• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How the Profit Motive Benefits Society

The profit motive benefits society because it aligns self-interest with value creation. When individuals or businesses seek profit, they must produce something others are willing to pay for - whether it’s a product, a service, or a life-changing innovation - like the smartphone or AI.

It’s why you have clothes on your back, a roof over your head, and a smartphone in your pocket - instead of waiting in a breadline with a ration book. In a profit-driven system, people get rich by solving other people’s problems. The better they solve them, the richer they get.

When the possibility of financial gain exists, it encourages investment and risk-taking. That’s how society gets medical breakthroughs, streaming services, cleaner energy, faster internet, etc. Profit-seeking behavior ensures businesses listen to consumer demand and allocate resources to where they’re most valued - resulting in goods and services people actually want. Contrast this with a non-profit socialist system where you only get what politicians and bureaucrats want you to have.

The pursuit of profit also leads to job creation and economic growth. As businesses expand, they hire more workers, pay higher wages, and reinvest in their communities. This virtuous cycle lifts living standards and strengthens the economy.

Finally, the desire to earn more pushes firms to innovate and become more efficient. They cut waste, improve production methods, and find new ways to deliver better products at lower prices. In the end, consumers benefit from more choice, better quality, and affordable goods. And since we are all consumers, that means it benefits virtually everyone.
 
It sounds like you don't know where you're going with any of your argument, so you're demanding I fill in the gaps for you.
No, I am demanding you make an argument to support your view rather than just throw out comments that hjave nothing to do with the debate.
The bananas thing is your thing. If you can't make anything of it, stop asking me for help.
I am not asking you for help. I am laughing at your inadequate replies and the fact that you have no clue how to give an answer that will not make you look more silly than you do now.
 
Yes, but that is also what the right wing leaning governments do. For you of course it is always conspiracy and an extremist view point rather than it just happens to be an ideology of the right.

No, big corps in bed with the state is left wing. Your beloved Nordic countries use lots of these insidious public/private partnerships.

True, that is how capitalism works by competition. Howver when you have boith a corrupt government and business cre3atingmonopolies and driving out the competition then you have a more insidious form of capitalism called laissez faire.

Once again you demonstrate that you have no idea what you are talking about. Laissez faire literally means "let them be" as in no government interference. What you are describing occurs in mixed economies.

And you can do that with governments it is called voting them out of office if you do not like what they are doing.

Try voting out the government of Singapore, or try to vote out Lukashenko. Voting is a privilege, which is often retracted by the state. Most governments in the world are authoritarian.

How does it reduce cost when you reduce supply but not demand. less product then suppliers can increase cost.

The straight bananas stack better, therefore suppliers can deliver more, not less. Supplying more bananas reduces prices, it does not increase them.
 
No, big corps in bed with the state is left wing. Your beloved Nordic countries use lots of these insidious public/private partnerships.
Such is the strength and wealth of corporations that government no matter which side must consider them. However the left are far less insidious than the right who simply bend the knee to corporations. Such as the time bush handed the banks a $700 billion dollar Treasury fund to purchase failing bank assets. Or now where trump gives tax relief to the wealthy at the cost of everyone else.


Once again you demonstrate that you have no idea what you are talking about. Laissez faire literally means "let them be" as in no government interference. What you are describing occurs in mixed economies.
Yes exactly what corporations want. To let them do whatever they want and not have to abide by government regulations or pay taxes. How laughable, the only mixed economy you are referring to is one where corporations attempt to run a laissez faire economy of the insidious nature of greed.
Try voting out the government of Singapore, or try to vote out Lukashenko. Voting is a privilege, which is often retracted by the state. Most governments in the world are authoritarian.
Not a reason for all governments to be. And not all governments run like that. Pointing to some and claiming they are all like that is a futile gesture at best a complete lie at worst.
The straight bananas stack better, therefore suppliers can deliver more, not less. Supplying more bananas reduces prices, it does not increase them.
Absolute nonsense as bananas grow a bend naturally in a bunch. Therefor the grower must throwaway more bananas that he sells to the supplier. This causes a shortage of supply and without a following decrease in demand means that the supplier can charge more for the banana.
 
Yep. Nobody invents anything without a profit motive.



Those are exceptions, not the rule. Your examples show that while some individuals are driven by altruism, large scale production typically requires profit as a motivating force. The overwhelming majority of stuff we rely on, such as food, medicine, housing, transportation - exists, improves, and becomes cheaper, thanks to the profit motive.

Historically many leftist politicians have tried to remove the profit motive from society: Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc, and the result was human death and misery on an unimaginable scale.
 
Those are exceptions, not the rule. Your examples show that while some individuals are driven by altruism, large scale production typically requires profit as a motivating force. The overwhelming majority of stuff we rely on, such as food, medicine, housing, transportation - exists, improves, and becomes cheaper, thanks to the profit motive.

