TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- do you belive that there is such as thing as a 'just profit'
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

do you belive that there is such as thing as a 'just profit'

if so, what seems fair and what is out of bounds? if not, why not?

Re: do you belive that there is such as thing as a 'just profit'

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange if so, what seems fair and what is out of bounds? if not, why not?

Yes. What is "fair" is a mutually agreeable price at which buyers and sellers are willing to transact with each other.

So, that means that Wal-Mart is a just company? I dont think the initial question has been answered yet ...

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium So, that means that Wal-Mart is a just company? I dont think the initial question has been answered yet ...

How so? He asked what constitutes "just profits" not what constitutes a "just company." What point is it that you're trying to make? Don't ask a leading question if you're not going to say where you're going with it.

Profit is just up to the point at which the buyer has no choice but to buy.

Re: Re: do you belive that there is such as thing as a 'just profit'

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Yes. What is "fair" is a mutually agreeable price at which buyers and sellers are willing to transact with each other.

one additional comment - all material information should be known by both buyer and seller.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Profit is just up to the point at which the buyer has no choice but to buy.

When does a buyer not have a choice?

3.25%

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka When does a buyer not have a choice?

One instance are businesses whose revenue depends on a supply of fuel. Also monopolies.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton One instance are businesses whose revenue depends on a supply of fuel. Also monopolies.

Monopolies don't necessarily force anyone to buy their products. The closest thing I can think of that would fit that criticism would be Microsoft in the 1990s with the explosion of Windows. However, as much as people may complain and point fingers at them, I think that the productivity gains and technological innovation that was significantly driven by Microsoft is justification enough for the billions of dollars that went into Bill Gates (and the millions of MSFT shareholders') pockets. Furthermore, Gates is the largest single charitable doner in the world today so he gets a little credit in my book. Also, it's not like MSFT charged an exorbitant price for Windows. People certainly always had the option of getting a Mac, but at the time, Microsoft simply offered a superior product. So I'm really a bit hard pressed to conclude that MSFT's profits as a monopoly were "unjust." I think we're straying from the topic a bit--perhaps you have more specific examples without just giving a broad based generalization?

If you create wealth you justly deserve a profit.

quote:

Originally posted by Zild If you create wealth you justly deserve a profit.

is it just when someone creates wealth by trading securities on insider information while oridinary investors are losing?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Monopolies don't necessarily force anyone to buy their products. The closest thing I can think of that would fit that criticism would be Microsoft in the 1990s with the explosion of Windows. However, as much as people may complain and point fingers at them, I think that the productivity gains and technological innovation that was significantly driven by Microsoft is justification enough for the billions of dollars that went into Bill Gates (and the millions of MSFT shareholders') pockets. Furthermore, Gates is the largest single charitable doner in the world today so he gets a little credit in my book. Also, it's not like MSFT charged an exorbitant price for Windows. People certainly always had the option of getting a Mac, but at the time, Microsoft simply offered a superior product. So I'm really a bit hard pressed to conclude that MSFT's profits as a monopoly were "unjust." I think we're straying from the topic a bit--perhaps you have more specific examples without just giving a broad based generalization?

High oil prices from futures speculation. No offense against the traders, but if they don't need the oil, touch the oil, etc., I don't think they should trade it. It skews supply and demand. People don't really have a choice when it comes to buying gasoline for their cars. Unless you live in a city like New York City, Chicago, or LA, you pretty much have to drive to get anywhere. Like going to work, school, grocery store, etc. etc. When worldwide demand grows a mere 1%, but the price of oil practically doubles in a year, something is wrong. And it ain't the supply and demand equation of oil consumption.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton High oil prices from futures speculation. No offense against the traders, but if they don't need the oil, touch the oil, etc., I don't think they should trade it. It skews supply and demand. People don't really have a choice when it comes to buying gasoline for their cars. Unless you live in a city like New York City, Chicago, or LA, you pretty much have to drive to get anywhere. Like going to work, school, grocery store, etc. etc. When worldwide demand grows a mere 1%, but the price of oil practically doubles in a year, something is wrong. And it ain't the supply and demand equation of oil consumption.

Are you aware that many of the earlier "speculators" in oil made huge bets on the short side and lost their shorts when they were forced to cover much higher? One of the beautiful things about a capitalist, free-market society is that people are allowed to take risks in pursuit of profit. It's only when there are social negatives (i.e. high gas prices) that suddenly we no longer like the free market and crave more government regulation and intervention.

Yeah, sure, things start off with "just" and then as the company becomes bigger, more powerful, they tend to carry out immoral and illegal activities. They develop gears and backing they can use to satisfy their bottom line. And I am not even talking about their involvement in world politics.

Thats what I am getting at. Sure, one nice profit from a transparent transaction is fine and dandy. But by most part, many companies get greedy - its in their nature to get more profits every year. Corporate crime is the number one in terms of $$$. How about "just" profits which result in deaths of people, and pollution and destruction of the environment? Sure, its "just", but who cares about things affected on the way?

