How much profit is too much profit?

Now as for this post, there is no such thing as too much profit.  I think we all agree on that.  If we didn't I highly doubt we all would be on this forum lol.

 

More seriously though, I liked Walter Block's lecture where he calls for a "more and less control" axis, and that we should factor the different politiceans positions.

Neoclassical analysis has led some to actually believe that due to the earnings reported by the oil firms, and the speculative nature in which they are profiting as opposed to a type of technological or theoretical innovation, a windfall tax is more than necessary as this is a situation of "abnormal" profits.  The media has really taken sides on this, and there is even propaganda in the form of "big oil making record profits, while Americans are losing everything" junk.

 

Yet when we analyze the situation by applying a more market orientated analysis, this is just another example of dynamic conditions that bestows the global market.  The firms that can encompass such conditions more effectivly than others will succed in a more rewarding fashion than others. 

Besides, it was not long ago when energy firms were making less than 5% on the margins...

Nitroadict:

I have a huge problem with the left/right political spectrum, as it inherently limits the entire discussion within the bounds of Statism, reinforced by the good-cop, bad-cop game of the Reformists.  Its as if the State needs to exist in *some* form, in *some* amount of power, or else we would all de-evolve to violent simians going back to murdering our birth-defected babies so the Sun god doesn't tke our women and/or men away :\. 

 It is problematic for several reasons:

• It is not uniform. You get different schemes of right/left classifications in Europe or the US.
• It is obsolete, since it deals with distinctions between monarchists, classical liberals and socialist (European Scheme)
• It is one-dimensional and hence ignores the possibility of categorical as well as gradual differences within the policies of movements.

The US scheme classifies more statsist as more leftwing, the European one classifies more traditional as more right-wing.

My main charge against this classification scheme is that it doesn't address the complexity and possibilities of combining social political thought. I also may ask, whether the scheme only serves the purpose of polarising instead of defining. Personally I can subscribe to certain statements from several schools of political thoughts without contradicting myself. I would be able to say that state intervention tends to disrupt an economy negatively and at the same time I would say that social power relations influence the access to wealth of people. However I won't define the state as evil per se, neither would I define unequal distribution of wealth as a bad thing.

Back to the subject - What does this have to do with "too much profit"?

I'm not saying that the left-right spectrum is consistent, and I'm definitely not saying that it's exclusive; I'm saying that it's insane to ignore distinctions between people like Neal Boortz and Paul Krugman purely because they both want a state.

Ego:

I'm not saying that the left-right spectrum is consistent, and I'm definitely not saying that it's exclusive; I'm saying that it's insane to ignore distinctions between people like Neal Boortz and Paul Krugman purely because they both want a state.

Exactly. These people make it sound as if the election was down to Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton they would have no preference for one over the other. Absolutely rediculous!

Are Bill Clinton and Stalin about equivalent simply because they are both "big government"? No? Then it makes sense to have words that distinguish the two.

 

What about if we talk about psychic profit?  I think all people should have to report on that and be taxed for it.  Not only can we not have people getting too much monetary profit, but we can't have anyone getting some sort of psychic gain from the disutility of their labor either.  Especially while other people are miserable, bored, or non-artistic... or perhaps atheistic (atheists need a government welfare to make up for the God and religion they've been cheated out of... or we can pass non-discrimination laws that will force churches to accept atheists and maybe even force atheists into the churches).

Brainpolice:

CopperHead:

 I have no problem with the right/left political spectrum. As far as Im concerned the more you move towards statism the more you've moved to the left. And when I hear the word "leftist" I think of folks like Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and Castro. So I think Ego using "leftist" as a pejorative is spot on.

 

From this nonsensical premise, it would logically follow that anarchism = "the far right". Which is absurd.

 

 And what's wrong with the Nolan Chart?  There ARE differences between left and right, and those differences are most obvious in the middle.  The more pro-statist (or anti-statist) they are, the less those differences matter. 

The posts from DemocraticUnderground seem to be focused on the Lockean Proviso; that property may be owned by individuals "so long as there is as much and as good." According to many of them, it is acceptable if there are high profits as long as the product produced is not wanted by many (i.e. yachts). If the product is a "necessity," (e.g. oil, food, airline travel?) then profits should be low (or non-existent). 

The Lockean Proviso creates a major problem: when a good is not scarce, then it may be owned; whereas, if the good is scarce it may not be owned.  Therefore, the DemocraticUnderground allows high profits on yachts, which are to them non-scarce (i.e. not needed) and would not allow high profits on necessary goods. Taken to its logical conclusion, the Lockean Proviso would allow the ownership of air (a non-scarce good - although even this is debatable given the growing global warming hysteria) and not much else.  The ownership in all other goods which are by definition scarce, should then not be owned and the market would not be able to function.

