How Much Profit Is Too Much Profit?

[Rage for Order]

As a general question, how much profit, as a percentage of sales, is acceptable before a corporation is considered to be acting in too greedy a manner? Is the cut-off 3%, 5% 10%, 20%? At what point do you, personally, consider a company to be making too much money?

I tend to think something in the range of 10% - 15% is reasonable. Of course, this number won't be static from year to year. Early in a company's life cycle, during periods of rapid growth and innovation, the profit margin could be much higher or lower, but once the company matures and earnings grow at a steady, predictable rate, I think a healthy company is one that earns a profit of roughly 10% - 15% of gross revenues. What say you?

[Horse with no Name]

1. A company's profit on necessary items should never bring the customer to their knees n/t

[Gormy Cuss]

4. Nor their rank and file employees.

There is no magic percentage that is too high, but if it comes because they put the screws to workers and consumers, it's too much.

[NanceGreggs]

2. Excellent question!

My first thought is that it depends on the commodity being sold, and it's impact on society as a whole.

For example, if yacht-makers can make a 100% profit on their wares, go to it - it doesn't affect those who aren't in the 'yacht club' arena, and no one actually needs a yacht to survive.

On the other hand, when Big Oil is raking-in profits on the backs of hard-working Americans who have no choice but to purchase the product in order to get to-and-from their jobs, that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

So I wouldn't break it down into an overall 'allowable' percentage of profit across the board.

[KharmaTrain]

13. It's More How The Profits Are Made

I think we'd agree that someone who takes a company from nothing and makes a lot of money is doing what most of us dream of...and the profit is the reward for the hard work. Other companies make profits but in return offer quality services or other "benefits" that justify a higher price.

The question here is more along the lines of were these excess profits made at the detriment of the nation or individuals. The plummeting dollar caused by massive defecits are a major cause for the run-up in oil prices...not, from what we see at this point any manipulation on behalf of the oil companies. Now, if there's a memo or some other indicator that these companies have had a hand in forcing up prices (closing refineries, reducing inventories, et al) then they have crossed the lines into price fixing and collusion...things that not only should they be forced to pay stiff fines but those responsible should be jailed as traitors.

Here's the rub...unless the oil companies are nationalized, how do you punish them for big profits while you look the other way if a Microsoft or even Fred's meat market also show increased profits. A tax on oil companies will only push them to find ways to recoup that lost revenue...and prices could soar even higher or other services would be cut back. Cut out their profit motive and it could be asking for gas lines or rationing.

[pitohui]

3. i say you are completely uninformed

let us take an industry that provides something important to all of us, food, the grocery store, the last time i checked the figure, they earned on average a profit of around 2 percent of revenues

when i worked for an oil company in the early 80s, the percent of profit was around 3 percent -- and i mean one of the seven sisters, not joe bob's backyard oil well

10-15% of pure profit is insane and really shouldn't be tolerated unless excess profit can be aggressively taxed in time of need

in some industries ANY profit is wrong, it would be better to run them as taxpayer owned non-profits -- health care would be an example, if you run health care for profit, then a certain number of people are guaranteed to go without adequate care and to be made ill, maimed, or even to die, at great cost to society as a whole -- another example would be the airlines, they obviously can't make a profit and yet it's important to have reliable air transportation, at the end of the day, it would probably be better to have the airlines owned by the taxpayer since we're giving them hand out after hand out to keep them running anyway and then don't have the ability to stop CEOs from stealing millions for themselves in undeserved bonuses

i'm not saying you pulled your 15% figure out of your elbow but i do have to ask why on earth you think it's fair because it's effing insane

[Rage for Order]

5. I'm not quite as uninformed as you may think

However, be that as it may, I drift closer to the 10% mark, but I recognize that some industries, software and information services for example, tend to operate at higher margins. I also understand that grocery and retail stores tend to have margins of 3% - 5%, so 10% - 15% seemed like a happy medium. I think getting double the return of a CD, i.e. a zero-risk investment vehicle, is not an unreasonable profit margin in most instances.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[DaveJ]

7. I'm stupid about this -- what is corporate profit?

I assume this profit is before shareholders are paid. But is that the money before or after employees are paid? Is it profit before or after executives are paid?

