Is Distributism utopian?

[frankpearson]

Economic rent is actually much more broad.

Economic rent is all of the profit that a land owner would take from the value of the land in production.

It is really just returns to a resource owner that are beyond what it takes to run the business. It is profit to a person to the level that he or shoe does not take part in the operation of the business, as I understand it.

 

[St_Francis]

Economic rent is actually much more broad.

Economic rent is all of the profit that a land owner would take from the value of the land in production.

It is really just returns to a resource owner that are beyond what it takes to run the business. It is profit to a person to the level that he or shoe does not take part in the operation of the business, as I understand it.

But you said you wanted to outlaw it? That would be outlawing profit? I haven’t seen anything like that elsewhere, and it doesn’t really sound like it’s in accord with what the popes have written. Is that your own opinion or distributism’s?

 

[frankpearson]

But you said you wanted to outlaw it? That would be outlawing profit? I haven’t seen anything like that elsewhere, and it doesn’t really sound like it’s in accord with what the popes have written. Is that your own opinion or distributism’s?

Profit on somebody else’s labor. Distributism is the system in which ownership of the means of production and land are widely distributed. That’s all. One way to help create a distributist system is to limit the profit someone can make on another person’s work.

Belloc holds up the late middle ages as a time when people for the most part did not own each others’ labor. I have a few quotes where Adam Smith is talking about that time when property was owned in that fashion and what we have in its place on my youtube page.

youtube.com/watch?v=KVn6nLK1f78

All people can profit mightily from their own labor and the management of their own property in a distributist system for sure.

 

[St_Francis]

Profit on somebody else’s labor. Distributism is the system in which ownership of the means of production and land are widely distributed. That’s all. One way to help create a distributist system is to limit the profit someone can make on another person’s work.

Belloc holds up the late middle ages as a time when people for the most part did not own each others’ labor. I have a few quotes where Adam Smith is talking about that time when property was owned in that fashion and what we have in its place on my youtube page.

youtube.com/watch?v=KVn6nLK1f78

All people can profit mightily from their own labor and the management of their own property in a distributist system for sure.

Oh, how silly of me; I just totally missed “the other persons’s labor to the point where one doesn’t have to work.”

 

[Ridgerunner]

But you said you wanted to outlaw it? That would be outlawing profit? I haven’t seen anything like that elsewhere, and it doesn’t really sound like it’s in accord with what the popes have written. Is that your own opinion or distributism’s?

It may be well to reflect on the fact that, since 1929 when such stats were first kept, the percentage of national income going to “property” (of all sorts) relative to that of “labor” never varies more than a few percentage points. It’s astonishingly inelastic. There may be something inherent about that relationship, and if one attempts to force it to be otherwise, what are the potential consequences?

We don’t know. But historically, conditions which greatly alter the 1/3-2/3 relationship found in the U.S.are not encouraging to sanguine views of politically forced alterations. (Soviet Union on one extreme; third world oligarchies on the other)

It is also worth reflecting on the fact that the percentage of income going to property increases slightly at times of high unemployment, and decreases slightly in times of high employment. But the absolute numbers for both increases in high employment and decreases for both in high unemployment. So, it is in “property’s” interest to have high employment, as well as it is in “labor’s” interest.

A sobering consideration, though, is the fact that the share of “Labor” consists in the sum of both "income from work " and “income from compulsory non-labor”. (e.g. social security retirement, unemployment benefits, welfare). Therefore, as the transfer of income to the “non-labor” component of the potential work force, income from “property” is little affected as a percentage of all national income (though it is reduced in absolute numbers). However, it does drive down the percentage of national “income from work” relative to “labor + compensated non-labor”.

Perhaps the greatest discouragement of individual and family acquisition of productive assets is government transfers. Besides reducing the value of “income from work”, it impinges on “T” in the formula “Income from Property” + Income from labor = Consumption + Transfers. “T” or “transfers” includes all transfers from one person to another. Paying for your childrens’ education, their food, charitable donations and investment are all part of “T”. The more of “T” that is taken by the government, the less “T” remains for those other purposes.

Those who nevertheless support ever-greater appropriations of “T” by the government run into something called “The Mother’s Dilemma”. In it, Mother has “X” dollars. She has a baby, older children, a husband and a cat. They all need milk and all but perhaps the baby and the cat need bread. “X” dollars will not buy a plenitude of both milk and bread. So what does Mother do? Well, she allocates. She decides the baby will get all the milk he needs; the older children less, husband may do without milk in his coffee and the cat gets table scraps and no milk at all. She does this in order to have enough left over to buy bread, which she also allocates, but in a different way.

