Are profits wrong when they don't satisfy any need?

[David_Castlen]

To David Castlen:

So what is the pope saying? Surely he is not claiming that the market is always good?

But how is the word “market” being defined?

I simply define it as acts of business. Clearly not every act of business can be good, can it?

The market is not good or bad the market is like a proton: it is. Now, the way an individual operates in the market can be defined as good or bad; e.g., breaking a contract, lieing about the fact of a product or service, etc.

My concern with discussions like this is that they lead to a solution regarding those that do bad within a market. The solution leads to poorer people, immoral atmosphere, envy. That solution is/are forms of socialism - condemned by the church.

How do you define profits?

Revenue in exess of expenses.

I’m just saying that there is some imaginable situation (a “universe” from the logical p.o.v.) where making profits can cause evil. This is far from saying that markets (as acts of business or what comes to the same, as acts of profit generators) are bad for they are per se good (we all want profit) but they are also, in a sense, indifferent to good or bad just like sex (which is good) is indifferent to good or bad; for there is such a thing as badly ordered sex (porn, for instance).

God bless you, Fakename, but your above comment is incoherent. i think you want to say the market is not evil, people are. Perhaps you want to give the market an accident that it creates an atmosphere to do evil. I say, the market is so much less prone to allowing evil events than anyother form of distriubtion of goods and services. I will go further and say that the market protects from many opportunities for evil

What the above quote seems to say is that it is a necessary truth that markets are good, so that there is no imaginable situation where markets are evil.

What quote, Fakename? The markets are not good or bad they are like ph7 water, wood; they are. Now, if one is comparing the market to socialism or communism than the conclusion must be the market is good in that it produces better products, at lower prices to more people and generates more jobs.

And yet, we have ideas of unjust wages

“Ideas” by “Ideas” I guess you mean “incidents”? Otherwise, I misunderstand you.
The history you have been exposed to beginning with Eugene V Debts etc would lead one to easily conclude there has been a plethera of unjust wages here in the US. That is just hogwash. Time does not allow me to address this; however, may I suggest reading Thomas Woods history of Economics with the Catholic Church’s perspective. I do not recall the name of his book, my library is torn down now. I would also suggest the Economic Series of the Acton Institute - its about ten books. There is a poster on CAF who goes by Abu, his insights are far and above mine.

or profit obtained by fraud, or usury which are plainly inconsistent with the profits=good argument, unless I defined something wrong.

These wrong doings are not the markets fault. It is the fault, the sin of individuals who operate in the market. Thanks to where free markets are (and very few exist) there is very little fraud and usury. Now, usury can mean lending in a devious way or lending to one at a high rate. Devious happens when the lender keeps information from the party he is lending to and tricks him into a high rate. Now, if the person getting the high rate and a bad risk and he has access to all or most lenders he deserves the high rate. Our country has gotten into a terrible peckle giving money to those who have bad credit at a lower rate than they should have. Where the free market exist, little fraud and usury exist compared to the hell of a controlled market.

fine, I’m just saying that his excesses are a problem that he needs help with and that before getting-the-help, he was experiencing a vice. There is at least one situation, given the meaning of the words “market” “vice” etc. where these words “market” and “vice” are consistent w/each other.

But, this has nothing to do with the market!

Well, Fakename, Euthyphro would be proud of my rambling. Perhaps I am wrong. However, it appears you agree with me if I have re-read your comments correctly. And I did re-read them more than a couple of times.

God bless.

 

[JimG]

Profits are like wages. They are neither good nor evil. Workers would like to have higher wages. Owners would like to have higher profits. Consumers would like to have lower prices. Free markets do the best job of ensuring equity to all parties.

Profits are reinvested into the business, or distributed to shareholders as income. Some companies make donations to charity out of profits. I have heard it argued that such is a poor use of profits, as it helps fewer people than reinvesting the profits to grow the business which in turn creates more jobs and more profits and benefits the whole economy.

Possibly the worst situation is what we have currently, where a great number of companies are simply hoarding profits in cash instruments, because they are afraid to invest, afraid to grow, afraid to hire, because of the uncertainty overhanging the economy, mainly created by the government.

