Are there any two more evil words than "for profit"?

[ConsAreLiars]

Someone asks "why?" and that is the answer and justification: "For profit."

Why are people denied health services? And that is the answer and justification: "For profit."

Why are people's homes taken from them? And that is the answer and justification: "For profit."

Why is our air, water and food becoming toxic? And that is the answer and justification: "For profit."

Why are our kids' becoming diabetic and autistic and poisoned and deformed in too may ways to list? And that is the answer and justification: "For profit."

Why are the other beings on this planet experiencing the 6th great extinction? For profit, yet one more time. Same shit repeated. "For profit."

And the "so-what-who-cares-it's-just-collateral-damage" for-profit collaborators (gullible-at-best) continue to suck KoolAid and defend the system that does nothing more than sicken, impoverish, divide and destroy actual humans and their real world.

Etcetera, ad nauseam, and blah-blah-blah.

Some argue that "for profit" is what-makes-the-world-go-around.

To me, that goal of "for profit" as a driving force, expresses the greatest evil imaginable. A rapist/robber/thug justifying his crimes by saying it was OK because it was in his own self interest to commit them.

"For profit" is destroying both the planet and any claims we might have to being "human" in the sense usually conveyed in the word "humane." Humans have brought into being totally destructive synthetic beings that are eating the whole planet and leaving only ecological devastation and human suffering in their wake.

[1]

1. oh please... how is it you think there are such things as "health services" or "homes???"

folks just discover and distribute medicine, and construct structures for us to live in for free? no one gets to "profit" from any activity?

my god, are you that naive?

i truly hope you are under 12 years old. otherwise such statements should be met with "grow the fuck up."

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DaveofCali]

9. So greed should be the motivator for doing things?

Interesting, because greed and selfishness are the root of much of the evil in this world. Interesting enough, the system itself rewards doing bad things because making profit itself encourages screwing others to increase how much profit one makes. In this game of profits, cheating and sabotaging people around you is rewarded. Now, how is this any good for society?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

29. Getting rid of the profit motive doesn't eliminate greed.

It just channels greed into other areas.

[billh58]

39. It's too bad

that Orwell's Animal Farm isn't required reading for the masses...

[BzaDem]

43. Why in the world do you think that you can change "greed" or "the motivator for doing things?"

Good luck with your upgrade to human nature.

[WeDidIt]

19. +1

The OP is the most ridiculous pile of bullshit ever posted on DU.

[Raineyb]

28. Your answer is beyond ridiculous. There are things for which the profit motive

is utterly inappropriate and those are the things for which we have government. And where government is not the appropriate entity to run things they damn sure should regulate the hell out of the industry to prevent abuse. We do not just let the profit motive run amok.

Your comment sounds like libertarian nonsense which has nothing to do with the real world as it is.

[BzaDem]

44. The OP is laughably saying that "for profit" is "evil" as a general concept (in all cases).

It is this kind of 12-year-old-thinking that the poster was responding to. Not the idea that "for profit" doesn't work in some cases when left to its own devices.

[Raineyb]

60. The examples given with one exception are areas where governments in other countries take over.

When the OP starts referring to the profit motive involved in selling television then you'd have a point. Otherwise the comment I referred to is red baiting bullshit designed not to have a conversation but to be an asshole for really not a particularly good reason.

[W_HAMILTON]

45. You are confused.

Using your rationale, people that work in non-profit organizations do so for "free."

This is obviously not the case.

Stakeholders benefit from non-profit organizations. Shareholders benefit from for-profit corporations.

There is a difference.

[robdogbucky]

2. Perpetual growth?

Unlimited resources?

Intelligent design?

Diminishing returns?

Cognitive dissonance?

Military expansion?

Military intelligence?

Urban sprawl?

Unplanned economy?

[MichellesBFF]

15. Sounds like cancer to me

[habitual]

3. "without conscience" n/t

[proteus_lives]

4. Are there any two more evil words than "for profit"?

Yeah.

"Sieg Heil!"

[Uben]

5. Of course

"Family values", "corporate lobbyist", "trickle down", "states secret", "extraordinary rendition", and "religious right", to name a few.

"For profit" is not so bad when you look at the big scope of things. Nobody goes into business "to lose". Profits aren't bad unless you use the two words "unscrupulous greed" with it.

