I recently encountered a laundry list of objections to the profit motive. The following is the list with redundancies removed, edits for clarity, and my comments. Many of the complaints are based in ignorance of how markets work, ignorance of the perverse incentives created by government regulation, failure to consider problems with available alternatives, refusal to consider the possibility of government failure, demands that companies solve complex social problems (some of which are created by government), and an insistence on perfection.
1- Lack of accountability
Accountability to whom? Companies are certainly accountable to their shareholders, suppliers, and customers. To a large extent, they are also accountable to employees and annuitants. They are required to adhere to contracts their officers have signed and to the laws and regulations of the communities in which they do business.
By contrast, to whom are unelected bureaucrats accountable? Bureaucrats who can: write regulations that have the force of law, interpret their own regulations, determine whether a company is in violation of the regulations, and penalize companies that they determine have violated them.
2- Disregard for public welfare
Companies that are unconcerned with the welfare of their employees and customers tend not to stay in business long.
3- Increasing inequality
Having a job is, by far, the surest way out of poverty. An American who is keeps and holds a job is unlikely to be poor. According to a 2019 U.S. Census Bureau report, the poverty rate for individuals who had worked full-time for the entire year was 1.5%.
In the U.S., much of the current wealth gap is due to asset inflation caused by the Federal Reserves’ easy money policies, which were, in part, driven by the federal government’s deficit spending.
Globally, however, poverty significantly declined prior to the COVID pandemic. For the first time in human history, less than 10% of the world’s population lived in extreme poverty. Prior to the Industrial Revolution and the spread of free markets, the extreme poverty rate was over 90%. Extreme poverty was humanity’s “natural state” for most of its estimated 300,000-year existence. Its drop to 10% from 90% in just two hundred years is nothing short of miraculous.
4- Lowering product quality
Companies produce goods of varying quality to match the needs and means of their customers.
5- Price gouging
As economist Alex Tabarrok observed, “A price Is a signal wrapped up in an incentive.” High prices reflect demand and provide incentives for producers to meet the demand by increasing production and redirecting goods. Prices also provide incentives for consumers to purchase less and find substitutes. Artificially limiting prices in the face of real shortages does little more than spread and prolong the shortages.
6- Exploitation
“Exploit” means to make full use of and derive benefit from a resource. Companies that make full use of natural resources minimize waste and pollution. Companies benefit from employees and employees benefit from their employers – by definition, they exploit each other. As long as employees are free to accept or reject their conditions of employment, there is no exploitation in the pejorative sense.
Karl Marx claimed that employers exploit workers because they do not give them the full exchange value of the goods and services they produce. However, Marx’s alternative also exploits workers. The formula “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” necessitates Marxian exploitation. A worker whose ability exceeds his need receives less than he produces and is, by Marx’s own definition, exploited.
7- Subversion of government laws and regulations
Some companies do ignore laws and regulations and, when caught, pay penalties. Occasionally, company officials go to prison. Perfection is not an option while human beings are imperfect.
8- Prioritization of stockholder interests
A company’s responsibility is, first and foremost, to satisfy its owners’ interests. In a free market, they can best do this by providing – within the confines of the law – goods and services for which consumers are willing to exchange the products of their own labor. This activity benefits consumers and society.
9- Neglect of environmental stewardship
Much of this neglect stems from a failure by governments to define and protect private property rights. During America’s Industrial Revolution pollution was worse than it needed to have been because the courts refused to enforce property rights. When people sued factories for polluting their air and water, for example, judges decided in favor of the factories on the utilitarian basis of “the greatest good for the greatest number.” Judges reasoned that more people – employees and customers – benefitted from the factories’ activities than were harmed by their pollution.
Had property rights been enforced, factory owners would have been required to pay restitution for the harm they were doing, giving them an incentive to find ways to reduce that harm.
Settling ponds, for example, could have been used to eliminate the heavy solids released into streams and rivers. Perhaps, companies could have even found uses for those waste products. Standard Oil, for example, found ways to use gasoline, which before, had been considered useless and dumped into the nearest river.
Given freedom and the proper incentives, people find ways to turn problems into opportunities.
10- Risky and unsafe working conditions
Most of the reduction in workplace deaths and injuries has been the result of technological advances made by the private sector. Throughout human history, knowledge was gained through trial and error – trial and error in a world in which error often resulted in death. The first steam engines were dangerous because they were the first steam engines. We hadn’t yet learned all the ways they could fail and how to prevent those failures. The same is true for the first factories, cars, and airplanes. The steady decline in workplace accidents in the United States began long before OSHA and other regulatory agencies were created.
Richard Fulmer worked as a mechanical engineer and a systems analyst in industry. He is now retired and does free-lance writing. He has published some fifty articles and book reviews in free market magazines and blogs. With Robert L. Bradley Jr., Richard wrote the book, Energy: The Master Resource.