 

[fakename]

To David Castlen:

What is your definition of “market”?

this is an important question since our conversation on 'whether a market can be good or bad" completely hinges on whether we have an “iso-nomic” (if you will) understanding of the words of the question.

So as I wrote my definition is “acts of businessmen and buyers/sellers to produce profit or gain at least subjectively useful items”

What did the pope mean when he said “market”? Perhaps he was meant it different from me?

 

[graciew]

I have always wondered if by taking an extra job when all in all I am ok and may not need it(meaning really need it) would mean depriving somebody of a job she/really needs.In the same way,I believe money is a limited resource,and what one is earning somebody else is failing to get(though the economists in my family have always debunked my theory…)

 

[grandfather]

Maybe the right context to answer the poster’s question is not in a discussion of economics and markets as they operate in the modern day world, but theology. The question for me is about how does the desire for profits (money) effect the soul of the individual, my soul, not an economy.

The original question whether (doing) a thing (anything) is wrong (sinful) if it does not satisfy a need is interesting.

For a thing to be moral it has to have a proper use. Money can be used as a means of evil or good. A rope can be used to pull a drowning person from the water or a lynching. It is not the thing that is good or evil. The thing is in the hands of a person who uses it for good or evil purposes.

Saint Paul does not say money is the root of all evil, or that it is evil. He says the love of money is the root of all evil. A muslim friend taught me a great saying about money. Money should be in your hand, not in your heart.

I do things to excess, because I like doing them. I grow a big garden, more than my family needs. I enjoy doing it and giving away the surplus. I don’t need it. I just like working to produce it. Is that wrong?

Besides having too many vegetables, I also own many things for which I do not have an immediate or specific need and I could easily live without them. I acquired them with money in case I might need them and use many of them irregularly or rarely when the occassion demands. For the most part they are practical things, tools of different sorts, saws, drill bits by the dozen, all kinds of hand tools, a tractor, oxygen acetylene equipment, various amounts of different types of lumber, a wide assortment of nuts and bolts, screws, nails, fasteners, paints, fluids, glues, jacks, chains, wire, ad infinitum. I probably will never have a need for a lot of this stuff, but as I go about my life keeping busy with interests, hobbies and various legitmate simple pursuits it comes in handy if the particular widget I need is available at the ready.

I pick up various items all the time to add to the ever growing inventory. Yesterday I bought a handy little set of binoculars to fit in my pocket or take on trips in case I need (want) them. I don’t want to pack and haul a big set all over the place. More stuff piles up. I realize in this that I can never own enough stuff hoarded away in my shop and tool chests, that I will not need something I do not have, to fix the plumbing, or garden fence. There has to be a limit and life gets crazy if this tendency to acquire more stuff is not tempered. At some point I don’t own my stuff. My stuff owns me.

Money is exactly like that.

I might keep piling it up out of fear that I will not have enough someday, or to indulge myself in luxury while the poor go hungry. God will hold us accountable for what we do with what we have.

Avarice is a capital sin. It is the disordered love of money. It is the desire for money for the sake of having it. It places money above love of neighbor and love of God.

Jesus said a man’s treasure lies where his heart is. Money should not be in our hearts.

Pope John Paul II spent a good deal of effort condemning materialism. It is a spiritual evil that threatens our rich society craving to be richer, the love of stuff and more stuff for the sake of stuff.

Jesus said work to acquire treasure in heaven, eternal treasure, not temperal treasure that moth and rust corrupts. This does not mean material things are evil, but that we should use them for eternal purposes. He also said, woe unto to you rich. The parable of the rich man and Lazarus ought to come to mind when we think about getting wealthier.

 

[David_Castlen]

To David Castlen:

What is your definition of “market”?

this is an important question since our conversation on 'whether a market can be good or bad" completely hinges on whether we have an “iso-nomic” (if you will) understanding of the words of the question.

So as I wrote my definition is “acts of businessmen and buyers/sellers to produce profit or gain at least subjectively useful items”

What did the pope mean when he said “market”? Perhaps he was meant it different from me?