I think the gold standard of judging a company is how it pays and treats its employees. Big box stores, for example, are not successful based on that standard because they make their employees' lives miserable with low wages and benefits. Regardless of the profit they list, they are without a doubt miserable losers.

Shareholders who take advantage of them are no better.

[Rage for Order]

9. Corporate profit...

Is what is left after all expenses, including wages and taxes (and other accounting charges, but that's a much different discussion) have been paid. For example, if a company sells $100 million of stuff and pays out $90 million in operating expenses, salaries, taxes, etc., they have $10 million profit (which would be, of course 10% profit). This money can be distributed as dividends to shareholders, bonuses to employees, saved for a rainy day, used to retire debt, acquire another company, expand operations, or any other number of purposes.

[DaveJ]

15. I guess it depends on inflation then...

Our savings should at least match inflation so that we are no losing the money we save. When government prints money that makes inflation happen, so we are obligated to invest in companies and hope that their profit equals or exceeds that.

When I calculate my pathetic savings, I do not factor in interest. I ask myself how much money $600 per month for 30 years (for example) would be without interest. Would that be enough for me to retire? No way.

So I'm thinking about multiple streams of income, starting a business, some other way to setup my retirement.

Sorry this doesn't answer your question directly. Profit is good only if nobody was hurt in the process, IMO.

[Phx_Dem]

27. You're describing Net Profit

and there are too many other factors at play to use net profit as a measure of "greediness".

[Rage for Order]

35. The poster asked me what corporate profit is

Certainly there are different ways to calculate profit (just peruse www.fasb.org), but for the purposes of this discussion we can use net profit. All publicly traded companies prepare their financial statements in accordance with the same Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), and net profit is calculated using the same rules and regulations for all businesses. Rather than turning this into a discussion on accounting philosophy, I figured we'd go with the most common definition of profit.

[spinbaby]

66. So what are reasonable expenses?

I remember once staying at a large hotel that had a convention center. There was a huge party on the lawn, complete with tents, live music, circulating waiters, and flaming tiki gods.The party was being thrown by a pharmaceutical company. Reasonable expense?

[bighart]

8. get for a point of interest

I did the math on Exxon's reported profit for the first quarter and it comes out to around 9.3%.

[undergroundpanther]

10. I think

Profit the concept should be eliminated from all exchange.. Profit is destructive and it fosters greed and it creates great income disparity when rich piggies go hog wild for it. Profit carries the seed of ruin and does alot to create poverty. Destroy profit.

There are far saner and fair ways to run an economy.

One of the principles of the Gift Economy is that the gift must always move (each time we receive, we must pay it forward). A second principle is that in the Gift Economy we are agents, not (passive) consumers -- and what we give is generally what we have some mastery over, something we do well. Market Economy fans work hard to undermine these principles: The 'value' of every exchange, they say (usually some product in return for money, a surrogate for 'equivalent' goods or services) must be provided back to the giver, rather than forward to someone else. And the act of consumption is advertised as a pleasure in and of itself, a reward for previous personal sacrifice (unpleasant work), which imposes no obligation or responsibility on the consumer (or on the producer, for that matter).

It is hard to overcome the constant propaganda barrage of the Market Economy, whose adherents invest billions of dollars in their 'commercial messages' and take up between 10% (some radio stations) and 75% (many magazines) of the total 'information bandwidth' of the media -- a cost we 'passive consumers' of course pay back to them in the final cost of the product.

Let's not kid ourselves: This is war. File-sharing is just the tip of the iceberg in the battle between advocates of the Gift Economy and the Market Economy. Believers in the Market Economy see everything as property, and the use of any property without payment as theft. They are using absurdly anti-innovative patent law, armies of lawyers and their control of major political parties to try to crush every aspect of the Gift Economy.

http://blogs.salon.com/0002007/2005/07/31.html


FUCK THE MARKET!! To HELL with Profits! We do not need it.

[BigDaddy44]

23. So if you buy a car for a certain price....

And manage to sell it for more than you purchased it at some point in the future.... are you saying that should be illegal?

