6 ms·

I would argue that greed is the problem, not profit. One could argue that government policies are anything but altruistic. They fund public education because y

by II2II 1y ago

I would argue that greed is the problem, not profit. One could argue that government policies are anything but altruistic. They fund public education because you need an educated workforce. They fund public health insurance because a healthy workforce is a productive workforce. You distribute the cost over the entire population. Both remove direct costs from employers (e.g. training and providing private health insurance). Both have a tendancy to reduce costs and improve consistency because you are working at a larger scale. It also creates order in society since people generally feel as though more of their needs are being met, and they feel less exploited. All of this contributes to profit both on a social scale and for individual businesses. Somewhere along the line people forgot the lessons of the 20th century. They forgot that profit goes beyond a line on the current financial statement. It also reflects long term interests.

fsckboy 1y ago
>I would argue that greed is the problem, not profit. I would point out that's precisely what the "private equity firm"--is that true or just a buzzword? no private equity group is taking this library private--is saying about the current library, that the greed of the unionized employees is running the library for their own benefit and at great cost to library and at the expense of the public, and it could be run more efficiently. So, you agree with them at least that much. >Somewhere along the line people forgot the lessons of the 20th century. They forgot that profit goes beyond a line on the current financial statement. huh? that wasn't "the lesson of the 20th century". if anything, the 20th century represents democracy and market capitalism's greatest joint achievement, with much less disease and starvation and much more freedom at the end vs the beginning. you live in one of the greatest times to be alive, and all you can do is complain. when and where from the past would you rather live out your life expectancy of half what it is now, coupled with no HN to bitch on?
energy123 1y ago
Human nature (greed) is never the problem, because it cannot be changed. Focus only on what can be changed. Design a system that manages human nature, pointing it in a direction that is beneficial, while taming its side effects. A denial of human nature is how you get authoritarian socialism with centralized planning, which leads to catastrophe because of the local knowledge problem, and because people have no private incentive to do anything. "Capitalism" is an incomplete first step towards a system which channels greed into something that's beneficial for all stakeholders. A profit-driven actor making their production more efficient to increase profits is a good thing for everyone. But capitalism is incomplete because the profit-motive can become pathological. Market failures are commonplace. The only solution that is proven to work is a mixed economy done right, with clever and lean regulations, and a government not influenced by money, and with the government stepping in occasionally to provide public goods that the market cannot, and with private actors otherwise free to make profits as long as they are not harming any third parties.
- arunabha 1y ago
  > Human nature (greed) is never the problem, because it cannot be changed. Focus only on what can be changed. The statement might appear to be pedantically true, but it's not true in practice. Sure, greed cannot be eliminated, but you certainly have systems which control the actions which result from greed. In reality, the actions brought on by greed are the real problem and we have an entire branch of the US govt(the legislature) dedicated to setting up mechanisms(laws) to discourage unwanted actions via threat of consequences. So, it's certainly possible to mitigate the effects of greed. What people are pointing out is that of late corporations(and more specifically the C suite) have faced few if any consequences for detrimental behaviour driven by greed. Hence the problem.
  - energy123 1y ago
    We are saying the same thing.
- TFYS 1y ago
  > centralized planning, which leads to catastrophe because of the local knowledge problem, and because people have no private incentive to do anything. The local knowledge problem might have been an issue with central planning a few decades ago, but I don't think it is anymore. Everyone now has in their pocket a device with which they're able to instantly send any kind of information anywhere. We now have computers and software powerful enough to process all this information. The price mechanism is an ancient, inefficient and slow way to transmit information compared to what we could achieve today if we really wanted to. People have all kinds of incentives other than profit. People wouldn't just lie down and die if they couldn't make money by owning things. The failures of past attemps at planning had more to do with the limited technology they had and the poor decision-making structure that centralized power and allowed too much corruption. That doesn't mean planning will always have that kind of a result. > a government not influenced by money This is impossible in capitalism, which will always over time create concentrations of capital large enough that influencing the people in government will become affordable, no matter how hard you make it. Government is just people, and there'll always be ways to influence people using money. In a well designed government it would be hard and expensive, but you can never make it impossible. Eventually a corporation or an individual will become so wealthy that they can afford it, and at some point conditions will arise where influencing the government will be a cheaper way to increase profits than fairly competing in the market.