Now, the point of “The Mother’s Dilemma” is that government is absolutely incapable of allocating with the precision that Mother can allocate. It will necessarily spend more. It will necessarily do so with political motivations underlying its expenditures. It will perhaps be heavier to excess with bread and not provide enough milk. Furthermore, Mother’s allocation is all voluntary and from an acknowledged limited supply of resources. The government’s allocation is forced and the government is tempted to print money in order to meet the demand it thinks is out there.

Therefore, all governments, if they want an efficient economy, should be very careful about impinging on “T” more than is absolutely necessary, particularly when its transfers typically go to “non-labor”, thus making it even harder for “Mother”.

 

[David_Castlen]

**St. Francis:

In post #373 you write first quoting me:
David: “What, is wrong with maximizing profits?”

and you reply ‘I wrote “focusing on maximizing profits.”’

Are you telling us you are concerned that a businessman is (primarily) focusing on maximizing profits? Do you think that is wrong? Is it the maximizing that you disagree with? Please elaborate.**

 

[frankpearson]

It may be well to reflect on the fact that, since 1929 when such stats were first kept, the percentage of national income going to “property” (of all sorts) relative to that of “labor” never varies more than a few percentage points. It’s astonishingly inelastic. There may be something inherent about that relationship, and if one attempts to force it to be otherwise, what are the potential consequences?

We don’t know. But historically, conditions which greatly alter the 1/3-2/3 relationship found in the U.S.are not encouraging to sanguine views of politically forced alterations. (Soviet Union on one extreme; third world oligarchies on the other)

It is also worth reflecting on the fact that the percentage of income going to property increases slightly at times of high unemployment, and decreases slightly in times of high employment. But the absolute numbers for both increases in high employment and decreases for both in high unemployment. So, it is in “property’s” interest to have high employment, as well as it is in “labor’s” interest.

A sobering consideration, though, is the fact that the share of “Labor” consists in the sum of both "income from work " and “income from compulsory non-labor”. (e.g. social security retirement, unemployment benefits, welfare). Therefore, as the transfer of income to the “non-labor” component of the potential work force, income from “property” is little affected as a percentage of all national income (though it is reduced in absolute numbers). However, it does drive down the percentage of national “income from work” relative to “labor + compensated non-labor”.

Perhaps the greatest discouragement of individual and family acquisition of productive assets is government transfers. Besides reducing the value of “income from work”, it impinges on “T” in the formula “Income from Property” + Income from labor = Consumption + Transfers. “T” or “transfers” includes all transfers from one person to another. Paying for your childrens’ education, their food, charitable donations and investment are all part of “T”. The more of “T” that is taken by the government, the less “T” remains for those other purposes.

Those who nevertheless support ever-greater appropriations of “T” by the government run into something called “The Mother’s Dilemma”. In it, Mother has “X” dollars. She has a baby, older children, a husband and a cat. They all need milk and all but perhaps the baby and the cat need bread. “X” dollars will not buy a plenitude of both milk and bread. So what does Mother do? Well, she allocates. She decides the baby will get all the milk he needs; the older children less, husband may do without milk in his coffee and the cat gets table scraps and no milk at all. She does this in order to have enough left over to buy bread, which she also allocates, but in a different way.

Now, the point of “The Mother’s Dilemma” is that government is absolutely incapable of allocating with the precision that Mother can allocate. It will necessarily spend more. It will necessarily do so with political motivations underlying its expenditures. It will perhaps be heavier to excess with bread and not provide enough milk. Furthermore, Mother’s allocation is all voluntary and from an acknowledged limited supply of resources. The government’s allocation is forced and the government is tempted to print money in order to meet the demand it thinks is out there.

Therefore, all governments, if they want an efficient economy, should be very careful about impinging on “T” more than is absolutely necessary, particularly when its transfers typically go to “non-labor”, thus making it even harder for “Mother”.

This is a very insightful commentary. I would appreciate any reading recommendations you could give.

I want to note, however, that distributist answers do not propose the removal of, or alteration of, the percentage of income in production going to the proprietor. The distributist aim is to affect society so that the proprietor and the laborer are the same person.

I am curious if you have heard of the “Land to the Tiller” program in Taiwan. I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on this program in relation to your comments on proprietor and labor returns.

Link to Land to Tiller Programs Article

 

[Ridgerunner]

This is a very insightful commentary. I would appreciate any reading recommendations you could give.