The worst two words I can think of are "Dick Cheney" and "neo-con". Those have brought this country to it's knees.

[robdogbucky]

26. Don't forget

Supply side

Faith-based initiative

Compassionate conservative

Calvinist ethic

Tax-avoidance industry

Think tanks

Domestic terrorism

Hidden persuaders

Advertising industry

[Hardrada]

6. I do.

:sarcasm:

[Fla_Democrat]

22. Bwahahaha

:rofl: :evilgrin:

:yourock:

[EFerrari]

7. What about "national security"?

[earcandle]

10. Whoah! Don't throw the baby out with the dirty bath water infested with the machiavellian breed....

Check out how accounting works and then you can see how useful it is when there is a profit: you can pay taxes on it and allow more funding of services and infrastructure. Or we can reinvest it into the business and use it for the next year for marketing, research and development, or we can dole it out to our partners and coworkers, buy more benefits niceties, bonuses, fringes when profitable..\

GAAP Principles of Accounting make the flow of resources from balance sheet to p and l and back to the balance sheet trackable, auditable and documented legal information from which to build and grow. Accounting Made Simple. An Audit with some intention to do its job would discover fraud easily. If everyone has to pay tax, a small amount spread around, or relative to one's income, then we could afford to be a first rate country again.

In future, I think we have to watch what kind of businesses we want to support and use for major infrastructure planning and growth. We have to plan for our population work force flow. If a company is not producing goods and services that make a difference in the quality of life, then it should be banned. If the business produces a good or service and supplies a genuine need, or art or science or humanity driven sport, research and/or development then the reward for this production shows up as extra money.

However, if operating from a stealth or trick economy, or producing goods or services that cause fear, disease or sickness, from war, crime or disease or shelter services for breeders of same, than I agree we could do without these "Profit" industries. Like Prisons for Profit, and Xe.

No one wants to be used as someone's fodder. We don't want to lose the quality of life that arises out of a cultured and educated population (the education of the entire population, so, like in France, everyone can converse with civility on the chin). It takes profits to generate the resources that provide us with stable government. We want our taxes providing necessary infrastructure with all of the rights and privileges we have earned and learned, generously funded.

I am not happy that we have recently added on a entirely new infrastructure around security issues, products and services, created out of theater, using psychopaths and thieves.

Whether non profit or profit, everyone wants to earn more money and when you make profits you bonus out at the end of the tax year. Bonuses aren't bad, nor are brand new shiny modern assets!

If we were all in business for ourselves or working for companies making a difference, or in true government service, then we would not be living with the archaic issues imposed upon us....



Animal Panic is our latest song coming out soon.
SheepDogs is another...

we are having fun in our music studio!
I do hope we can lower the panic volume and get some stability in our use of language.

[lillypaddle]

11. The only reason I have a job right now

and am able to buy food & pay rent, is that the man I work for makes a profit. We all despise immoral & unethical "for profit" organizations, but it's simplistic to say that all for profits are evil and should be abolished. Why are so many people unemployed right now? Their employers can't afford to keep them. What is the alternative in a free society?

On edit: I just unrec'd.

[Crabby Appleton]

14. I agree nt

[W_HAMILTON]

46. The reason why people are unemployed is because...

...companies need to maintain their profits.

You are mistaken. You think that none of these corporations laying people off are making a profit? Of course some are. They just aren't making as much of a profit as they desire, so they lay people off to meet expectations.

And I think a distinction needs to be made between small companies and corporate giants. For a small company, the owner's "profit" may simply be akin to a decent salary.

[OHdem10]

12. For Profit --not evil. For Profit could be used and is used for good.

It always depends on the people and how "for profit" is used.

[Echo In Light]

13. Profits Over People is pure religion for many

K&R

[NoPasaran]

16. "Limp Bizkit"?

[proud2BlibKansan]

17. Yes. "Whites Only"

[SmileyRose]

21. +1

[WeDidIt]

18. Most. Ridiculous. Question. Asked. On. DU. EVER!

:eyes:

[undergroundpanther]

31. When do you have enough?

Is that a silly question?
I think not. It is a question every rich asshole and every profit seeking thief should ask THEMSELF.