You are right to clarify this definition as most logic is gone astray because of ambiguities. So often in these discussion one will postulate that the free market is a hamper to society and give examples of the government playing favorites. As you can surmise the argument’s effectiveness is “dead on arrival” because neither party has the same understanding of the term.

Actually the term market was not always used by the Pope, he used the term market in the first sentence of this quote:
"Society soes not have to protect itself from the market, as if the development of the latter were ipso fact to entail the death of the authentically human relations… therefore it is not the instrument ( here I took out the word “instrument” and inserted “market’ for clarification purposes ) that must be called to account, but individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility…”

Reading Caritas et Veritate it is obvious (my assumption) that the Pope was talking about the free market. Now the free market is the exchange of goods and services without interference.

It allows those who desire to buy or sell to determine their choice of what price to accept or what price to give for whatever product they desrie to sell or purchase. The free market tells the producer what the comsumer wants. It is a report to the producer telling him how much and what to produce.

No obstacles in a free market are established to keep one from buying or selling at whatever price will be accepted or given. The two parties agree. This is where to confusion is created: when other parties interfer with this information process and “for the good of the people” interfer with the maket resuling in higher prices, lower employment and businesses going out of existance.

Our topic (here) is “Are profits wrong when they don’t satisfy any need?” The assumption that profits do not satisfy any need is wrong. I propose that there is no such status: “no satisfaction of a need”. But even if the one selling has no satisfisfaction, those who have bought from him have been satisfied; othewise, why would they had ever bought in the first place. The seller may not care about his corn making him any more money but those that are starving do. The truck sellsman may have no more satisfaction in selling one more truck (marginal sells) but the delivery man must have that truck to keep his family in shoes. And a million other examples can be given.

God bless you Fakename - where did you get that name? I am sure you freely chose it.

 

[fakename]

as if the development of the latter were ipso fact to entail the death of the authentically human relations…

Your definition of the market as the unimpeded exchange of goods and services is certainly reconcilable with my views and this view is reconcilable with what the pope said above.

The reason why I focused on market expansion above, is because the pope seems to focus on it with the word “development”.

What he says, in my opinion, is that if the market expands or progresses, one needs more information than that to know if the expansion was good or bad, that is, market expansion doesn’t of itself imply a vicious or virtuous expansion. All that I say, is that sometimes, given some other conditions, the market can be bad, and I too view the market as just exchanges since exchange is just another word for what buyers and sellers do. Buying and selling is not bad in itself, it needs more conditions to make it bad or good, but that doesn’t mean that one cannot call bad buying or selling bad when it is bad.

 

[David_Castlen]

Your definition of the market as the unimpeded exchange of goods and services is certainly reconcilable with my views and this view is reconcilable with what the pope said above.

The reason why I focused on market expansion above, is because the pope seems to focus on it with the word “development”.

What he says, in my opinion, is that if the market expands or progresses,

I am inclined to make the premise that the essence of the market is an ever-ending expansion and contraction. Never never will the market be static; it is always moving and changing. This is the beauty of the market: the “silent hand” decides what is the best product and the best price possible (POSSIBLE). No other system can do this.

one needs more information than that to know if the expansion was good or bad, that is, market expansion doesn’t of itself imply a vicious or virtuous expansion.

Fakename, can you please provide an example or data for an expansive market that is “vicious”?

All that I say, is that sometimes, given some other conditions, the market can be bad,

How??? examples, or data please

and I too view the market as just exchanges since exchange is just another word for what buyers and sellers do.

I hope I am not being caustic, but the market is just only and only if the buyers and sellers are getting honest information - that is, information is not being withheld… it is not a free market if it is just what they “do”. “Do” can be evil, can be injust. Do not be confused, there has never been as far as I know a market where all information is available; but the market often makes available a ton of information that need be known in order to make a well informed decison.

The injustice is the holding back of information that would or will make a decision go one way or the other. On another note regarding justice in the market, the greatest injustice to a market or of a market is outside interference which we are currently infected with. Thank you Maynard K.

