Why do certain liberals dislike the idea of profit?

Profit is a powerful motivator for entrepreneurs. With an opportunity the capitalist will pay you to use your skills to produce. Without entrepreneurs we would be third world folks. Without profit, China would be much poorer.

 

Because they're communists.

 

I like how the OP says "the capitalist." In a capitalist system, aren't we all supposed to be capitalists? Aren't we all supposed to have the ability to own fixed capital and participate in the production of modern products?

Sadly, those days are gone. The Republicans have brought us trickle down and stronger intellectual property laws. The Republicans collectivized all production. (Note how the OP says liberals are against profit and this would make CHINA poor.)

If we collectivize production into the hands of a small percentage of society, say five percent, then what happens to everyone if that five percent keep all the money for themselves? Well, we get screamed at to be happy that we have refrigerator. We're told to be content with that and not hope for anything more because we just don't deserve it. But if we're supposed to be content with just a refrigerator then shouldn't the leaders of the collective be content with the same thing? Why do I have to be happy just to have refrigerator while another person can't be happy with just a billion dollars?

Look at all the large companies that have seized control of all production. They used their trickle down money to buy out all the small business competitors they had. They use their sponsored congressmen to make sure intellectual property laws guarantee their monopolies well into the future and to make sure they're the only ones with access to resources. These are the "capitalists who will pay me to use my skills to produce"? These are entrepreneurs? The entrepreneurs who originally built some of these companies are long gone. These companies are now bureaucracies run by bureaucrats. It's bad enough that these bureaucrats have stolen control of all production from us. Do we have to let them steal all the money as well?

Under collectivism, higher profits for the collective bureaucrats mean less money for everyone else.

 

They see profit often as "exploitation". Actually it isn't just liberals.

 

You haven't had many serious conversations with liberals, have you? Before you try, I would encourage you to listen while they tell you what they think. Its pretty important first step in understanding and it works a lot better than letting anyone else that is not a liberal do it instead.

We do not 'dislike' profit. We dislike the worship of profit and distrust a system that lets the pitbulls of profit roam the neighborhood in packs, without any leash or collar.

 

It's much easier for folks who think like that to just make stuff up since the "liberals" that exist in their minds play the role of boogeyman scapegoat enemy blame magnet anyway. In fact, liberals might even deserve to feel a small sense of pride since they are an integral part of the coping mechanisms of a not-so-small amount of right-wing folks in need of a boogeyman to focus their ire and fear on.

 

Depends on what is done with those profits.

Most profit in the past was derived by leveraging other people's labor, and then paying said labor from the profit.

Today, we see companies taking the profits earned by leveraging people's labor and using the profits to buy machines which
replace the labor. Good business move but bad for society as a whole.

If profit is immediately poured back into the economy, then it benefits many.
If profit is hoarded, or sent overseas, then it benefits few.

So, I would think that it isn't so much that profit is being made, but how it is used.

If it is being hoarded, then it needs to be taxed.

The thing about taxes - we all hate to pay it, but 110% of the taxes we pay are pumped right back into the American economy (yes, that extra 10% is a real problem).

 

Oh please! Nine-tenths of the leftists posting on economic issues come across like capitalism despising Marxists and so Right of Center posters are spring boarding from that.

 

In order to create profit it usually means you have to work hard.

MOD EDIT - Rule 2

 

9/10ths is it? My math shows it's closer to 17/32.

And what about all the folks on the right who want unfettered capitalism? Limited government? Should we start calling those folks anarchists just so we can be as sensational and outrageous?

 

Spring boarding right into that land of a Communist hiding under every bed ...

I support balanced budgets, gun ownership and apple pie.
I've worked for 30+ years straight, never taken a dime of support from the government.

But because I've never seen a weak central government that isn't third world and think gay people are Americans first and entitled to marry their
partners, I have been labeled a Communist on this forum. It's a sorry bunch of BS from xenophobes who see the world in such thin lines
of black and white that the smallest deviation from their "norm" becomes a chasm.

 

No one is against profits. Try again.