Historically many leftist politicians have tried to remove the profit motive from society: Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc, and the result was human death and misery on an unimaginable scale.

No, they moved the profit motive to the state by having the state act as a capitalist entity.

And I agree, authoritarianism does lead to human death and misery. Which is why I oppose authoritarianism and support democracy.
 
There is a very high percentage of socialists and outright Communist in this forum.
 
Which is why I oppose authoritarianism and support democracy.

Democracy doesn’t protect against authoritarianism. Just ask the guy serving life for growing the wrong plants in the wrong place.
 
Democracy doesn’t protect against authoritarianism. Just ask the guy serving life for growing the wrong plants in the wrong place.

Yeah, instead the only person who should be putting someone in prison for growing plants in the wrong place should be the landlord who owns the land via their private court with zero oversight.
 
Yeah, instead the only person who should be putting someone in prison for growing plants in the wrong place should be the landlord who owns the land via their private court with zero oversight.

You commies just can’t think outside the statist box.

If I grew some weed plants on your land, you’d probably just pull them up and toss them. You wouldn’t even bother taking me to court - because you’d have to prove damages, and that’d be a stretch.

No, the obscene injustice of locking people up for life for the “crime” of growing the wrong plants on their own land happens in your beloved democratic state. And yes, that’s authoritarian.
 
You commies just can’t think outside the statist box.

If I grew some weed plants on your land, you’d probably just pull them up and toss them. You wouldn’t even bother taking me to court - because you’d have to prove damages, and that’d be a stretch.

No, the obscene injustice of locking people up for life for the “crime” of growing the wrong plants on their own land happens in your beloved democratic state. And yes, that’s authoritarian.

If i owned my own court and could have that court make you a slave for life and I was a sociopathic rich capitalist, why wouldn’t I take you to court? I wouldn’t have to prove damages. I own the court so they will do whatever I tell them to.
 
I'm not going to agree to have our case heard in a court you own.

It doesn't matter. You're on my land. My private police that I own take you to my court that I also own. You don't get a choice.
 
It doesn't matter. You're on my land.

No, I'm not. I grew the plants on your land, you found them and tossed them.

My private police that I own

Again, being a communist makes it impossible for you to think outside of the state.

You are actually referring to private security guards.

take you to my court that I also own. You don't get a choice.

Now you're in the wrong, which gives me the right to fight back.
 
No, I'm not. I grew the plants on your land, you found them and tossed them.



Again, being a communist makes it impossible for you to think outside of the state.

You are actually referring to private security guards.



Now you're in the wrong, which gives me the right to fight back.

I am referring to private police, which would have whatever powers their owner decided they should have.

Go ahead and fight back. What happens when people use violence against police that are arresting them?
 
I am referring to private police, which would have whatever powers their owner decided they should have.

They are not police. They don't work for a government and they don't have a monopoly on the use of violence. They are your private security guards.

Go ahead and fight back.

I will. Do you think your security guards would be willing to risk their lives for you over a few pot plants?
 
They are not police. They don't work for a government and they don't have a monopoly on the use of violence. They are your private security guards.



I will. Do you think your security guards would be willing to risk their lives for you over a few pot plants?

In truth, they are my noble demesne's household troops, but you prefer very specific political correct terminology for your neo-feudal society.

I think my household troops will follow orders because I pay them well. Are you going to be willing to risk you lives when I decree that the punishment for killing my "private security guards" is that the punishment you would have faced is transferred to your family instead?
 
I think my household troops will follow orders because I pay them well.

They're not going to risk their lives over some dumb shit like a couple of weed plants no matter how much you pay them.

Are you going to be willing to risk you lives when I decree that the punishment for killing my "private security guards" is that the punishment you would have faced is transferred to your family instead?

You're the aggressor in this scenario (which is to be expected, since you're a communist) and everyone around would know it.
 
They're not going to risk their lives over some dumb shit like a couple of weed plants no matter how much you pay them.



You're the aggressor in this scenario (which is to be expected, since you're a communist) and everyone around would know it.

They'll risk their lives to enforce my decrees. That's what I pay them for.

Feudal lords were the aggressors. But because they had the private armies in their ownership, they were able to enforce their will regardless.

Maybe the problem is you wanting a return to feudalism by wanting a society where there are no restrictions on the power of the rich?
 
They'll risk their lives to enforce my decrees. That's what I pay them for.

Feudal lords were the aggressors. But because they had the private armies in their ownership, they were able to enforce their will regardless.

Maybe the problem is you wanting a return to feudalism by wanting a society where there are no restrictions on the power of the rich?

Feudal lords and their expensive knights became obsolete when a little contraption called a firearm fell into the hands of the common man.
 
Feudal lords and their expensive knights became obsolete when a little contraption called a firearm fell into the hands of the common man.

No, they didn’t. That isn’t what caused the fall of feudalism. Feudalism fell because political power was increasingly concentrated in states.
 
Back
Top Bottom