I want to note, however, that distributist answers do not propose the removal of, or alteration of, the percentage of income in production going to the proprietor. The distributist aim is to affect society so that the proprietor and the laborer are the same person.

I am curious if you have heard of the “Land to the Tiller” program in Taiwan. I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on this program in relation to your comments on proprietor and labor returns.

Link to Land to Tiller Programs Article

I recommend “Redeeming Economics” by John Mueller. Also “The Millionaire Next Door” (can’t recall the author’s name, but you can google it)

I don’t have time right now to read the Taiwan article, but I will.

 

[Ridgerunner]

This is a very insightful commentary. I would appreciate any reading recommendations you could give.

I want to note, however, that distributist answers do not propose the removal of, or alteration of, the percentage of income in production going to the proprietor. The distributist aim is to affect society so that the proprietor and the laborer are the same person.

I am curious if you have heard of the “Land to the Tiller” program in Taiwan. I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on this program in relation to your comments on proprietor and labor returns.

Link to Land to Tiller Programs Article

Glanced through the Taiwan article, but want to read it some more before commenting. Income and wealth, of course, are not the same things. They are not even related, particularly, in the sense that there is no significant correllation between high earnings and the acquisition of wealth. For “wealth” it is necessary to live below one’s means, and not a whole lot more. Yes, some significant wealth is inherited, but those people are in a distinct minority and tend to dwindle over time from a single fortune. The decline rates are incredibly high.

The overwhelming majority of millionaires in the U.S. inherited nothing of consequence. Most are proprietors of their own businesses which they built themselves. Typically they live well below their means and use the extra “T” to build their businesses (or farms, as the case may be) They usually marry only once, and most are religious.

So, in some respects, and in some societies, the “distributionist” ideal requires no governmental intervention; only a reasonable opportunity to self-utilize “T” and persons who are willing to live below their means in order to achieve vocational objectives. In the U.S., the “Distributionist ideal” is largely up to the individual, not on the state EXCEPT to the extent the state allows the individual to retain as much of his “T” as possible and provides a reasonable environment for individual freedom of action and access to opportunities.

To the extent the state appropriates individual wealth, and to the extent it provides an unfriendly business environment, it is destructive not only of the “Distributist ideal”, but of its own underlying economy; the reason for the latter being that individual entrepreneurs are much more likely to achieve the efficiencies of “Mother” in the “Mother’s dilemma” than is a government agency or even in a gargantuan business. Indeed, most jobs in the U.S. are created by the “Millionaires next door”. But statist-oriented governments tend to favor huge enterprises to the extent they favor enterprises at all. That’s because big business can “pay to play”, while small business cannot.

This country is in a “wealth crisis” at present. Trillions of dollars of bogus “wealth” were created by the low interest rate environment of many years. The emphasis on consumption encouraged leveraging that bogus wealth into consumption dollars. Ultimately it deflated and here we are, trillions of dollars poorer in the aggregate. But the government still thinks consumption is the answer to it, and wants to discourage wealth even more. Those who are in a position to create both wealth and income for others are mightily discouraged from doing it because the current government is hostile to small business.

I had an interesting conversation not long ago with a true “self made man” about 45 years of age. He has made millions. He opined to me that, contrary to popular belief, bringing jobs into a given economy (by which he meant local economy at that moment) is not the proper objective. Creating wealth is the proper objective. Why? Because, he said, those institutions that improve life for everyone are always and almost exclusively supported by individual wealth, not by income. he pointed out numerous examples in my town of very ambitious and worthwhile community ventures that are supported entirely by local wealth. Interestingly, he argued that community or regional or state or even national efforts to “bring jobs” to the community are a misallocation of resources. Jobs are income and unless the owners are within the community or state or nation, the wealth all goes elsewhere. He competes well with China in his business, but has no fear of “job exports” so long as the wealth returns here.

(to be continued)

 

[Ridgerunner]

(continued)

Since both he and I are smarter than the rest of the world (joking) we did agree that the primary problem in this country when it comes to jobs and wealth alike is not only the emphasis on income vs wealth, but is deficit spending.