 

I like how conservatives always go to entrepreneurs and small business owners. Those are included in people that liberals want to protect. What many of us "liberals" (I don't really consider myself a lib but get classified as one) want is to reign in on the financial system where profits are made in the billions, yet they produce absolutely nothing. Pretty much people gambling on others production and paying half the taxes than those that actually work and produce. The financial/banking system needs to be revamped. They make far too much profits for doing very little in terms of production.

 

It's not that I dislike the idea of profit. I believe that profit is good. However, the amount of profit should be proportional to the amount of benefit that you deliver to society. If you invent something, then the profit you make off that thing should be proportional to how beneficial that thing is to society. The problem with today's system, is that the amount of profit is no longer tied to the benefit for society. You have hedge fund managers who lose money, but take home huge profits. You have people who make huge profits without doing any good for society at all; some of them actually hurt society and make money off it. A lot of rich people make their money by playing games using complex rules and gaming the system. And it's a zero sum system. Meaning that the money they take out of the system as "profit" is taken from a poor/middle class person who now has less money. Our economy is now built more like a casino, except that the rich people get to take home all the money, no matter whether they win or lose. That's not right.

 

IMO if the government had zero interest in business affairs almost none of those unfair evils would exist. IMO the casino was created by government intrusion and regulation. Otherwise productivity would be the only means of wealth.
I'm not suggesting government can wash its hands entirely of our economy. Just suggesting that adding more and more regulations and political pull,is the wrong direction. If there's too much soap in your washing machine you can't cure it by adding more soap

 

not sure how that logic works in this case. the reason that hedge fund managers can make so much money is precisely because the govt deregulated the industry. The casino is created by the free market. Not sure how you can blame the government for what the free market created. In many ways, a free market is a casino. Every investment is a gamble. Sometimes you win. Sometimes you lose. And that system used to be fair. But the problem is when some people gain so many resources, that they can leverage their resources to suck money out of the system. So now, the rich people are always winning every time they pull the slot machine and the poor people lose every time. Not sure how you can blame government regulation for this. This is an inherent property of free markets.

 

That "hands off," approach can also backfire on the companies involved.

Union Carbide set up shop in Bhopal because India did not have the environmental restrictions that they faced in the US.
Sounds good to a, "get the government off the backs of business," person. No.

Of course, lack of strict environmental standards and protocol ends up costing Union Carbide $400 million and the deaths of 3,500 people.

PG&E lost a lawsuit because they ignored ppm restrictions on CR-6 waste. $330 million.

Regulations are in place to protect companies from themselves as much as the public.

So which regulations are "bad", and which are "good"? Usually depends on the effect it has on your back yard, now doesn't it?

 

There's a belief that money is the only motivator, and that without profit, the economy would stagnate. The fact is, there are very wealthy countries with very low gini indices. This means that there is a lower divide between the rich and the poor, and it's good evidence that controlled capitalism is better than unregulated capitalism.

If money were the only motivator, why do millionaires still work?

 

Profits are fine. It's the fact that people who do little in terms of production get paid obsenely more than everyone else who actually makes the product, produces, just because they happen to be in that position. Mostly people who just gamble on other people's production. The financial industry and ceos who are paid way more than what they are actually producing. For liberals and other economic leftists, actual entrepreneurs and small business owners would ideally pay less taxes as their production would be protected.

 

Truth is profit is a huge motivator. I do believe there does need to be a balance between taxes and profit. When you start to kill business too much it is time to examine what to do about it. There does need to be motivation to start businesses and expand them.

Millionaires still work because they want more money. Many millionaires want to be billionaires.

 

Profits are fine.. It's the fact that people horrid that cash in tax havens and do nothing but build monopolies to kick out small businesses that care about their employees....The big business kick out the ones that are local stores and kill the communities economies.

 

I've found that most who acutely have a problem with it do so because they believe that wealth is a zero sum game.

 

it is for the most part. the growth of wealth over time is very gradual. so from a practical standpoint, our economy is largely zero sum.

 

A lot of conservatives and libertarians around here come across as hating poor people and blacks, but I sure know better than to create or support a stereotype of conservatives or libertarians based on quips, snark and clichés uttered by those folks around here. I just need to find a conservative or libertarian in the mood to talk about what he believes about race and poverty and then I listen. Its about ignoring the caricature to look at the photograph.

 

I gotta give you this Mr Light....you stay true to your convictions! Most people after 30 years see "the light"