[Raineyb]

32. The question is not ridiculous. Your nasty answer on the other hand... is. n/t

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

33. Did you build the computer you typed that on from its core constituent materials?

Did you dig the copper out of the ground and refine it yourself? No? Then why are you supporting this evil for-profit system?

[Raineyb]

34. And if you'd bother to read I wrote further up that there are areas where the profit motive

is not appropriate and that government should step in. Otherwise government should regulate the hell out of them to keep them from being abusive. I have no issue with things being for profit. But when it comes to things that affect the health and well being of the populace the profit motive should not have any business being involved.

But I suppose bringing up ridiculous straw men in an attempt to be pithy is easier than you know reading.

And I did build my computer.

[StarfarerBill]

20. I agree...

...because so many of the other evils mentioned in this thread are done precisely for that reason: profit.

[Cid_B]

23. You fit neatly..

in the South Park category of "College know-it-all" hippie.

_____________________________________________________

Stan: So it seems like we have enough people now. When do we start taking down the corporations?
Hippie (takes a drag on his joint): Yeah man, the corporations. Right now they're raping the world for money!
Kyle: Yeah, so, where are they? Let's go get 'em.
Hippie: Right now we're proving we don't need corporations. We don't need money. This can become a commune where everyone just helps each other.
Hippie: Yeah, we'll have one guy who like, who like, makes bread. A-and one guy who like, l-looks out for other people's safety.
Stan: You mean like a baker and a cop?
Hippie: No no, can't you imagine a place where people live together and like, provide services for each other in exchange for their services?
Kyle: Yeah, it's called a town.

[robdogbucky]

24. Typical for you too

"South Park Republican" is a popular term that first circulated in weblogs and articles on the Internet between the years circa 2001 and 2002, used to describe what some modern authors claimed to be a "new wave" or generation of young adults and teenagers who hold center-right political beliefs that are, in general, aligned with those portrayed in the popular American animated television program South Park.

The phrase was coined by commentator Andrew Sullivan<1> in 2001. Sullivan identified himself as a South Park Republican after hearing that the program's creators had "outed" themselves as Republicans at an awards ceremony.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Park_Republican

[dysfunctional press]

25. there's nothing wrong with profit.

how it's gained and what it's used for are where things go wrong.

[robdogbucky]

27. Bingo

The original concept of profit, or in its original forms, capital, was supposed to be what a laborer worked for, a piece of the action so to speak. They, in theory, would reap the real fruits of their labor on behalf of the "capitalist," who in turn rewarded them with a piece of the capital pie.

Instead Calvinism dominated and it became easier to give out wages in the form of money, which changes in value and can be strictly controlled. An "employee," can also be terminated on a whim in most instances and never has any say in the operations or planning. A glaring weakness in many cases where the laborer is the most knowledgeable party about the product of service. A person with capital has a say in the operation creating the profit and this became an intolerable notion to those 1% that succeeded in convincing the other 99%, the labor, to be "employed," for wages. Not exactly capital or capitalism, but a kind of Calvinistic feudalism.

"The Roman arena was technically a level playing field. But on one side were the lions with all the weapons, and on the other the Christians with all the blood. That's not a level playing field. That's a slaughter. And so is putting people into the economy without equipping them with capital, while equipping a tiny handful of people with hundreds and thousands of times more than they can use."
--Louis O. Kelso in Bill Moyers: A World of Ideas, (1990)


Just my dos centavos

robdogbucky

[undergroundpanther]

30. Profit is THEFT

Getting more for the same thing.You sell something at profit you sell for as much as you can get out of the other person.
Profit is evil.It is theft

[cali]

50. fucking bullshit

just ridiculous. Profit is not an innate rip off of another.

[Odin2005]

35. The Angry God of Profit has destroyed our society.

We as a society has internalized the lie taught in economics textbooks and spewed by corporate propagandists that humans are "rational utility-maximizers" that "do things in their own selfish self-interest". It is a sick, disturbing conception of Mankind. Capitalist ideology is nothing but a justification for Sociopathy.

[theophilus]

36. I appreciate your thoughts on this. There are many bad things in our culture done by bad people. nt

[JoeyT]

37. Prostate examination

[Jim Lane]

38. "God's will"

The harm that has been done in the name of religion greatly exceeds the harm that has been done in the name of profit.