READER COMMENTS
john hare
Apr 13 2023 at 5:45pm
Two of the problems with people that come up with this.
calling them stupid does not make them smarter.
calling them liars does not make them more honest.
Even calling out ignorance often has a negative reaction. People wedded to the dark explanation don’t want to hear it.
vince
Apr 13 2023 at 8:21pm
Isn’t that the the bottom line: proper incentives? Easier said than done.
Richard W Fulmer
Apr 14 2023 at 5:24pm
One way to align incentives is, as I mentioned in the piece, to properly define and protect property rights.
vince
Apr 14 2023 at 8:10pm
I agreed about incentives and I agree about property rights. The problem that remains is that it’s easier said than done. What are the rights to air? For example a judge simply says employment is more important than clean air.
Grand Rapids Mike
Apr 14 2023 at 9:54pm
Define clean air.
Thomas Boyle
Apr 14 2023 at 4:44pm
Thanks for the post!
There’s one topic where I’d offer a different answer: Prioritization of Stockholder Interests. The term is confusing because, in fact, companies (but not management teams) put stockholder interests last. The management team’s duty is to do its best for whoever comes last. This is what “prioritization of stockholder interests” means.
The company must comply with all laws, pay taxes, pay all employees, pay all suppliers and pay people from whom it has borrowed money first. The management team has a duty to the stockholders because they get paid last (and, in fact, they only get paid what is left over). Everyone else has higher-priority claims on the company; the management team’s duty is to do its best for the least-privileged claimants in the stack.
Note that when a company is in bankruptcy, so that there isn’t enough left to fully repay the lenders, then the lenders, not the stockholders are the last to get paid – and the management’s duty becomes to look out for the bondholders first, precisely because they are now last in line.
David Seltzer
Apr 14 2023 at 5:32pm
Richard: In an effort to think like an economist, I’ve read Friedman, Hayek, Buchanan and other economists and libertarians. In my limited learning, yours is the best defense of the profit motive I’ve read. Your post has sharpened my ability to defend my position in any debate.
steve
Apr 14 2023 at 5:45pm
#9- Eventually. One major fault of economists in general I believe is that they tend to disregard the time it can take to resolve issues. Also, when you depend upon the courts to resolve issues, a common theme among libertarians, its often a case of might makes right. The side with the better legal team sometimes wins even if they should have lost on the merits. Having studied the issues around the pollution of the rivers from coal mining in the PA area I would note that the coal companies fended off suits for a long time. So you are in essence recommending a system of resolution that you know ahead of time is prone to failure.
Steve
David Seltzer
Apr 14 2023 at 6:22pm
Steve, many issues are resolved when both parties want to reduce the transactions costs of litigation by engaging in Coasian bargains. Pretty much embraced by other self-interested parties as well as libertarians.
steve
Apr 16 2023 at 1:44pm
David- As I noted, maybe didnt say it clearly, is that there is often a discrepancy in the ability to pay for legal help. In that case the better funded side is more likely to win, regardless of the merits. More specifically when it comes to coal the owners of th coal companies would sometimes just directly pay the judges. I occasionally have dinner in the home of a former judge turned restaurant who was on the payroll of the coal companies.
In some ideal world, the legal system does not fail. In some ideal world socialism works too.
Steve
vince
Apr 14 2023 at 8:06pm
IMO our legal system is good for lawyers and not plaintiffs and defendants.
Steve, working with pollution from coal mining, I’m sure you’ve seen numerous companies profit from mining, distribute the profits until a lawsuit hits, then– with few assets–claim bankruptcy to leave citizens with the mess, and then incorporate anew. Once again, private profits and public losses.
Thomas Hutcheson
Apr 15 2023 at 11:21am
Tastes vary, but I see no value in this kind of high level refutation of high level misconceptions. _I_ think taking a specific policy problem showing what the optimal solution is and how one of the misconceptions prevent the optimal solution from being obtained is better.
Richard W Fulmer
Apr 15 2023 at 8:29pm
Before we can get to in-depth discussions of specific policy problems, we first must get beyond people’s bumper sticker understanding of economics. If we can convince people to look past their caricatures of free markets, perhaps we can get to more substantive dialogs. The fact that people post such laundry lists of high-level misconceptions demonstrates the need for high-level refutations.
vince
Apr 16 2023 at 12:38pm
Could you fix the link to the laundry list of objections. It now goes to a tax article.
Richard W Fulmer
Apr 16 2023 at 1:59pm
The link is correct. The list is in the comments section. “Guest” posted 50 numbered objections to the profit motive. I whittled it down to 40 (my responses will be posted in four separate entries here on Econlog). Some of the original items were redundant, and I didn’t understand one or two of them (what does it mean to “prioritize impacts”?
BS
Apr 15 2023 at 1:18pm
How many of the people condemning profit are not making any for themselves (ie. more than needed to cover basic essentials of life), I wonder?
Comments are closed.