The Social Functions of Profits | Robert P. Murphy

[@panpiper]

Distilled to it's simplest essence, you make a profit when you produce more than you consume. Anyone who thinks that is a bad thing is as ignorant as they come. Indeed, I would venture that there is no higher good.

[@s0lid_sno0ks]

Starts at 8:00

[@Conan_the_Based]

Citing the most extreme form of marxist-communism and using it to disparage any sort of measured quantity of socialism is a tacky thing to do.

[@hal9000svk]

Bob Murphy from 8:00

[@pretorious700]

It's really amazing that there are still people who don't understand that profit is the only driving force in a healthy business environment.

[@nahiag]

I agree with you, but you must know that what he sited was Mises argument in 1922, at that time marxist-communism was a very real thing (and still is today)

[@MistakesNewbiesMake]

Robert Murphy is the man. I never get tired of listening to him.

[@PackShadowblaze]

Nice speech it really spoke to me

[@tetleydidley]

the most horrendous way of pronouncing "prima facie" you'll ever hear @ 9:47

[@Hashishin13]

He is an anarchist haha. If we had politicians like Robert Murphy we wouldn't have any more politicians... hey wait a minute maybe you are on to something.

[@hxcbastard1]

or intriguing... i wouldn't mind watching the market process unfold on the floor in front of me as bob murphy unravels its functions lol

[@Joe11Blue]

Are of of the videos from Saturday going to be posted?

[@mites7]

you might also like Coursera

[@scawarren]

Lucky high school students :)

[@aretlev]

Mhm.

[@kepstein8888]

Starts at 8:30

[@hxcbastard1]

damn right

[@Toddzilla1337]

Get Out. According to your theory, people should never be making more than minimum wage. If all they want to do is reduce expenses, why would they pay ANYONE more than minimum wage? The reason they do is because other COMPETITORS are willing to pay people more for their services and labor. This same force of competition is what would prevent companies from ever doing that in an an-cap society. Why would not having a government suddenly take away this natural force of competitors being able to offer your employees a better wage in order to attract the best employees?

[@wowhallo]

+Toddzilla1337 They have to pay them more to accomplish their goals. If a plumbing firm wants to earn profits then from a cost-benefit analysis it would presumably make sense to hire someone who knows how to do plumbing, a plumber, rather than someone who cannot do the job. So yes, with a low-skilled guy the labor expenses will be lower but this does not mean that they will have higher profits.

[@billmelater6470]

*"According to your theory, people should never be making more than minimum wage. If all they want to do is reduce expenses, why would they pay ANYONE more than minimum wage?"* Explain how you arrive at a minimum wage in a market economy without the top down presumption of what the "minimum" is and you will arrive at your answer.

[@kalle911]

"...lay awake at night thinking how can I make other people happier...". yeah guys that's absolutely what an entrepreneur thinks. Not the usual things like "how can I make more profit" the answer is very simple: reduce expenses, increase revenues. for example, tighten the screws on your workforce. what better way to do it than in ancap society, no regulations there whatsoever. No need to lobby for union laws. Call it a "voluntary exchange". It's not as if they're even real people. lol.

[@billmelater6470]

You went from A, skipped B, and went straight to C without knowing how you got there, trying to establish that C comes after A. By that I mean you assume that workers or people in general actually, are just mindless drones with no will and fit perfectly in your angsty little box. The desire for profit is not evil, nor is in good. It is neutral as a standalone concept, so that's point number 1. Now in a system where no one is forced to do or give up anything, trade is the only option to attain what you want. So, the entrepreneur that wants profit and cannot simply rob others or force them to purchase whatever widget they make, must figure out what other people want, serve that need and do it better than everyone else to gain a profit. If you don't believe me, do an experiment yourself. Open one business that sells the service of putting your hand in to a jar of barbed wire and lemon juice vs. one that sells cookies and see which one does better. It may become necessary due to volume or what have you, that the entrepreneur needs help. But now since they cannot enslave people, they must offer a position to someone willing to accept the trade of time and labor for pay. At any point in time, both parties are free to terminate this contract. The worker who chose to be there has no right to the job because they don't own it. However, the owner does not own the worker and has no right to their time and labor, so the worker too is free to weight the cost and benefit of the arrangement and leave. That worker also has the choice to be an entrepreneur. They're not stuck in this pre-supposed class structure. So your view assumes the worker is this drone that cannot think for themselves, and only stays, knuckled under a business owner that is also presumed out of the gate to be some other mindless drone programmed only for destruction. What you ignore is the human element and that people switch jobs all the time. Businesses with high turnover are rarely successful and in most cases, barely stay afloat. Your last assumption is that increasing revenues and cutting expenses inherently means "tightening the screws on your workforce." This does happen but that is not always the case nor is it the only means by a long shot. Even then, it doesn't matter for the reasons listed above.