The Boy Dave (C)….

….still not quite getting it:

To be fair to Mr Cameron, in his foreword to the paper he does stress
that: "We in the Conservative Party understand that profits are the
lifeblood of capitalism, the greatest wealth-creating system known to
man."

No, not really. It’s the pursuit of profits which leads to this cornucopia, not the achievement of them. When people see someone of some company making excess profits (defined as above the general rate, suitably adjusted for risk) then they all pile in looking for some of that free lunch. That increase in competition is what both increases consumer welfare by bringing prices down and at the same time reduces those excess profits.

You might think this is a quibble but it isn’t. If we say that profits themselves are what drives the system then we can fall into the trap of defending the status quo. BT made profits so we should not privatize it nor open up its market to competition for example (for we would expect a monopolist to make higher profits than a company competing in an open market). That’s obviously not the way to increase wealth: allowing more people to pursue profits in telecoms is: certainly, we the consumers have greatly benefitted.

Remember, it’s the pursuit of profits, not the profits themselves.

5 responses

  1. “Remember, it’s the pursuit of profits, not the profits themselves.”
    Exactly so, as Frank Knight: Risk, Uncertainty and Profits shows:
    http://www.econlib.org/LIBRARY/Knight/knRUP.html

  2. James of England Avatar
    James of England

    Somewhat on topic for this, does this article strike you as the most partisan article in the economist for a long time? It is “unfortunate” that the best political tactic is not to call one’s opponents closet racists. It is “ominous” that Congdon would be interested in a flat tax and deregulation. Indeed, such policies are “authoritarian”, possibly showing “lounge bar authoritarian[ism]”. Also, “To bend even slightly in [UKIP’s] direction, however, would guarantee not only defeat, but ridicule.”

  3. happyjuggler0 Avatar
    happyjuggler0

    I think you have it wrong, it is not the pursuit of profits that matters, it is the competitive pursuit of profits that matters.
    Business owners simply love it when government regulations mean they have effective monopolies, because this means they can pursue still greater profits. But no one else really benefits from that.
    It is only when businesses are forced to compete for customers that the pursuit of profits rocks. In a competitive market you can only get a sale (as a rule, there are always people who buy any old thing uncritically) by offering either a higher quality product of a lower price for an essentially identical product. You can only get a good employee to work for you (same caveats as above) in your industry by offering a superior compensation package of some sort.
    Finally, in a competitve industry, businesses are forced to try to be as green as possible. Seriously. They have to buy the least scarce inputs because they are cheapest, thus engaging in conservation. They also have to figure out how to create their product with the least amount of those inputs, hence conserving energy and raw materials.
    When the government picks a champion all of that falls to the wayside, and massive environmental and human waste occurs, and they also tend to produce inferior products at higher prices than otherwise would occur.
    Pursuing profits is easy, just bribe (legally via campaign contributions, or illegally of course) the government to use its coercive monopoly to inhibit competition. One needs a competitive pursuit of profits for the good of the common welfare.
    You may think this is a quibble, but it’s not….
    Tim adds: I think that’s a good clarification. Thanks.

  4. happyjuggler0 Avatar
    happyjuggler0

    offering either a higher quality product of a lower price for an essentially identical product
    “Of” means “or” on my side of the Atlantic. 😡 Sorry for the confusion.

  5. Forester Avatar
    Forester

    economic growth is “an increase in the range of effective alternatives open to people”
    -economist Lord Peter. T. Bauer
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Thomas_Bauer

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Tim Worstall

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading