How does anything improve without the profit incentive...

[The Rabbi]

So we're shifting from all to usually?

Sweet, what do I win?

So if you can show one case in thousands of years where someone did something out of completely altruistic motives then you win the debate? Sweet, where do I sign up for that deal?

The truth is that the vast majority is as I and other say. The very tiny minority are outliers. Penicillin was discovered, not founded, by several people. Thus no patent.

No, it was not patented because the team was against profiting from its discovery.

And you said ALL at the beginning, and now are loosening your terms, which is progress.

You have absolutely no idea wtf you're talking about. Fleming discovered the item in 1928,
The first clinical trial was by Florey in 1941 (my father participated in trials at Vanderbilt in the mid 1940s) along with Ernst Chain, who were employed at Oxford as lecturers. What was there to patent??
In any debate on econ or other social sciences there is no 100%, unlike math or logic. That should be obvious to anyone with any familiarity.

 

[The Rabbi]

Redfish I'll save you some time.

If you're defining profit as "any benefit period," NOBODY IS ARGUING WITH YOU, NOBODY WOULD ARGUE WITH YOU, AND IT'S A MEANINGLESS DISCUSSION.

You're consistently responding in such a manner that you think that anyone is arguing with that.

Nobody is. Which means - if the OP is referencing the word "profit" to mean "any benefit period," it's a dumb fucking thread because EVERY PERSON EVER knows that inventions/advancements are made for "some benefit period."


The others are having the ACTUAL discussion: which is financial profit vs. other motives. The discussion you're having is meaningless.

I did not take the discussion there, I was merely pointing out the errors in thought processes of others.

If we want to limit it to financial profit, fine.

Now, let me save you some time. Yes, some people have invented things without the profit motive, but the vast majority of inventions have come about because the inventor believed that he could sell his invention and make a PROFIT.

Yes, and I was arguing with a poster that said ALL INVENTIONS had a profit motive.

So you agree with me. That they ALL did not.

The exceptions prove the point.

 

[G.T.]

So if you can show one case in thousands of years where someone did something out of completely altruistic motives then you win the debate? Sweet, where do I sign up for that deal?

The truth is that the vast majority is as I and other say. The very tiny minority are outliers. Penicillin was discovered, not founded, by several people. Thus no patent.

No, it was not patented because the team was against profiting from its discovery.

And you said ALL at the beginning, and now are loosening your terms, which is progress.

You have absolutely no idea wtf you're talking about. Fleming discovered the item in 1928,
The first clinical trial was by Florey in 1941 (my father participated in trials at Vanderbilt in the mid 1940s) along with Ernst Chain, who were employed at Oxford as lecturers. What was there to patent??
In any debate on econ or other social sciences there is no 100%, unlike math or logic. That should be obvious to anyone with any familiarity.

The trip was against the wishes of Ernst Chain, who wanted to first patent their ideas in Britain. This would have made the team very rich indeed, but it was thought in Britain at the time that patenting medical discoveries was unethical.

Howard Florey - Maker of the Miracle Mould

 

[G.T.]

I did not take the discussion there, I was merely pointing out the errors in thought processes of others.

If we want to limit it to financial profit, fine.

Now, let me save you some time. Yes, some people have invented things without the profit motive, but the vast majority of inventions have come about because the inventor believed that he could sell his invention and make a PROFIT.

Yes, and I was arguing with a poster that said ALL INVENTIONS had a profit motive.

So you agree with me. That they ALL did not.

The exceptions prove the point.

That there are exceptions means "ALL" was wrong.

 

[Indeependent]

The OP explicitly mentions Business.

Ok, business only.

No business can continue to operate by just breaking even (not making profit).

If the business chooses to plow the profit back into the business or to pay it to the employees to avoid having it taxed does not negate the fact that it collected more than it spent in its business.

The explicit point of the OP is that ONLY businesses motivated by profits will achieve advancements.
The OP is complete nonsense.