Buying and selling is not bad in itself, it needs more conditions to make it bad or good, but that doesn’t mean that one cannot call bad buying or selling bad when it is bad.

Thank you for your tautological comment.

 

[graciew]

As I understand it,the “market” the OP would be asking about,would be in our minds and consciences.Cause free market could be ok,or not, but how much of any market do I need for myself?

 

[David_Castlen]

As I understand it,the “market” the OP would be asking about,would be in our minds and consciences.Cause free market could be ok,or not, but how much of any market do I need for myself?

I have no idea what you are saying here; please clarify?

 

[graciew]

Maybe the right context to answer the poster’s question is not in a discussion of economics and markets as they operate in the modern day world, but theology. The question for me is about how does the desire for profits (money) effect the soul of the individual, my soul, not an economy.

The original question whether (doing) a thing (anything) is wrong (sinful) if it does not satisfy a need is interesting.

For a thing to be moral it has to have a proper use. Money can be used as a means of evil or good. A rope can be used to pull a drowning person from the water or a lynching. It is not the thing that is good or evil. The thing is in the hands of a person who uses it for good or evil purposes.

Saint Paul does not say money is the root of all evil, or that it is evil. He says the love of money is the root of all evil. A muslim friend taught me a great saying about money. Money should be in your hand, not in your heart.

I do things to excess, because I like doing them. I grow a big garden, more than my family needs. I enjoy doing it and giving away the surplus. I don’t need it. I just like working to produce it. Is that wrong?

Besides having too many vegetables, I also own many things for which I do not have an immediate or specific need and I could easily live without them. I acquired them with money in case I might need them and use many of them irregularly or rarely when the occassion demands. For the most part they are practical things, tools of different sorts, saws, drill bits by the dozen, all kinds of hand tools, a tractor, oxygen acetylene equipment, various amounts of different types of lumber, a wide assortment of nuts and bolts, screws, nails, fasteners, paints, fluids, glues, jacks, chains, wire, ad infinitum. I probably will never have a need for a lot of this stuff, but as I go about my life keeping busy with interests, hobbies and various legitmate simple pursuits it comes in handy if the particular widget I need is available at the ready.

I pick up various items all the time to add to the ever growing inventory. Yesterday I bought a handy little set of binoculars to fit in my pocket or take on trips in case I need (want) them. I don’t want to pack and haul a big set all over the place. More stuff piles up. I realize in this that I can never own enough stuff hoarded away in my shop and tool chests, that I will not need something I do not have, to fix the plumbing, or garden fence. There has to be a limit and life gets crazy if this tendency to acquire more stuff is not tempered. At some point I don’t own my stuff. My stuff owns me.

Money is exactly like that.

I might keep piling it up out of fear that I will not have enough someday, or to indulge myself in luxury while the poor go hungry. God will hold us accountable for what we do with what we have.

Avarice is a capital sin. It is the disordered love of money. It is the desire for money for the sake of having it. It places money above love of neighbor and love of God.

Jesus said a man’s treasure lies where his heart is. Money should not be in our hearts.

Pope John Paul II spent a good deal of effort condemning materialism. It is a spiritual evil that threatens our rich society craving to be richer, the love of stuff and more stuff for the sake of stuff.

Jesus said work to acquire treasure in heaven, eternal treasure, not temperal treasure that moth and rust corrupts. This does not mean material things are evil, but that we should use them for eternal purposes. He also said, woe unto to you rich. The parable of the rich man and Lazarus ought to come to mind when we think about getting wealthier.

I guess Grandfather kind of explains my feelings about the issue posted without geting too much into the market explanations I sometimes do not understand.

 

[graciew]

I have no idea what you are saying here; please clarify?

On a second reading of the thread,Grandfather had already gone into the trend of thought I wanted to read about.Thanks anyway for asking.

 

[David_Castlen]

I guess Grandfather kind of explains my feelings about the issue posted without geting too much into the market explanations I sometimes do not understand.