[undergroundpanther]

28. It's ethically corrupting

Sell it fair,do get your money back the amount you put in , but truthfully you are not owed xtra for nothing. Because that profit i.e. greed is the very thing that is destroying us..Wanting to get more for nothing is just greed, profit is a prettied up way of saying greed.
You are asking someone else to pay you more for what you paid less for .The customer is paying for nothing when he is paying more for what you paid less for,to feed your greed.

[BigDaddy44]

31. So why would anyone make or do anything?

Why would i produce anything if i couldn't sell it for more than I paid to produce it? We'd still be riding horses if someone didn't figure out they could make money selling cars.

Trying to make a profit is not greed.

[undergroundpanther]

34. I don't get paid for it

but I do psych activism,I do newsletters, I do art,I give it away,I write and I even share my house.Yes my roommates pay rent it is low because it is their portion of the bills and their share of the household stuff we all use like TP,dish detergent etc.A small part of my money and theirs gets put away in a kitty for house repairs because we all use this house. I don't profit from this, why? Because I'm not a selfish pig or a greedy fuck that's why.I couldn't live with myself if I got something for nothing,because I have standards I hold myself to.I don't have that nauseating entitlement delusion that profit seeker's have.I share what I have because it is there because I want to.And my kind of sharing ethics will far outlast profit driven greed if that greed does not destroy the planet first..

[Two Americas]

53. false

Profit is not what motivates all people. Some, it does.

The problem is that we are all being forced into a model that only works for a few.

The idea that only the profit motive is responsible for any and all social advances or improvements in the human condition - "we would still be riding horses" - is pure right wing political ideology.

[undergroundpanther]

67. You are absolutly right two americas

Psychopaths & narcissists are motivated by what more can I get out of someone else for free however.

Not all of us have that kind of vile personality or share it's selfish motives.
Amazing the correlatiion of right wing idealogies asnd psychopathic personalities,the toxic right wing idealogies and the evil of psychopathy personality fit hand in glove.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/09/03/sowell/index.html
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/political_ponerology_lobaczewski.htm

Some psychologists go so far as to label the psychopath “a different kind of human” altogether. Psychopathy has an environmental component like nearly all aspects of personal psychology, but its source is rooted firmly in biology. This has caused some researchers to suspect that the condition isn’t a “disorder” at all, but an adaptive trait. In a civilization made up primarily of law-abiding citizenry, the theory goes, an evolutionary niche opens up for a minority who would exploit the trusting masses.


And PROFIT is one way to exploit trusting masses to get the profit seeker something for nothing...at someone else's expense.Profit seeking greed and psychopathy..same patterns same results..
http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=936

[Quantess]

63. well, thats...... interesting.

Not at all based in the current reality, but interesting.

[ben_meyers]

11. Look at Exxon's report

116 billion in revenue

11 billion net profit = a little under 10%. Is that reasonable?

Paid taxes of 30 billion? 3 dollars in taxes for every 1 dollar in profit?

I can't believe that.

http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/exxonmobil/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&ndmConfigId=1001106&newsId=20080501005652&newsLang=en

[Rage for Order]

12. I do think it's reasonable

When you sell $116 BILLION of anything, if you are profitable, your profits are going to be large. A quarterly profit of $11 billion is a shitload of money, but they sold more than 10 times that amount of goods and services. I don't object to Exxon's profit margin. Instead, I have problems with the ways in which they choose to spend those profits.

[nichomachus]

14. The problem with all of this

is that numbers can be juggled to make the most profitable company look broke. So, if you started to police this, they would simply resort to that.

Movies, for example, rarely show a profit -- even when they take in hundreds of millions of dollars. This is why anyone who agrees to do something for a movie for a share of profits is just stupid. You need to get the money off the top.

WalMart has a scam by which local stores don't show a profit, which saves them from paying state taxes -- another way they rip you off while selling you cheap shit from China.

They have a shell corporation in DE that owns the WalMart name, logos, etc. Each store must pay a royalty to this DE firm for the use of these items. This means the local stores show little or no profit to be taxed. The DE company still has to pay federal tax on its revenue, but is exempt from paying state taxes on it.