 

[G.T.]

Jonas Edward Salk (October 28, 1914 – June 23, 1995) was an American medical researcher and virologist. He discovered and developed the first successful inactivated polio vaccine. He was born in New York City to Jewish parents. Although they had little formal education, his parents were determined to see their children succeed. While attending New York University School of Medicine, Salk stood out from his peers not just because of his academic prowess, but because he went into medical research instead of becoming a practicing physician.

Until 1955, when the Salk vaccine was introduced, polio was considered the most frightening public health problem of the post-war United States. Annual epidemics were increasingly devastating. The 1952 epidemic was the worst outbreak in the nation's history. Of nearly 58,000 cases reported that year, 3,145 people died and 21,269 were left with mild to disabling paralysis,[1] with most of its victims being children. The "public reaction was to a plague," said historian Bill O'Neal.[2] "Citizens of urban areas were to be terrified every summer when this frightful visitor returned." According to a 2009 PBS documentary, "Apart from the atomic bomb, America's greatest fear was polio."[3] As a result, scientists were in a frantic race to find a way to prevent or cure the disease. U.S. president Franklin D. Roosevelt was the world's most recognized victim of the disease and founded the organization, the March of Dimes Foundation, that would fund the development of a vaccine.

In 1947, Salk accepted an appointment to the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. In 1948, he undertook a project funded by the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis to determine the number of different types of polio virus. Salk saw an opportunity to extend this project towards developing a vaccine against polio, and, together with the skilled research team he assembled, devoted himself to this work for the next seven years. The field trial set up to test the Salk vaccine was, according to O'Neill, "the most elaborate program of its kind in history, involving 20,000 physicians and public health officers, 64,000 school personnel, and 220,000 volunteers." Over 1,800,000 school children took part in the trial.[4] When news of the vaccine's success was made public on April 12, 1955, Salk was hailed as a "miracle worker," and the day "almost became a national holiday." His sole focus had been to develop a safe and effective vaccine as rapidly as possible, with no interest in personal profit. When he was asked in a televised interview who owned the patent to the vaccine, Salk replied: "There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?"[5]
Taken from: Jonas Salk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not everyone is motivated by profit; only Callous Conservatives believe profit is the be-all and end-all reason for living.

And polio.

 

[Redfish]

You have no idea what a profit is.

Nope, thats you. Profit is the difference between income and expenses. Non-profits make that number a zero by spending or distributing "profits". Your power company is probably a co-op that gives each subscriber a rebate at the end of each year rather than declare a profit.

We are trying to educate you, but you have to pay attention.

Which means that my power company has no incentive to make a profit because it has to give it back to the customer.

And yet it is a better deal for the consumer than an electric company that has a profit incentive.

My credit union is owned by the customers. They are customers and shareholders. There is no incentive for the credit union to make a profit, because the profit would come from the customers,

and then go back to the customers who are also the shareholders.

OK, as a shareholder (one who has an investment in the company) would you not prefer to get a check at the end of the year as your share of profits, than a bill for your share of losses?

you are making no sense. Of course, your power co-op has a motive the keep expenses lower than income i.e. make a profit. The fact that the profit is rebated to the members does not change that.

 

[G.T.]

"Necessity is the mother of all invention."

 

[Toro]

According to a 2012 report by the Center for Civil Society Studies at Johns Hopkins University, nonprofit employment represents 10.1 percent of total employment in the United States in 2010, with total employees numbering 10.7 million. The nonprofit workforce is the third largest of all U.S. industries behind retail trade and manufacturing.
Number of people employed in the nonprofit sector

10.7 million people depending on being paid by organizations that depend on either TAXES or donations.

Think about that the next time you hear our president exhort people to "public service".
Take a look at the below list of ALL the projects Obama has pushed ... NONE of which designed to encourage business TAX PAYING growth... but
increasing the above nonprofit employees!
Where does the money come to pay for these projects? For these nonprofit employees' salaries?
The Obameter: Campaign Promises that are about Public Service | PolitiFact

Most college economics faculty don't believe in profits..

