and bite me. Socialists, particularly Marxists, always argue for the collective ownership of businesses, or basically a business where all excesses are distributed to the working class. Is it excrutiatingly and mind-numbingly stupid? Yes. So change your ideology: don't complain that I'm misrepresenting it.

[TheDoctor]

This will happen because the people that inevitably rise to positions of great economic power are bastards.

[Der-Lowe]

At 2/26/06 07:43 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: Why should anyone profit? Why can't business be about service? Everyone can still be paid without profit, can't they?

Because profit are the base of investment, and without them businesses wouldn't grow. And nobody would start a business, afford the risks of bankruptcy, if they don't have the chance of being rich.

Large profits from big corporations can be solved easily. The higher the profit, the higher the tax.

[Pandaman64]

The root of quality lies in greed. For example, let's say I own a car company. It is in my best interest, in the form of PROFIT (word of the day) to make sure my company makes the best cars, at the best price, at the most profit. If I don't pay my workers well enough, then they leave for better job opportunities, and I get hosed. If I overcharge, then one of my competitors gets all my sales, and once again, I'm hosed. If I don't properly distribute money to R+D, then my products become outdated, and I proceed to get hosed (perhaps hosed should be word of the day).

Without profit, there is no reason for companies to compete over your dollar. Because after all, the companies aren't getting any of it. As such, the quality of product goes down, assuming it continues to exist at all (would you work at a job overseeing company production if you made no profit at it?). Profits are what ensures economic stability, a decent job market, and both a wide variety and relatively high quality of goods and services.

In general, out economy is sustained by people's self interest. The workers work hard and do well for thier wages, and possibly promotions/raises/etc, or they leave to a different job. The Managers work hard to ensure that the company is working at relative optimum efficiency. Without any self-interest, there is no reason to do your job, let alone do it well.

May all your sparks be blue and have a nice day (should really get around to putting this in my sig.)

[Slizor]

Don't worry about that, it's obvious Shadic thinks that fascism is classical liberalism. Oh, and bite me. Socialists, particularly Marxists, always argue for the collective ownership of businesses, or basically a business where all excesses are distributed to the working class. Is it excrutiatingly and mind-numbingly stupid? Yes. So change your ideology: don't complain that I'm misrepresenting it.

I didn't say you were misrepresenting what they would do, I said you were misrepresenting them and you are, you are misrepresenting the reasoning behind the policies. I mean, for fucks sake, you put forward a market-value based theory of value in regards to profit. Could you be any more off the mark?

[MoralLibertarian]

At 2/27/06 04:00 PM, Slizor wrote: I didn't say you were misrepresenting what they would do, I said you were misrepresenting them and you are, you are misrepresenting the reasoning behind the policies. I mean, for fucks sake, you put forward a market-value based theory of value in regards to profit. Could you be any more off the mark?

Actually, I was interested in how socialism works in practice. You know, beyond the whole "everyone gets paid the same." Can you explain it to me so I could argue it better?

[BeFell]

Perhaps if all businesses were owned by the government then all taxpayers would be like the investors and entitled to the rewards. Isn't that a good idea?

[MoralLibertarian]

At 2/27/06 04:50 PM, BeFell wrote: Perhaps if all businesses were owned by the government then all taxpayers would be like the investors and entitled to the rewards. Isn't that a good idea?

Awesome! Sign me up.

[BeFell]

At 2/27/06 04:51 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote:

At 2/27/06 04:50 PM, BeFell wrote: Perhaps if all businesses were owned by the government then all taxpayers would be like the investors and entitled to the rewards. Isn't that a good idea?

Awesome! Sign me up.

Indeed, but we're going to have to change a few things. First of all, it would be wasteful to have several different companies producing the same thing more or less so we are just going to have to settle on one version of everything. For example having both Microsoft and Apple is redundant so we should have just Microsoft. Coke and Pepsi is another example, but now that I think about it since the government will have complete control of everything manufactured we won't have to taint the market with such unwholesome items as soft drinks. Yes, prune juice for everyone. We will have a much healthier happier society.=)

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 2/27/06 04:56 PM, BeFell wrote:

At 2/27/06 04:51 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote:

At 2/27/06 04:50 PM, BeFell wrote:

Indeed, but we're going to have to change a few things. First of all, it would be wasteful to have several different companies producing the same thing more or less so we are just going to have to settle on one version of everything.

Exactly History has shown that Competition is bad for the people and Economy.

[MoralLibertarian]

Honestly, competition is obviously bad. Just cuz different firms exist on their own doesn't mean we can't still get the best products. Rather than just eliminating Apple, Microsoft and Apple should merge. That way we'd be able to use Windows AND iPods. And we could still drink two brands of cola.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 2/27/06 05:33 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: Honestly, competition is obviously bad. Just cuz different firms exist on their own doesn't mean we can't still get the best products. Rather than just eliminating Apple, Microsoft and Apple should merge. That way we'd be able to use Windows AND iPods. And we could still drink two brands of cola.

Exactly, Everyone knows that these corporations work together to take advantage of the common man.

See, now we just need a state owned corporation that can create all of these things.

[Leeloo-Minai]

At 2/27/06 05:36 PM, Fenrus1989 wrote:
Exactly, Everyone knows that these corporations work together to take advantage of the common man.

See, now we just need a state owned corporation that can create all of these things.

Welcome to the Pepsi-Cola States of Microsoft.

I wouldn't mind working for a company with that kind of power.

[peedee]

What is 'moral'?

[BeFell]

At 2/27/06 05:49 PM, peedee wrote: What is 'moral'?

Moral means everyone is happy.

[HighlyIllogical]

Moral is subjective...To a Wall Street investment banker who makes millions investing in a company that uses sweatshops, is he or she being moral? Probably. But to the sweatshop laborer, who, most likely, is actually bettering his or her nation (How do you think much of East Asia is what it is today: namely South Korea and Taiwan?), is the banker's action moral? No.