[Rage for Order]

16. Is this the story you're referring to?

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=652167

Wal-Mart sets up two subsidiaries - a company to run its stores, and another entity, called a real estate investment trust, to own the real estate they sit on.The operating company pays rent to the REIT, taking the rent as a deduction and thus lowering its profits taxed by Wisconsin. The REIT in turn pays the rent as part of a dividend to the parent company. The dividend is tax-free under state and federal law.

The state Revenue Department contended that the company is organized that way merely to avoid taxes and therefore disallowed the deduction, resulting in the multimillion-dollar dispute. Simley said that although the structure does save taxes, there are other reasons to be organized that way, including letting specialists in real estate manage the properties while other managers actually run the stores.

States have usually lost their attacks on the REIT strategy elsewhere, said Michael Martens, a lawyer and certified public accountant. He is managing director of the UHY accounting firm in Boston and an expert in the cases. Wisconsin officials declined to say how their case might differ from those in other states. They noted that decisions of the Tax Appeals Commission can be reviewed by the courts. Both sides expect that to happen in this case.

Richard Pomp, a professor at the University of Connecticut Law School and an expert in state tax law, said he is surprised by Wisconsin's challenge of Wal-Mart over the REIT deduction. The solution, he said, is not a petition to the Tax Appeals Commission but rather legislation to require combined reporting. "For a state to not have combined reporting, and then to complain about strategies that are facilitated by a lack of combined reporting, is somewhat disingenuous," he said.

much more at the link

It appears that what Wal Mart did is perfectly legal. I agree with the professor: if you don't want to allow companies to employ that tax strategy, change the law. That is the legislature's job, after all.

[nichomachus]

19. No -- that's a new one. They've found another way to screw taxpayers

[Rage for Order]

36. If following the law = screwing the taxpayers...

Then the legislature should simply change the law. It's difficult to be pissed at a company for following the letter of the law. Besides, it's not like Wal Mart doesn't pass the savings on to consumers. Their profit margin last year was 3%. Is 3% profit now too much profit?

[Greyhound]

17. I think a more pertinent question would be, which products and services are essential

to the function of the nation and should, therefore, be non-profit or strictly regulated?

[taught_me_patience]

18. No such thing as too greedy

just what the market will bear. If profits are too high, then competition will come in and knock it down. If the profit margin is above 50%, then competition will certainly enter the space.

[undergroundpanther]

29. The planet thinks otherwise hun,

as do all the disenfranchised starving bombed out peoples who suffer to maintain a rich asshole's greed habit.There is a point when one has ENOUGH.People with no conscience are endless in their greed.They won't stop by themselves they have to be stopped by outside forces like taxes or the starving masses storming their Bastille's.

[Rage for Order]

37. I disagree

That may be the case in a pure capitalist system, but we don't have that here in the US. As long as any industry gets tax incentives, tax deductions, or subsidies from the federal government, we won't have a truly free market.

I'm not a fan of unbridled capitalism. I think human nature, being what it is, ends up causing too many abuses in such a system. If you don't agree, read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. I think a better economic mix is somewhere around 80% capitalism and 20% socialism.

[Quantess]

44. The essence of unregulated Capitalism.

But, I disagree about "competition will certainly enter the space". The objective is to squash the competition.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

20. Depends on what you are selling..

If you're selling an iPod? who cares I don't need that to live it can be 300%... What was the margin on the 'pet rock'.. If you sell a true commodity or resource like Gas, oil, electricity, food (not restaurants), ... Then I would say your 10-15% is spot on..

[dysfunctional press]

21. it's not just that investors demand profit- they demand MORE profit every year...

if your company can't give me a 10% greater return on my investment than last year, i'll take my money to a company that CAN.

[melm00se]

22. The answer to the question

"how much profit, as a percentage of sales, is acceptable before a corporation is considered to be acting in too greedy a manner?" is":

As much as the market will bear.

If your company provides value to their customers, they should be able to command a price (and profit) that is commensurate to the level of value that their customers ascribe to that product or service limited by competition. pricing provides a balancing between supply and demand: the price of a product or service should be low enough for the consumer to demand to purchase it but also high enough that that same demand does not outstrip supply.

Also profit is the return in the risk/reward ratio of investing...

[Quantess]

62. That sounds smart, like a good business model.

But I think the question goes deeper. The question is similar to "what horrible things would you do for money?"