Now, it’s just a fact that all money has to return to its country of origin or it quickly becomes worthless. It can return in the form of purchase of goods and services or as investment. But ultimately it has to return. So, if the Chinese, for instance, accumulated zillions of export dollars, they have to bring those dollars back in some way or the money is no good to them. This country’s biggest problem regarding that is that we give them an “out” by having so many debt instruments to sell. So instead of being obliged to buy, say, Georgia pine lumber or aluminum window walls from the midwest, or machine tools, all of which would create jobs and wealth in this country, they can buy a piece of Americans’ future earnings in the form of bonds, which is destructive of jobs and wealth in the U.S. Facing gigantic interest payments and a sluggish economy, the government extracts more and more of “T”, either directly through taxation, or indirectly through further borrowing, inflation and more sluggishness or all of them.

And yet, this government insists on ever-increasing deficit spending in the evident belief that bolstering consumption through borrowing is somehow the answer when it is precisely the problem. Additionally, this government is bound and determined to discourage the creation of individual wealth per se; the exact opposite of what it should be trying to do.

Then one has to ask oneself: Is this the intention? Are Obama and the left really as stupid as they might seem, or are they intent on “leveling” us all into a lumpenproletariat forever dependent on ever smaller government benefits, due to ideology or a sense of innate superiority and vain wish to govern forever? I realize many think they are stupid. I do not share that judgment.

 

[Jonatello]

**St. Francis:

In post #373 you write first quoting me:
David: “What, is wrong with maximizing profits?”

and you reply ‘I wrote “focusing on maximizing profits.”’

Are you telling us you are concerned that a businessman is (primarily) focusing on maximizing profits? Do you think that is wrong? Is it the maximizing that you disagree with? Please elaborate.**

I’m not St Francis, but I assume he’s referring to the fact that making the maximization of profits your primary objective typically causes the quality of said product/service to suffer.

The measure of said product/service becomes profitability rather than human value. I see this in my corporate-middleman cousin who can’t make an assessment of anything beyond its profitability. We’ll discuss a movie and what makes it good/bad, or what a great concept would be for a film/story, and his opinions will always ultimately revolve around how well it did (or would do) in the box office. He’s almost incapable of appreciating/judging a piece of work or creative idea on any other merit outside of marketability/trends/cost-efficiency.

highest quality doesn’t typically = highest profit

 

[Jonatello]

**St. Francis:

In post #373 you write first quoting me:
David: “What, is wrong with maximizing profits?”

and you reply ‘I wrote “focusing on maximizing profits.”’

Are you telling us you are concerned that a businessman is (primarily) focusing on maximizing profits? Do you think that is wrong? Is it the maximizing that you disagree with? Please elaborate.**

(i wanted to elaborate a little more on my previous reply, but ran out of edit time. here is a more detailed response)

**St. Francis:

In post #373 you write first quoting me:
David: “What, is wrong with maximizing profits?”

and you reply ‘I wrote “focusing on maximizing profits.”’

Are you telling us you are concerned that a businessman is (primarily) focusing on maximizing profits? Do you think that is wrong? Is it the maximizing that you disagree with? Please elaborate.**

I’m not St Francis, but I assume he’s referring to the fact that making the maximization of profits your primary objective typically causes the quality of said product/service to suffer.

The measure of said product/service becomes profitability rather than human value. I see this in my corporate-middleman cousin who can’t make an assessment of anything beyond its profitability. We’ll discuss a movie and what makes it good/bad, or what a great concept would be for a film/story, and his opinions will always ultimately revolve around how well it did (or would do) in the box office. He’s almost incapable of appreciating/judging a piece of work or creative idea on any other merit outside of marketability/trends/cost-efficiency.

highest quality doesn’t typically = highest profit

i remember watching a documentary on the music industry, and how songs/artists are chosen for radio…obviously there’s a lot of non-quality factors, such as a strict time limit, etc (a great piece/style of music that doesn’t fit nicely into the time slot would never be profitable for them as a mediocre disposable track that clocks in at 3 minutes)

…but one statement that really struck me was the admission/declaration that songs are not chosen based on what they think the audience will love, they are chosen based on what they think the audience won’t mind. Keeping people from changing the station is all that matters.

The great artistic/musical works that people might fall in love with generally involve more risks, as they aren’t simply formulaic, and alienate more people who don’t have a taste for said deviation.

Tastes are also managed by the sellers of culture. People tend to believe in what marketing schemes tell them is good. And if culture is made for profit, the lowest common denominator (sex, violence, etc) will be pushed to the forefront.

With products, there’s things like cheaper materials and planned obsolescence (what good is life-lasting if the customer only buys once).

With both products and services, there’s the fine craft of need-creation, either convincing people they need something they don’t, or actually causing the logistics of functional life in said society to make necessities out of things that should have been luxuries…like automobiles.