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 is it just when someone creates wealth by trading securities on insider information while oridinary investors are losing?

When I say create wealth I mean something like Steve Wozniak creating the first Apple microcomputer in his garage because he wanted a computer for his house. He never thought everyone would want or even have a need for a personal computer, but look at where we are less than 50 years later.

What you're talking about is just being an asshole businessman, and rarely do businessmen create wealth. Most of the people creating wealth these days are in the tech sector.

quote:

Originally posted by Zild When I say create wealth I mean something like Steve Wozniak creating the first Apple microcomputer in his garage because he wanted a computer for his house. He never thought everyone would want or even have a need for a personal computer, but look at where we are less than 50 years later.

fair enough

quote:

Originally posted by Zild What you're talking about is just being an asshole businessman, and rarely do businessmen create wealth. Most of the people creating wealth these days are in the tech sector.

if you mean 'financial industry' businessmen i certainly don't agree with your statement. while tech innovation is certain a key wealth creator, without the venture capital brought by the 'businessmen', the tech guys wouldn't be creating any wealth at all.

Well you can't do anything without capital, but those lending it aren't creating anything. It is the tech guys who are creating the wealth. Sure venture capitalists facilitate that but they aren't the ones doing the heavy lifting.

quote:

Originally posted by Zild Well you can't do anything without capital, but those lending it aren't creating anything. It is the tech guys who are creating the wealth. Sure venture capitalists facilitate that but they aren't the ones doing the heavy lifting.

i understand what you mean but i think you're characterizing it the wrong way. wealth creation is more than developing an idea. As the old saying goes, "it takes money to make money." The money is actually doing just as much to create the wealth because without the money the idea would never get off the ground.

I think corporations have an obligation to ensure that their profits are generated in accordance with all relevant laws and environmental concerns. The idea that business generates all this wealth "by itself" (as opposed to wealth being generated by say, graduates from subsidised learning institutions) is nonsense. They should have as much responsibility in society as any other sector.

But the fact of the matter is that corporations DON'T obey the laws as much as the rest of us might. Just check out any of the reports by frontline.

i dont agree with making a line in the sand on profits, but if companies making obscene amounts of money are caught doing the wrong thing the punitive damages should be equally obscene.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 i understand what you mean but i think you're characterizing it the wrong way. wealth creation is more than developing an idea. As the old saying goes, "it takes money to make money." The money is actually doing just as much to create the wealth because without the money the idea would never get off the ground.

I see what you're saying but what I mean by creating wealth is solving a problem. Wozniak didn't need much money to engineer the first Apple microcomputer. He actually funded it himself with some of the money coming from selling his prized graphing calculator and the rest from working at PARC.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Are you aware that many of the earlier "speculators" in oil made huge bets on the short side and lost their shorts when they were forced to cover much higher? One of the beautiful things about a capitalist, free-market society is that people are allowed to take risks in pursuit of profit. It's only when there are social negatives (i.e. high gas prices) that suddenly we no longer like the free market and crave more government regulation and intervention.

With a commodity as important as oil, I don't believe it should be traded by anyone who has no use for the oil. I think the only ones who should be trading oil futures are those who plan on actually taking possession of the oil or fuel itself.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton With a commodity as important as oil, I don't believe it should be traded by anyone who has no use for the oil. I think the only ones who should be trading oil futures are those who plan on actually taking possession of the oil or fuel itself.

speculators who purchased calls in the $140s and $150s just lost a shit-ton of money. you can bet they will sit out of the market for a good amount of time. I wish i purchased some puts at those prices: big profits right now!!!

Speculation doesn't affect the long range pricing of the commodity. Obviously, however, it drives volatility and short term pricing; but it doesn't change the long range fundamentals. Supply and demand still play the dominant role. A free market will always sort these situations out, however, people must be patient. It works better than regulation if people have the patience.

Re: do you belive that there is such as thing as a 'just profit'

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange if so, what seems fair and what is out of bounds? if not, why not?

What I consider to be unfair and out of bounds:

• Making profits off products that require a proganada campaign (i.e. most modern advertising) to convince people to buy things they don't need. Virtually all modern economies would collapse if this practice disappeared.
  
• From products that harm customer in the long run.
  
• Making profits while simoutaneously imposes large external costs is not only unfair, but irresponsible (and reflects an disgusting disregard of other human beings) .
  
• Generating profits via interest based loans, and statistically, most people wouldn't be able to pay back in a life time (in more honest terminology, extortion). Fractional Reserve banking would cease to exist if we did away with interest based banking.
  
• Profits relying on fear and ignorance of people (organized religion).
  
• An industry where private interests rely on warfare to exists and generate obsenely large profits, like the weapons manufacturing industry and companies involved in reconstruction (especially post war periods).
  

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.