What a very limited understanding of human nature you have, if you really believe that.

The profit motive is a very powerful driver of human action, but it isn't the only one. If that were true, then the sole motivator of human action would be money. It may be the most powerful, but it certainly isn't the only one.

And your last sentence is very silly.

"last sentence is silly"??
In context of YOUR first comment though it shows YOUR inconsistent thinking!
DID I SAY ALL???? NO. Again in context of the THREAD title... was a QUESTION! How does anything..."
YOU jump to conclusions just as almost EVERYONE does today without closely examining the comment!
SO you say last sentence that "MOST college economics faculty don't believe in profits" is what it is.. "MOST".. want proof?
Another survey, reported in the Southern Economic Journal, reveals that “71 percent of American economists believe the distribution of income in the US should be more equal, and 81 percent feel that the redistribution of income is a legitimate role for government.”

Economists - Capitalists or Socialists?Eliminate The Muda!

So my LINK is at least more proof then your idiotic "very silly" shows your lack of scholarship at the minimum and telling sign of your intelligence at the most!
NOW "profit motive" is as I NEVER concluded the ONLY driver... YOU did!
Again... you didn't read closely but jumped to conclusions!
MY title ASKED the question... how does anything improve without the the profit incentive"???
DID I SAY that "profit motive" was the only??? AGAIN don't jump to conclusions but READ carefully before commenting OK?
Finally I'm sure you've said this very very common cliched meme... "I just enjoy giving gifts"!
According to MOST people and most likely YOU... you would assign that cliche to the concept of "altruism"... i.e. selflessness is the principle or practice of concern for the welfare of others."
But you like most people would be wrong!
Altruism is selfish. The altruistic act generated at the minimum a chemical response in the altruistic actor brain the result of "feeling good"!
And when these "altruistic" actors are asked why they did the selflessness is the principle or practice of concern for the welfare of others..." act they will say as the person who said I enjoy giving gifts" doesn't comprehend they are selfish..i.e. they had a feeling of good about themselves..."enjoyment" of giving..!

So for profits as a side benefit are the MOST effective way of improving ANYTHING because WITHOUT the net net income (after paying salaries..jobs..buying equipment..paying taxes ) where would the incentive for any use of accumulated capital to expand the profit generating business and directly improving the product or services?

NOT ONE nonprofit generates any net income that is taxable! And depends on others to pay the taxes!

If you're upset at how others interpret your OP, perhaps you might consider posting your ideas in a clear, coherent manner, including posting in paragraphs like normal people do.

If you want an answer to your (I'm assuming) non-rhetorical question, ask yourself is everything you do due to the profit motive? People have many motivations to working hard, not just money. Recognition, self-worth, a sense of duty, etc. are reasons other than monetary compensation for improvements in society. Financial incentive is certainly one of them, but it's not just a matter of accounting net income or return on capital.

Your conclusion about "economists don't believe in profits" because they believe in a more equal distribution of income is completely wrong.

 

[G.T.]

It's a pretty important point to overlook that simply making an invention and subsequently profiting from it, does not mean that profit was your motive.

Hence the quote in re: to necessity.

 

[G.T.]

If you were working on a Cancer cure right now -

Would your main motivation be:

#1. I'm being paid.
#2. Helping all of humanity.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nope, thats you. Profit is the difference between income and expenses. Non-profits make that number a zero by spending or distributing "profits". Your power company is probably a co-op that gives each subscriber a rebate at the end of each year rather than declare a profit.

We are trying to educate you, but you have to pay attention.

Which means that my power company has no incentive to make a profit because it has to give it back to the customer.

And yet it is a better deal for the consumer than an electric company that has a profit incentive.

My credit union is owned by the customers. They are customers and shareholders. There is no incentive for the credit union to make a profit, because the profit would come from the customers,

and then go back to the customers who are also the shareholders.

