Thinker2
Sorry; busy.

No it’s not a rant.

But it’s a double standard based on logical fallacies.

For example:
" that if we consider our current level of profits acceptable as a measure to conduct and maintain a successful business, should we not then consider that increasing costs, should be the only determinate factor, that can or should be passed on to the consumer wherever possible, as a base acceptable notion ?."

Who are “we”?
Who are “our”?
Are they the same people?
Are you assuming that all property is owned in common?
If so, what justifies that?
If not, why are non-owners of profits regarded as having an ownership interest in them?

You still haven’t defined excessive profits, and it’s not clear what you’re arguing. Are you saying excessive profits are profits above current-level profits? Why? What justifies current-level profits? If the measure of what’s legitimate is *costs*, then why should *any* profit be considered legitimate?

“I guess Peter, my motivation is a simple wish for a more social economy.”

This pre-supposes that the economy would be more social, if the government were to intervene so as to ensure that profits are not excessive. But you haven’t yet shown why any given measure of profits is justified or excessive, nor taken account of the *negative* consequences of any intervention. So you have not yet justified your assumption that the interventions you favour would be more social rather than less.

Since market transactions are based on consent, and government transactions are based on coercion, you are essentially assuming that social co-operation based on coercion is more “social” and mutually beneficial than social co-operation based on freedom and consent.

But you can’t just assume it; you need to prove it. Otherwise your argument is “it is more social for co-operation to be based on violence than on consent BECAUSE it’s more social for co-operation to be based on violence than on consent.” It’s illogical.

Similarly, you assume that there is an irreconcilable conflict of interest between participants in a market economy. But you need to prove it, that is, you need to eliminate the possibility that people’s relations are mutually beneficial.

“Power to distort democracy increases when fewer people have actual power. Real power and economic power are the same thing in the real world.”

Your interventions would result in a lot *fewer* people deciding the values that everyone else should live by.

You have not established that economic actors have *power*. Governments have guns; retailers don’t. You are in favour of less power to the people and greater inequality.

I simply do not understand why it isn't appropriate to have a set of basic understandings
for participation when it comes to the master/servant relationships in peoples lives.

You are ignoring the negative consequences of the master/servant relationship involved between government and its subjects.

Your entire argument depends on ASSUMING that government has a moral and economic superiority over consensual transactions.

It doesn’t; or at least, you haven’t even begun to PROVE IT yet.

So the double standard is that you are essentially arguing “I’m ethically allowed to use violence against others to get what I want; but others aren’t allowed to use violence against me to get what I want.”

The logical fallacy is to assume what is in issue.

So if what you are ASSUMING WITHOUT PROVING is incorrect, as I have shown, it follows that what you are in favour of is not a MORE social economy, but a LESS.

Please answer my questions about what, if anything, justifies profit.

@yabby

I just love your Statement "Given that the poor shove billions of $ down the pokies, don't blamesupermarkets, if people make poor decisions" You have hit the problem right on the Head!

Who are the biggest poker machine owners in the Country?

Its either Wollies followed by Coles.. or the other way around.

Also , your comment about better Meat from Coles is pure Rubbish.. Its' the waiting you don't obviously like.. to which you aviod by buying lesser quality Meat and Vegies elsewhere.

You deserve what you buy, Coles Shareholder !

*Who are the biggest poker machine owners in the Country?*

Aspley, yes indeed, both Coles and Woolies own a number of pubs
and clubs. Which has absolutaly nothing to do with the price of
groceries. They both run liquor divisions, the pokies were around
for a long time before they got involved in owning them.

But if people are going to complain that the poor have no money
to buy groceries, why don't they ban the pokies? Its the poor after
all, shoving billions down those machines each year.

*Also , your comment about better Meat from Coles is pure Rubbish*

It is? As it happens, our local butcher doesen't impress me.
The poor bloke probably can't help it, his suppliers are limited.
Coles and Woolies can take their pick of the best livestock and
commonly do. The meat which I buy each week is actually pretty good
and has improved a great deal, since Wesfarmers took over Coles.

Hi Peter, thanks for your response on this subject.

Firstly, I don't make any economic assumptions PH.

Throughout history there has always been, (in any formal social structure), the haves and the have nots. This I believe an indisputable fact.

The have nots constitute the majority of people as a natural occurrence of any political system. If democracy is to be considered a certifiably real political system or concept, the interests of the majority are to be taken in to account, apparently.

If we are to justify fair profits as based upon the WC Fields principal of "never giving a sucker an even break", then we need to temper this thought process with some basic principals understood by all participants.

I simply asked the question "if we consider our current level of profits acceptable as a measure, to conduct and maintain a successful business: should we not then consider that increasing costs should be the only determinate factor, that can or should be passed on to the consumer wherever possible, as a base acceptable notion" ?.

I would suggest that with your silence Peter to this specific question, is because you would not believe this is a fair question to ask ?. Am I right?.

And as for the non profit owners as you refer to them, they are the majority of participants in the productivity of "our" democratic nation.
For them the question would be "why are my living standards in decline, whilst the big end of town are enjoying the fruits of my labour". e.g. unnecessary increasing profit margins/bonuses.
The GFC and the bailouts by taxpayers is no better demonstration of the investment that the non profit owners have at stake PH.

If the Gov't isn't moral or representative, then "I am assuming" that we can vote for another one.

You also propose that I assume/accuse "irreconcilable conflict of interest between participants in a market economy".

On the contrary I'm suggesting that both would benefit from common understandings.

As for the proposition that the difference between Govt and a Retail store, is that the govt has guns, is something I am also assuming that we shouldn't have to consider in our economic modelling Peter.