In both cases, of course, there is some good to be noted. I agree that I have a computer on which to access DU because Hewlett-Packard wanted to make a profit, not because anyone at HP was worried that I might miss the Top Ten Conservative Idiots. Also, within a mile of where I comfortably sit, there are people sheltering in a church who otherwise would be (literally) out in the cold.

Nevertheless, there is a very dark underside to capitalism and to organized religion, an underside that seldom gets reported in the establishment media.

[Jester Messiah]

40. So I should go to work and do my job... for free?

Sorry pal, don't think so.

[W_HAMILTON]

47. Another confused person.

There are plenty of wealthy individuals that work at non-profit organizations.

Non-profit does not mean free.

It means that all the money earned is reinvested in the company, the workers, the consumers, etc. What a horrible thing! :sarcasm:

For-profits and non-profits both make money (at least they hope to). The difference is where the money goes.

[Jester Messiah]

51. Hello, confused person. Kind of you to self-identify.

Profit is revenue minus cost to produce. If profit is re-invested back into the company, workers, etc., it's still profit!
Crack a book for f*ck's sake.

[W_HAMILTON]

55. So, if a for-profit company acts as a non-profit by reinvesting its entire earnings...

...then it is good. OK, gotcha. Great point. Are you trying to make my argument for me?

Most for-profit companies do not completely reinvest their profits. If they did, the OP wouldn't have posted his/her message, and this would not be an issue. Most organizations are in the business of generating the greatest profit possible to benefit their shareholders. If this means laying off workers, cutting wages, providing less service, lowering quality -- none of it matters, because they are in the business of making a profit first and foremost.

[Jester Messiah]

59. My point is that you don't understand what profit is.

Not-for-profit companies still turn a profit. They just have different applications of that profit, which is what I believe you are attempting to address. This whole concept of "Profit is teh eeeeeebil!" is just stupid, though. If you're not making a profit, you don't have any wherewithal to expand your services, research new cures, or do whatever it is that you got into business to do.

[W_HAMILTON]

63. I understand what it is.

There is a difference in making a profit and making money.

As you yourself pointed out, profit is revenue minus costs.

You aren't technically turning a profit, if all your "profits" are pumped back into your business, creating an equality between revenues and expenses. At least this is the case for non-profits. They do not have a surplus of funds, because any surplus of funds is immediately used to further the business.

You don't have to make a profit to expand your business. You do, however, have to make money.

[BzaDem]

41. Your question incorrectly assumes that the words "for profit" are actually evil in the first place.

You also incorrectly assume that people (in general) making a profit are somehow rapists/robbers/thugs/etc etc etc.

And you don't even try to deny that "for profit" is indeed what allows our economy to work. You just proclaim that it is the "greatest evil imaginable." You talk as if removing profit motive actually changes human nature in the slightest bit.

In reality, if you had the system you want, we would be living in the stone age. There would be few health services to deny in the first place. There would be few homes to take. But understanding this would require understanding the idea that the consequences of an economic system can be indirect. And I really don't expect you to comprehend that, at least for another several years. I have to agree with another comment in this thread, in that I think I am talking to a 12 year old.

[W_HAMILTON]

48. It seems like a lot of people are making the mistake...

...of confusing non-profit with "free."

I can see why misinformed people are upset with your post, but I agree with your general sentiment. But, of course, that's probably because I understand how a non-profit organization actually works.

[BzaDem]

49. I don't think anyone is making that mistake. I certainly am not.

I fully understand what a non-profit organization is. That doesn't change my point one bit. The profit motive (i.e. for-profit organizations, as distinct from non-profit organizations) are what allows our economy to work, and are what have brought us the standard of living we have today.

This is not to say that there aren't many problems with for-profit organizations (especially unregulated for-profit organizations). It is also not to say that certain industries should not be for profit, or that there isn't an important role for non-profit organizations. But the idea that the entire economy could sustain itself as it is now completely with non-profits is just as ridiculous as saying that the economy could sustain itself if everything were free.