In my reasoning, it is no one's business how much money someone makes. It is everyone's business how they made that money, and who they stepped on to get there.

Republicans, beginning with Reagan, deregulated big business. Start there.

[napi21]

24. I like the "winfall profit tax" idea. Any profits over a certain amount

would be taxed at 50%. ie: the oil companies profit over 1 billion. I don't know what the right amount should be, but at some point, it really is excessive. That would promote oil companies to build new refineries, and invest in alternative evergy rather then simply passing excess profits on to their stockholders. The stockholders would still get a nice ROI, but would also create a climate where they would either lower prices to the consumer, and or invest in future ideas.

[L. Coyote]

25. Better question is how much the tax rate should be. Are Corporations getting a better deal

than individuals?

[Quantess]

60. LOL. You have to ask?

Seriously, though, what about taxes on small businesses? Small businesses are/were "The American Dream" for immigrants. Small business owners get taxed the hide out of them, in most states.
Corporations are golden. They get all the breaks.

[alfredo]

26. When the profits become a threat to the economy, are at the expense of

human health and life, and if they pose a threat to national security, they could be deemed excessive.

[undergroundpanther]

30. yep.

And profit unrestrained has enabled corporate pigs to buy the media the government and buy our freedoms out from under us.

[alfredo]

32. If you like unrestrained capitalism, you will love the pea soup air of China

and the Mafia control in Russia.

[undergroundpanther]

33. don't forget the rivers so toxic they are on fire...

In case you didn't know,I hate capitalism.

[alfredo]

38. Something as unimportant as football has rules.

There's just enough rules to make it work well. The superior team will win even with rules that don't allow cheating. The capitalist want to do away with the rules against cheating, because they want to win big, they want to win by any means. And to top it off, they want the rules to apply to the other team but not them.

The only way the capitalist will play fair is if you force them to play fair.

[undergroundpanther]

39. that is why

egalitarian tribes stayed egalitarian because they killed off the psychopaths, greed heads and bullies amongst them. We don't kill off these toxic personalities,we elect them to office and let them run corporations and plunder like fools.

Even in a wolf pack if an alpha hogged a kill to himself that the pack brought down he wouldn't be tolerated for long.

We humans forgot who our enemies are busy playing make believe that we could cure psychopathy with kindness.Plato said it, you can't teach virtue.You have it or you don't.Those that don't need to be restrained and kept away from those that do,if they refuse exile they need to be eliminated not babysat..

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C03E6DB1E38F930A25757C0A9629C8B63

[alfredo]

40. Hard time. Federal prisons, no parole.

[undergroundpanther]

68. why should decent people

risk thier lives babysitting psychopaths in prison .Psychopaths can't be rehabilitated.Psychopaths think they are above others and can do no wrong even when they are doing wrong, they don't care they choose to do what they do...they don't get better.

So why babysit them. It is amazing the damage 1 psychopath can cause in many lives. Some lives are better off not living.

I know you will dissagree, maybe because you haven't been hurt by a psychopath..but psychopathy is the problem of why there is no peace, no fairness or equality in this world. The only way to get these things accomplished are to eliminate the personalities that will not tolerate peace equality or fairness.
Like the no time for bullies article said. Get rid of the bullies and a peaceful culture can have a chance.
Psychopaths do undermine law itself look at bush.


But one place they cannot harm others anymore is from inside a grave.The death penalty is not a deterrent to crime or any other such nonsense.. It is to stop 1 psychopath from continuing to hurt many people,forever.I myself would love to see a world without pschopathy.



I was naïve, I admit. There were many things I did not know that I have learned since I penned those words. But even at that time I was aware of how our own minds can be used to deceive us.

Now, what beliefs did I hold that made me a victim of a psychopath? The first and most obvious one is that I truly believed that deep inside, all people are basically “good” and that they “want to do good, to experience good things, think good thoughts, and make decisions with good results. And they try with all their might to do so…”

As it happens, this is not true as I - and everyone involved in our working group - learned to our sorrow, as they say. But we also learned to our edification. In order to come to some understanding of exactly what kind of human being could do the things that were done to me (and others close to me), and why they might be motivated - even driven - to behave this way, we began to research the psychology literature for clues because we needed to understand for our own peace of mind.
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/political_ponerology_lobaczewski.htm

[alfredo]

70. At least in prison their ability to hurt others is greatly diminished.

Prisons have experience dealing with dangerous psychopaths. Put them in those high security Special Holding Units. Each prisoner is isolated and handled more carefully than regular prisoners.