OK, as a shareholder (one who has an investment in the company) would you not prefer to get a check at the end of the year as your share of profits, than a bill for your share of losses?

you are making no sense. Of course, your power co-op has a motive the keep expenses lower than income i.e. make a profit. The fact that the profit is rebated to the members does not change that.

Well then what's the example of a business with no profit motive that this thread is trying to disparage?

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes, and I was arguing with a poster that said ALL INVENTIONS had a profit motive.

So you agree with me. That they ALL did not.

The exceptions prove the point.

That there are exceptions means "ALL" was wrong.

Only to eensy-teensy minds.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I think the idiots in this thread who are making their own definitions of profit and non-profit,

of course to support their own crackpot agendas,

might want to go back to the OP and see what the link is calling or not calling a non-profit.

By the time you use some asinine definition like that of Rabbi or Redfish, there are no non-profits.

 

[G.T.]

The exceptions prove the point.

That there are exceptions means "ALL" was wrong.

Only to eensy-teensy minds.

 

[Redfish]

Which means that my power company has no incentive to make a profit because it has to give it back to the customer.

And yet it is a better deal for the consumer than an electric company that has a profit incentive.

My credit union is owned by the customers. They are customers and shareholders. There is no incentive for the credit union to make a profit, because the profit would come from the customers,

and then go back to the customers who are also the shareholders.

OK, as a shareholder (one who has an investment in the company) would you not prefer to get a check at the end of the year as your share of profits, than a bill for your share of losses?

you are making no sense. Of course, your power co-op has a motive the keep expenses lower than income i.e. make a profit. The fact that the profit is rebated to the members does not change that.

Well then what's the example of a business with no profit motive that this thread is trying to disparage?

nothing was being disparaged. Just making the point that profit is the reason that 99,9% of businesses exist.

churches and charities do not make a profit, but they must keep income equal to expenses or they will fold.

 

[Agit8r]

So... the United States declared independence from England... not for a set of moral principles... but for profit? Is that what I am understanding as being said here?

Pretty much when you get right down to it. High taxes, no representation on how those taxes were spent. Interference with trade. Crown ownership of all.

If there had been no motivation to profit, those principles would never have been formed.

So it was worth them risking their "toil, blood and treasure" for future profit?

In light of how many of them died poor or bankrupt, it seems that their effort was a failure then.

 

[healthmyths]

OK, as a shareholder (one who has an investment in the company) would you not prefer to get a check at the end of the year as your share of profits, than a bill for your share of losses?

you are making no sense. Of course, your power co-op has a motive the keep expenses lower than income i.e. make a profit. The fact that the profit is rebated to the members does not change that.

Well then what's the example of a business with no profit motive that this thread is trying to disparage?

nothing was being disparaged. Just making the point that profit is the reason that 99,9% of businesses exist.

churches and charities do not make a profit, but they must keep income equal to expenses or they will fold.

Just a note... churches and charities GENERALLY don't make or provide any services that they "charge" so where do they get their income?
From people's donations.
Where do people get money to make donations?
Generally from the paycheck or investments.
Generally speaking most people work for businesses that are in business to make a profit.

SO how would churches and charities exist without the donations from people that earned salaries that came from businesses ..making a profit!

 

[Toro]

...

 

[Redfish]

Well then what's the example of a business with no profit motive that this thread is trying to disparage?

nothing was being disparaged. Just making the point that profit is the reason that 99,9% of businesses exist.

churches and charities do not make a profit, but they must keep income equal to expenses or they will fold.

Just a note... churches and charities GENERALLY don't make or provide any services that they "charge" so where do they get their income?
From people's donations.
Where do people get money to make donations?
Generally from the paycheck or investments.
Generally speaking most people work for businesses that are in business to make a profit.

SO how would churches and charities exist without the donations from people that earned salaries that came from businesses ..making a profit!

They wouldn't. Good point.