[W_HAMILTON]

52. Then instead of being confused, you are just wrong.

Our economy would have just as many advancements, if not more, if it was comprised mainly of non-profit organizations. You wouldn't have to cut back on R&D just to meet the market's EPS expectation. You wouldn't have to lay off workers because you desperately need to maintain or exceed profit expectations.

In a perfect world, your view of for-profits may be correct, but we live in something far from that. Lately, profit-seeking motives have seemed to do more harm than good, especially when it comes to these advancements you speak highly of.

In your ideal for-profit world, a person with AIDS would live a lifetime by spending thousands of dollars on health-maintaining drugs. In my ideal non-profit world, a person with AIDS would be permanently cured. This is because for-profit focuses on profit, and non-profit focuses on service.

For-profit needs to keep their shareholders happy, and they do that by making a profit.
Non-profit needs to keep their stakeholders happy, and they do that by generating the best service possible.

[Jester Messiah]

53. Arrogant much?

Your ideal does not scale well. Most ideals don't. Maybe you ought to focus more on practice and less on theory.

[W_HAMILTON]

56. But for-profit does?

We certainly know that is not the case.

You're welcome to point out the problems we would have if companies reinvested all of their earnings into their company, their workers, and their consumers.

[BzaDem]

57. "In my ideal non-profit world, a person with AIDS would be permanently cured."

If by "cured," you mean "dead," then yes. You are correct. Someone who is dead by definition no longer has AIDS. Or, if you mean "cured" and alive, please tell me which people are going to invest a billion dollars to research an AIDS cure (90% of which fail and result in all investment being lost) with no hope of a large return.

Or in general, in your fantasy world, please tell me who is going to invest millions of dollars or more (possibly peoples' entire livelihoods) to start/finance ANY company with no hope of a massive reward, when most startups fail (taking some or all of the entire initial investment down with them).

"You wouldn't have to cut back on R&D just to meet the market's EPS expectation." This is true, as there is no money that could possibly go to R&D in your fantasy world (and $0 can't be cut further).

"You wouldn't have to lay off workers because you desperately need to maintain or exceed profit expectations." True again -- it is very difficult to lay off workers when you have none, since you had no money to pay them to start with.

The scary part is that you actually think you know what you are talking about. You think you are so smart, as you believe your fantasy "non-profit" world is somehow radically different than a Soviet-style centrally planned economy (and that anyone who disagrees simply "misunderstands" or is "wrong"). When in reality, in your fantasy world, either there is no capital to allocate, or the government is what allocates all capital (since there is no incentive for private parties to do so), and the entire economy is centrally planned.

If you want to ignore history and argue that a centrally planned economy is the way to go, be my guest.

:rofl:

[W_HAMILTON]

58. The reward wouldn't be a "large" return...

...the reward would be continuing to sustain your way of life, which can in fact involve making plenty of money. As I've already said, there are many wealthy individuals who work for non-profit organizations. If you falsely believe that non-profits = no money, then I can see why you rattle off a list where you point out there will be no money available.

Your premise is completely wrong. The same organizations that are for-profit today, could easily become non-profit simply by diverting their earnings.

As for your comment about the Soviet system, I have not one mentioned the government in any of my posts. The government would not need to own, nor control, the resources. My ideal would be more socialist, although not completely because it would still allow for differentiation in the classes. As I said, I have no problem with people getting rich. Hell, my ideal is closer to the ideal capitalist scenario, one in which the competition for profits benefits all, instead of our current system where it's a battle to the bottom as workers, quality, service, etc. are cut in the pursuit of profits.

[BzaDem]

62. How would you force people to make risky investments (like investing in a startup)?

The reward would be continuing to sustain your way of life? Couldn't wealthy individuals simply sustain their way of life by not making any risky investments? Where is the incentive to make any risky investment (like investing in a startup), when the potential upside is gone?

Take a hypothetical wealthy person with 10 million dollars in the bank. He is trying to figure out whether to invest 9 million dollars in a new, promising startup (that needs that startup capital in order to get off the ground).

Looking at statistics, he knows that there is (say) a 70% chance of failure for new startups in general. So there is a 70% chance that the 9 million dollars he puts in will not be seen again. In the 30% chance that the business succeeds, in your world, let's say he makes a "modest" profit of 10% on his initial investment (instead of being a shareholder and making much larger percentage of profits, which he would get in the current economic system).