In 1650, the Lockean Proviso may not have made much difference, as he was mostly referring to land ownership and the fact that the New World increased the land mass available substantially (almost infinitely relative to the population of England).  It also may have been politically appealing. However, it is still a major subject in law and treated as an undeniable premise. However, it seems to me that modern economics, especially Austrian econ, has proven this premise demonstrably and absolutely false.  Too bad the legal community has not gotten this message.

Aristotle100:

Now as for this post, there is no such thing as too much profit.  I think we all agree on that.  If we didn't I highly doubt we all would be on this forum lol.

There is something as too much profit: any profit derived from state privilege, or through coercive means in general.

I'm usually sympathetic to socialist claimst made in ignorance that "greedy" corporations are making too much.  Often it's true, given that we have nothing resembling a free market in reality.  In a fixed context of a controlled market economy, it's perfectly reasonable to think that regulations, etc would be necessary to reign in these corporations. 

These people just have no clue about the free market alternative.  But, if you start from a common base, then it's alot easier to make some progress with them.

John, that's an amusing point, and similar to what Nozick says in ASU as well - he mentions that some people prefer leisure over work, and thus derive psychic profit therefrom. If it is alright to tax income, beyond the "necessary" level needed to survive, then it should also be alright to tax psychic income, lest one greedily acquires too much of it.

-Jon

Jon Irenicus:

If it is alright to tax income, beyond the "necessary" level needed to survive, then it should also be alright to tax psychic income, lest one greedily acquires too much of it.

Do we really need to give them ideas to generate more tax revenue through even more invasive means than the income tax?

Thankfully, for now, we are protected by the ban on direct taxation in the Constitution from a "psychic tax".  Besides, this would be very difficult to quantify.  Would we tax someone based on the amount of time they spend not working?

History teaches us that fines have been used to protect against unneccesary leisure, particularly by the Massachussetts Bay Colony in the 17th Century. In that case, the idea was to make sure that sufficient goods were produced by people that didn't have the proper incentives based on property ownership. Now, there is not enough money to fund the government leviathan because of inflation. I guess you're right, we will need to be on the lookout for this "new" intrusion into our liberties and freedom.

 

 

wuzacon:

Thankfully, for now, we are protected by the ban on direct taxation in the Constitution from a "psychic tax".

LOL!

 

A-R:

There is something as too much profit: any profit derived from state privilege, or through coercive means in general.

Would this still be profit meaning surplus value from exchanges?

A-R:

I'm usually sympathetic to socialist claimst made in ignorance that "greedy" corporations are making too much.  Often it's true, given that we have nothing resembling a free market in reality.  In a fixed context of a controlled market economy, it's perfectly reasonable to think that regulations, etc would be necessary to reign in these corporations. 

 That's something to investigate. But then I must admit that I don't have sleepless nights, because somebody else is "making too much money" - I rather would be concerned about issues like draining third parties in that game. I.e. If corporation X get's subsidized while (potential) competitors are taxed.

 

If you think in a different state, it could be considered Interstate Commerce LOL!

Brainpolice:

CopperHead:

 I have no problem with the right/left political spectrum. As far as Im concerned the more you move towards statism the more you've moved to the left. And when I hear the word "leftist" I think of folks like Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and Castro. So I think Ego using "leftist" as a pejorative is spot on.

 

From this nonsensical premise, it would logically follow that anarchism = "the far right". Which is absurd.

 

Well yeah if as I said moving to the left meant increasing statism than it would naturally follow that anarchism="the far right" and just what is the problem with that? Do note of course that the terms left and right can easily be alternated however on would see fit. The important thing is that one end represents totalitarianism and the other "anarchy'. If you wish to call the end that represents anarchy the far left thats fine with me but it does not change the premise of the spectrum.

CopperHead:

Brainpolice:

CopperHead:

 I have no problem with the right/left political spectrum. As far as Im concerned the more you move towards statism the more you've moved to the left. And when I hear the word "leftist" I think of folks like Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and Castro. So I think Ego using "leftist" as a pejorative is spot on.

 

From this nonsensical premise, it would logically follow that anarchism = "the far right". Which is absurd.

 

Well yeah if as I said moving to the left meant increasing statism than it would naturally follow that anarchism="the far right" and just what is the problem with that? Do note of course that the terms left and right can easily be alternated however on would see fit. The important thing is that one end represents totalitarianism and the other "anarchy'. If you wish to call the end that represents anarchy the far left thats fine with me but it does not change the premise of the spectrum.

 

The problem is that if you apply such a spectrum to contemporary politics involving the self-proclaimed and commonly identified "left" and "right", it is entirely disingenous or misleading, as "the right" most certainly are not a bunch of anarchists and "the left" is not entirely made up of statists. I'd prefer to treat a genuine axis measuring political power as up and down rather than "left" and "right", so that people are not confused into applying it inaccurately to modern conceptions of "left" and "right".