I agree - I think. It is the individual that sins. Not the market. We can condemn what a person does but not him. Judge not…
We can not know a person’s heart.
There is a tendency to condemn the market when this and related issues are discussed. This is a error.
Leave the free market alone. Work on your heart.

 

[fakename]

user "David Castlen":

well lets settle this by the light of authority.

Has it ever been magisterially taught that all profit, as such, is always and universally something conducive to goodness?

If the answer is yes, then I’m incorrect.

 

[fakename]

well lets settle this question by the light of authority.

Has it ever been magisterially taught that all profit, as such, is always and universally something conducive to goodness?

If the answer is yes, then I’m incorrect.

 

[David_Castlen]

well lets settle this question by the light of authority.

Has it ever been magisterially taught that all profit, as such, is always and universally something conducive to goodness?

If the answer is yes, then I’m incorrect.

Let us re-word you proposition: Is it church teaching that all profit, as such, is always and universally something conducive to goodness. Teachings of all sorts have well up in the Church; e.g., acceptance of abortion, a justification for slavery. These are not teachings of the Catholic church but … ho oh oh my fault I just now see you said MAGISTERIALLY… Ok we are on the same page.

However, what if that question has never been addressed? I will re-read CA and a couple of other writings. I will do my homework.

But I have a question while we investigate: If the magisterium addressed this quesiton, is it out of the area of Faith and Morals?

Untill then, God bless you Fakename (do something about that name)

 

[fakename]

Let us re-word you proposition: Is it church teaching that all profit, as such, is always and universally something conducive to goodness. Teachings of all sorts have well up in the Church; e.g., acceptance of abortion, a justification for slavery. These are not teachings of the Catholic church but … ho oh oh my fault I just now see you said MAGISTERIALLY… Ok we are on the same page.

However, what if that question has never been addressed? I will re-read CA and a couple of other writings. I will do my homework.

But I have a question while we investigate: If the magisterium addressed this quesiton, is it out of the area of Faith and Morals?

Untill then, God bless you Fakename (do something about that name)

I think that this question falls under morals since it deals with the good.

Aside from that, I don’t think that the Church ever taught that useless accumulation was good.

Did you find anything on this?

 

[markomalley]

That is, is it wrong to want to make money when there is no reason (mediate or immediate) to make money?

I don’t see anything wrong with making a profit, particularly if the one making the profit did not cheat others to do so.

I think that the real question should be: what is the obligation of the one making the profit?

Obviously, one would need to take care of personal and family obligations with those earnings. SInce we are talking about profit rather than wages, I would assume you are talking about the owner of a business versus the employee of a business. Obviously, the owner of a business would need to make sure that he is paying his employees equitably for their labor. He would need to make sure that his business obligations to his vendors and creditors are satisfied.

But what about profits above and beyond meeting those obligations (I would assume those are the 'immediate" needs you are talking about)?

If he had co-investors, he would need to make sure that they were properly compensated for the risk they put their capital in through investing in his business. (I would assume that this would be the “mediate” needs you are talking about).

But what about profit that is above and beyond all of that?

We learn from the early Church fathers, such as Ss Basil and John Chrysostom, that the excess should be shared with those who have need. To help care for their needs. This is a moral obligation of anybody who acquires wealth.

If even a fraction of those who acquire wealth beyond their needs took seriously their social obligation to the poor, there would never be any requirement for any government to institute any type of wealth redistribution scheme (“welfare” or social insurance).

But, of course, that is not the case.

So the real question comes in whether the material good that comes from forced redistribution outweighs the real moral harm that results to both the wealthy and the poor as a result of it. I think Pope Leo XIII answered that question quite well as did Pope Pius XI and Pope John XXIII. I could provide you the quotes if you’d like, but they’ve all been posted here multiple times before.

I think the authentic solution was captured by the current Holy Father in his Caritas in Veritate when he spoke of a spirit of gratuitousness throughout that encyclical letter. That is what needs to be inculcated in our culture. Unfortunately, those who fight for mandatory forced redistribution fight against such a concept.

 

[David_Castlen]

I think that this question falls under morals since it deals with the good.

 

[hazmat]

what is avarice?