 

[St_Francis]

**St. Francis:

In post #373 you write first quoting me:
*David: “What, is wrong with maximizing profits?”

*and you reply ‘I wrote “focusing on maximizing profits.”’

Are you telling us you are concerned that a businessman is (primarily) focusing on maximizing *profits? *Do you think that is wrong? *Is it the maximizing that you disagree with? * Please elaborate.**

I understand the role profit plays in helping people make decisions, and I believe that profit plays other roles, so I am not against profits per se. What I have a problem with is when people have maximizing profit as an overriding concern, which I see as being inherent in the stockholder type of corporation because consideration of other concerns is minimized by the diffusion of responsibility and by the situation itself.

In my two examples, I tried to show a business owner’s decision to do something based on a consideration of something other than his profit, which would actually hurt his profit. But he thought it was right or considerate to do it, so he did.

But in my second example, I tried to show how the decision-making methods of a large corporation are such that certain types of considerations are reduced in importance beside the need to maximize profit because that is what the people are being paid to do.*

I don’t have a problem with profit per se–a laborer is worthy of his hire, and that should include owners --but I believe that people should concentrate on having a “good,” ie, moral, people-centered, business. Maximizing profit indicates that profits come above all other considerations, and that is wrong.

 

[St_Francis]

Ridgeunner!!!
I have to admit that I did not understand quiye a lot of your first post, mostly because I couldn’t figure out what all the terms you used meant. Can you link to something which explains that more basically? I was unable to find a site like that myself.

Thanks very much!

 

[David_Castlen]

I understand the role profit plays in helping people make decisions, and I believe that profit plays other roles, so I am not against profits per se. What I have a problem with is when people have maximizing profit as an overriding concern, which I see as being inherent in the stockholder type of corporation because consideration of other concerns is minimized by the diffusion of responsibility and by the situation itself.

In my two examples, I tried to show a business owner’s decision to do something based on a consideration of something other than his profit, which would actually hurt his profit. But he thought it was right or considerate to do it, so he did.

But in my second example, I tried to show how the decision-making methods of a large corporation are such that certain types of considerations are reduced in importance beside the need to maximize profit because that is what the people are being paid to do.*

I don’t have a problem with profit per se–a laborer is worthy of his hire, and that should include owners --but I believe that people should concentrate on having a “good,” ie, moral, people-centered, business. Maximizing profit indicates that profits come above all other considerations, and that is wrong.

****OK, St.F; tell me if I understand you:

1. Profts are OK
2. But profits as a PRIMARY goal is wrong
3. Particularly, maximizing profits is wrong
   Is that correct?****

 

[St_Francis]

****OK, St.F; tell me if I understand you:

1. Profts are OK
2. But profits as a PRIMARY goal is wrong
3. Particularly, maximizing profits is wrong
   Is that correct?****

As in any part of life, one’s first goal should be to attain Heaven and help those around you to attain Heaven. Increasing profit at the expense of attaining holiness, subordinating people to increasing profit is wrong.

 

[David_Castlen]

As in any part of life, one’s first goal should be to attain Heaven and help those around you to attain Heaven. Increasing profit at the expense of attaining holiness, subordinating people to increasing profit is wrong.

So it is Ok to have as a goal to maximize profits as long as this goal and the activities associated with it do not conflict with morality - it doesn’t hamper our efforts to heaven or is an “…expense to attaining holiness”. Correct?

 

[4gsd]

It should be noted first, that distribution is entirely different from re-distribution. Perhaps, re-distribution is utopian. Distribution concerns however are essential to ensure a lasting and solid democracy. In a sense, even those of us who do not control “the means of capital” as the traditional definition states, are in some ways capitalists. If you own a car or own a home…you own capital, ergo…you are a capitalist. Democratic rules therefore become a necesity in order to protect that capital. Therefore then, a fair distribution of capital (NOT re-distribution) is essential for a continued and secure democracy. If however, capital is not distributed evenly, or the ability to obtain capital is made difficult, then democracy can become fragile and what is left is something more like an oligarchy. Think Soviet Russia in the early 90’s
‘Fair’ caitalism ensure a secure democracy and conversely a secure democracy (in its own self interest) should encourage fair distribution.
THIS is primarily achieved through fair and equitable tax law. And…taxes that are NOT regressive. Fair tax law and non-regressive taxes help ensure that more people can accumulate capital thus ensuring a democracy’s survival.