[1]

43. so, do these football rules restrict how many points a team can score?

really?

how does that work?

[Batgirl]

45. among other things

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

[1]

46. help me. i don't see it from your vague reference... n/t.

[Batgirl]

47. it's apparent from reading the many rules of football

in response to your previous question, that yes, of course, those rules do ultimately restrict how many points a team can score.

[Batgirl]

48. I suspect however that given the quickness of your second question

that you didn't actually read all of those rules. Instead you expect to be spoonfed all of my extensive football knowledge gleaned from the 5 seconds I spent at the Wikipedia.

[1]

49. um, no...

the rules declare how many points can be achieved in any particular action.

but ultimately you can score as many points as you can. no cap on points. none at all.


this football rules analogy... not a good one...

[Batgirl]

50. well, I would have to disagree with you on that one

for instance, I am pretty sure it would be against the rules to fly across the field with one of those rocket accelerators strapped to your back in order to score a touchdown. Otherwise someone would have tried it by now and then become the top football point-scoring person, without steroids.

No need to apologize for doubting me. Next time try pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps to research these things yourself.

[1]

55. wow. earth to batgirl, i was asking a legitimate question...

i'll go real simple here. i'll speak in small words and use simple sentences so you can follow.

it was stated "something as unimportant as football has rules". yes, football does have rules.

my question was "do these football rules restrict how many points a team can score?" remember this now in the context of this thread "how much profit is too much".

your wiki link was nice. it explained if you do this in football, you score this many points. if you you that, you score that many points.

now, again, back to the original question...

and think about this before you answer. think... remember the context of this thread and really think...

"do these football rules restrict how many points a team can score?"

[Batgirl]

56. I like how you do that "small words/simple sentences" thing

it's like your signature move or something, very cute.

However I'm not sure what the disconnect is here. I feel the concept of rules, by the very fact that they restrict how a game is played, as well as spelling out specific penalties for rule violations, has a direct and indisputable impact on how many points are scored by the participants.

That's about all for now, I'm outta here. You have to understand, I do have a life. This deep-conditioning hair treatment isn't going to apply itself.

[1]

58. ok...

i guess we agree to disagree tonight.

in football it is absolutely possible to score as many points as you can, within the rules you showed. there is no limit to how many points you can score. its endless the amount of points you can attain. amazing.


i think this, you think something different...

whatever.

i wish you success with your deep-conditioning hair treatment.

[Hannah Bell]

61. key phrase: "within the rules". rules limit possible tactics.

i could possibly make more profit by hiring children at half wages, for example. but the rules stop me.

[bean fidhleir]

74. Yes, they do restrict. They don't ESTABLISH a FIXED limit, but their effect is definitely

to limit the number of points that can be scored.

[alfredo]

65. No, but there is a limit to the number of players on each team, and

there is a limit on the points per score. All the rules do is make sure there is a level playing field. Rules like "unnecessary roughness" and "unsportsman like conduct" keep the game from turning into a bloodbath. It is also a no no to bribe the officials.

[Batgirl]

41. no matter how much it can always be more

"Of course, that was true 14 years ago, too. Dauch could have moved AA&M overseas then (as he is threatening to do now if he doesn't get major concessions from the union) but it was important to him to make a statement: you can make money in America, even if you pay decent wages. And he proved his point by doing just that.

So what's the deal? All of a sudden $$10M/yr isn't enough for him and $28/hr for his workers is too much? Wha' hoppen?

I think maybe what we got here is the story in microcosm of what's happened to the country between Bill Clinton's thriving economy and George W Bush's economic train wreck.