by II2II 1y ago

fsckboy 1y ago

>I would argue that greed is the problem, not profit. I would point out that's precisely what the "private equity firm"--is that true or just a buzzword? no private equity group is taking this library private--is saying about the current library, that the greed of the unionized employees is running the library for their own benefit and at great cost to library and at the expense of the public, and it could be run more efficiently. So, you agree with them at least that much. >Somewhere along the line people forgot the lessons of the 20th century. They forgot that profit goes beyond a line on the current financial statement. huh? that wasn't "the lesson of the 20th century". if anything, the 20th century represents democracy and market capitalism's greatest joint achievement, with much less disease and starvation and much more freedom at the end vs the beginning. you live in one of the greatest times to be alive, and all you can do is complain. when and where from the past would you rather live out your life expectancy of half what it is now, coupled with no HN to bitch on?

energy123 1y ago

Human nature (greed) is never the problem, because it cannot be changed. Focus only on what can be changed. Design a system that manages human nature, pointing it in a direction that is beneficial, while taming its side effects. A denial of human nature is how you get authoritarian socialism with centralized planning, which leads to catastrophe because of the local knowledge problem, and because people have no private incentive to do anything. "Capitalism" is an incomplete first step towards a system which channels greed into something that's beneficial for all stakeholders. A profit-driven actor making their production more efficient to increase profits is a good thing for everyone. But capitalism is incomplete because the profit-motive can become pathological. Market failures are commonplace. The only solution that is proven to work is a mixed economy done right, with clever and lean regulations, and a government not influenced by money, and with the government stepping in occasionally to provide public goods that the market cannot, and with private actors otherwise free to make profits as long as they are not harming any third parties.

arunabha 1y ago
> Human nature (greed) is never the problem, because it cannot be changed. Focus only on what can be changed. The statement might appear to be pedantically true, but it's not true in practice. Sure, greed cannot be eliminated, but you certainly have systems which control the actions which result from greed. In reality, the actions brought on by greed are the real problem and we have an entire branch of the US govt(the legislature) dedicated to setting up mechanisms(laws) to discourage unwanted actions via threat of consequences. So, it's certainly possible to mitigate the effects of greed. What people are pointing out is that of late corporations(and more specifically the C suite) have faced few if any consequences for detrimental behaviour driven by greed. Hence the problem.
- energy123 1y ago
  We are saying the same thing.
TFYS 1y ago
> centralized planning, which leads to catastrophe because of the local knowledge problem, and because people have no private incentive to do anything. The local knowledge problem might have been an issue with central planning a few decades ago, but I don't think it is anymore. Everyone now has in their pocket a device with which they're able to instantly send any kind of information anywhere. We now have computers and software powerful enough to process all this information. The price mechanism is an ancient, inefficient and slow way to transmit information compared to what we could achieve today if we really wanted to. People have all kinds of incentives other than profit. People wouldn't just lie down and die if they couldn't make money by owning things. The failures of past attemps at planning had more to do with the limited technology they had and the poor decision-making structure that centralized power and allowed too much corruption. That doesn't mean planning will always have that kind of a result. > a government not influenced by money This is impossible in capitalism, which will always over time create concentrations of capital large enough that influencing the people in government will become affordable, no matter how hard you make it. Government is just people, and there'll always be ways to influence people using money. In a well designed government it would be hard and expensive, but you can never make it impossible. Eventually a corporation or an individual will become so wealthy that they can afford it, and at some point conditions will arise where influencing the government will be a cheaper way to increase profits than fairly competing in the market.