 

[St_Francis]

So it is Ok to have as a goal to maximize profits as long as this goal and the activities associated with it do not conflict with morality - it doesn’t hamper our efforts to heaven or is an “…expense to attaining holiness”. Correct?

OK, the thing is that you are really focused on this idea of maximizing profits, and I don’t understand that.

To me, a business owner needs to earn a certain amount in order to cover all expenses and to earn some himself. So say Mr Jones has a store. He sells stuff and is able to pay his employees, utilities, mortgage, etc., and “pay” himself. Now, I have known business owners who worked very hard but who, at the beginning of their business, needed an outside income. So there one might say that the owner needs to focus on maximizing profits so that the business will make enough money to cover all expenses, because paying the owner is an expense.

But once all are adequately compensated, the money left over after paying everyone is profit for the owner. Does profit need to be maximized at this point? No.

So say Mr Jones owns a grocery store. Someone comes along and tells him he can maximize his profit by selling salacious magazines. He decides that this would be bad–he doesn’t want to be involved in selling something which could lead others into sin, so he turns it down.

Then someone comes along and tries to get him to maximize his profits by selling some hardware stuff. Mr Jones sees that then he would be duplicating what his neighbor who owns the hardware store sells, and Mr Jones thinks that he would not like to cut into his neighbor’s business like that, so he says no.

Finally, someone comes along and suggests that he add flowers to the things he sells. Mr Jones considers that and decides that this would be nice for his customers and bring in enough to both cover expenses with some left over (profit), and decides to do that.

So, from my point of view, maximizing profit–the money that comes in over and above what is needed to cover all expenses including adequate compensation for the owner–should not be that much of an issue at all. If Mr Jones thinks more about how to improve service, or how better to interact with his employees, and things like that, yes, the profits would probably increase, but there is also no particular need to do anything specifically to maximize profit.

The business will actually be better if he concentrates his attention on other things than maximizing profit, and that in and of itself is more likely to increase profits as a side-effect.

 

[David_Castlen]

St. Francis,

**Referencing your post #397

God bless you St. Francis, your concern for my interest in your “focusing on maximizing profits” is due to your post #373 and #361. In those post you note a number of concerns related to economic systems that include a free market. I understand that you propose a Distributist system will ameliorate them. If maximizing profits is a hendrence to the poor getting goods and services and people securing jobs, then there can be nothing much more important to understand. From my point of view, I can not understand this concept; I have experienced new jobs, lower cost of goods from a free market that focuses on maximizing profits. So, I am trying to understand your view.

You note from your example in post #397, in your effort to explain how focusing on maximizing profits is detrimental, that after the store owner has paid all his expenses what he pays himself you call a “profit”. Without getting into elaborate economics I agree. Where I am perplexed is your statement. “DOES PROFiT NEED TO BE MAXIMIZED? NO” Then you follow with three paragraphs, I assume as examples of why you choose that profits do not need to be maximized; why you answer “NO”.

1. the first example says that one should not sell salacious goods. Isn’t that a rule for everyone? A person in a distributist system should not, a person in a free system should not, a person in a facist system should not. Are you impling that in a distributist system it is less likely that salacious magazines will be sold? Can you tell me how one in a Distributist system is less likely to sell salacious goods than one in a free system?
2. The next example you give concludes (I assume) one should not sell what others are selling? Your example being hardware. Why should one not sell what others are selling? If my grocery store has light bulbs at a lower cost than my local hardware store, isn’t it better for me and more convenient because “today I don’t have time to go to the hardware store and I have to get home for my sick wife”. This is a big issue for me, why shouldn’t the grocery man be able to sell plants, hardware etc?
3. The next example you give seems to conclude, it is OK for this same grocery to sell flowers. I am inferring that in your example there are no other flower sellsmen in the market? I do not understand this flow of reasoning, this seems to contridict the grocery example above with the flowers herein.

You summarize the three examples by noting “the business would be BETTER if he concentrates his attention on other things than maximizing profits…” I can not understand this reasoning, it is probably because of my time in business. Tell me, what is “BETTER”: better profits, better stability, better turnover of product, better TO of employees, less hasle from government? What is BETTER?

What do you mean by “…and that in and of it self is more likely to increase profits as a side effect” What is THAT. Can you give examples? And if it increases profits are we not doing something closely related to maximizing profits? And if one who desires to maximize profits were to be aware of “that in and of it self that increases profits” he would do it, would he not? I really need these answers.

I am not being ascerbic. I truly, need to understand your philosophy? I appreciate you taking time to answer these questions**