It's a story of greedy investors unhappy with what they consider minimal profits when, if they could just screw the American workers around, they could make a LOT more."


http://casadelogo.typepad.com/factesque/2008/05/uaw-strikes-whe.html
ht Atrios: http://www.eschatonblog.com/

[Quantess]

42. Before I read any of the other responses, I will say this:

I personally do not believe that making an exorbitant profit is wrong. I admire good hearted people who make a great living honestly. I know a few!

But was it the end to the means or the means to the end? In other words, how did you get there? Did you exploit others around you? Did you make others suffer greatly to get ahead? Did you use underhanded tricks to fool the masses in order to get ahead?

But, I'm aware that this is too complex of an idea for people who do not already know this in their heart.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[Batgirl]

52. I think it's okay to make a profit from one's efforts

but the problems come from irrational, short-sighted greed that focuses on short-term results.
Companies have been and are being gutted and destroyed in order to placate investors.

[tsdraegeth]

54. Our modern conception of "corporate profit"

is different from the traditional use of the word.

A corporate profit is an amount in excess of costs, and in excess of savings for the future, which is distributed to the absentee owners ("shareholders") as their reward for sitting on their ass doing absolutely nothing.

The notion that we accept the modern idea of "profit" as reasonable in our society is in itself proof of how far gone we are. We accept that parasitic behavior is okay.

[Quantess]

59. Self-delete

[Quantess]

57. Your post makes me feel like I was punched in the gut.

How do you make sense of it all, and still want to stay alive on our tortured planet?

What is R/D by the way?

(edit spelling)

[Hannah Bell]

64. shouldn't you know what profit is before you decide how much

is optimal?

where does profit come from?

if it's what remains after you pay the cost of labor (salaries), materials, depreciation & any other associated costs of production, what is it?

if labor costs $1 & materials cost $1, how do they combine to equal a product worth $3, i.e. that produces $1 of profit?

i've always wondered where profit comes from. it seems to be a pink elephant - something that logically can't exist.

and if labor gets $1 & suppliers of materials get $1, how do they buy back the entire supply of product that costs $3? seems some of the product would always remain unsold.

[undergroundpanther]

69. Profit is stealing

It's getting something for nothing.

This is why our country is so psychopathic in it's social function.

Something very heavy is going on behind the curtains. No one is speaking truth to power. What can this be that is pressing down on all of our legislators that no one seems to have the balls to talk about?

There can be no doubt that the psychopaths are running an efficient game upon the human race. There can be no doubt that they intend us harm upon harm. There can be no doubt that we have no elected officials with the will to oppose them. There can be no doubt that the present American administration is a criminal enterprise. There can be no doubt that America is under the control of a foreign power.

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2008/05/02/the_care_and_feeding_of_the_practical_ps

[BlooInBloo]

71. Progressive taxation is fine by me, but But removing all incentive is just dumb.

[Hannah Bell]

72. who said anything about removing all incentive?

[AdHocSolver]

73. You are asking the wrong question. The real question to ask is what should be the rules for...

doing business in a fair and reasonable way.

To use the sports analogy, there are rules for playing a game, such as baseball, and there are umpires and referees to watch the game and ensure that the rules are being followed, and that no one is breaking the rules (cheating). The referees mediate when there is a conflict about a play, and the referee or umpire has the final say. No one limits how many points a team can earn. The only limit is that enforced by the teams having to play by the rules.

In the same way, there is no need, nor is it desirable, to decide ahead of time how much profit is "fair". We only need to establish rules of "fair play" and see to it that they are enforced.

The capitalists / corporations have succeeded in turning the planet into a cesspool of pollution, and the U.S. into a country of economic extremes and corruption, by distorting or eliminating the rules, for example environmental protection laws, to increase their profits. The deregulation brought about by corrupting the government, which is supposed to serve as referee, is the cause of our problems.

Deregulation of the media, one-sided trade agreements such as NAFTA, WTO, etc., absurdly applied patent laws, a hodge-podge of health insurance schemes and ripoffs, prevention of mass transit development, privatization schemes of what should be government run social welfare programs, government regulatory agencies headed by corporate executives of the companies that they are supposed to regulate, etc., etc. These are the rules that have been broken and that have brought this country the misery it faces.

Reinstate the umpires and referees, reimpose the rules of fair "economic" play, and bring transparency to government operations and the appropriate "profit margins" will take care of themselves.