Look at the mathematics of that scenario. On his initial investment, there is a 70% chance he will lose all of it, and a 30% chance that he will get 110% of what he put in (over say 5 years). That means his expected gain on the deal is (.70*0 + .30*(9.9 million) - 9 million) = -6.03 million dollars (that's negative 6 million), or a rate of return of approximately -20%.

Why in the world would this hypothetical person invest the money when the most he could earn (on average) is negative 20%? Why wouldn't he just stick it in the bank, or under his mattress? Keeping one's money in your system is a much better way of "continuing to sustain your way of life" than betting the farm on a risky startup with no upside.

This isn't some weird example. This is a fundamental problem for your system. Your system does not reward people in a way that is proportional to the risk they took when they made an investment. This means that people will lose huge amounts of money on average when making such an investment (which means such an investment will never be made).

Wealthy individuals are not going to make risky investments if they (on average) will lose money every time they do so. Risk taking is THE foundation of capitalism, and your system completely guts it. Without risk taking, none of the for-profit entities that have sprung into existence over the last 200 years would have started in the first place, and everyone's standard of living would be unbelievably lower.

"The same organizations that are for-profit today, could easily become non-profit simply by diverting their earnings." How would this work? If a company is worth 20 billion, that company would just steal 20 billion wealth from the shareholders (who made the company possible by investing in it)? This might be technically possible if laws were changed. But going forward, why would anyone invest in a company in the future if it knew that the company were going to steal the share of the company borne out of the investment?

The existence of non-profit organizations in our current system is not a valid counterpoint to the above analysis. There are plenty of wealthy philanthropists who will donate their own money to start a non-profit. But there aren't NEARLY enough to run an entire economy this way. The percentage of our economy that is non-profit is very low. And on top of that, in your system, very few NEW businesses could be started, which dramatically reduces the number of potential wealthy philanthropists available to run an economy off of.

You can't just say "divert the resources back into the company" without looking at the massive unintended second-order and third-order consequences of such a system. Your system is a world where most new businesses are never created (since they aren't invested in). The only way to make your system even coherent or self-consistent is for the government be the investor and allocator of capital.

[W_HAMILTON]

66. Your logic is flawed.

You are taking for granted ideas that should not be taken for granted.

Most of our biggest businesses started small. Much smaller than even 9 million.

You can say that these people would be deterred from starting such businesses because the "profit" incentive would be gone, but that, too, is false. As a founder and chairman of Microsoft, Bill Gates would still be incredibly rich. Hell, if he's on the payroll, he could theoretically be even richer than he is now. It wouldn't be a smart idea, though. Let's say there is Microsoft, and a company exactly similar to Microsoft; Bill Gates invests all his company's "profits" into his bank account, while the other company invests their "profits" in their company, their workers, and their consumers by providing increased quality, lower prices, etc. Which company do you think is going to be more successful over the long-run?

As for how our country would implement a system such as this, it's more conceptual, because I know our country will never move towards such a system. We can't even pass incremental change, so we sure as hell would not change the system like this, even though it would benefit far more people than the current system today.

Your systems favors shareholders, most of which have no interest in the company outside of its profits. My system favors stakeholders, those people who manage, work for, purchase the goods/services, and are affected by the company. I invest in stocks, but I devote much less resources to those companies than to the company I actually work for.

Finally, yes, businesses could be created just as easily. Again, some of our largest businesses today started out small, and small businesses regularly are funded personally or by bank loans, not by Paris Hilton. There would still be incentive to create these businesses, because even in my system, there would be an unequal distribution of money. The same people that broke the mold before and started great things from nothing will still have every bit of incentive to do that, because they can still get rich(er).

[LeftishBrit]

42. 'Right wing' . Those two words cover a multitude of evils!

[dkf]

54. Sounds like you want to go to the good old days where you did your own farming and

provided for all the goods you need. Then nothing you did would make a profit either.

Maybe you ought to outlaw savings too, as that seems to be profit of some sort.

[ItNerd4life]

61. Try actually living in a COMMUNIST country. Then get back to us.

I love how some OPs can make Freepers look intelligent.

[Brickbat]

64. Nope. It's the root of all evil, IMO.

[Initech]

65. Homeland security?