Profits are Pro-people

When pharmaceutical companies refused to waive their intellectual property rights to the COVID-19 vaccines, they were attacked for putting profits before people. When landlords increase rents to a level that tenants cannot afford, the property owns are condemned for putting profits before people. These attacks, and others like them, are unjust. Profits are pro-people.

The claim that businesses put profits before people is founded on the premise that businesses should place the interests of consumers above their own interests. However, there is no conflict between the interests of a business and the interests of its customers. Each wants to obtain a value. The business wants money, and the consumer wants a product or service. It is a trade that benefits both parties.

Those who make the profits before people claim want to obtain values without trading a commensurate value. They want the benefit of a vaccine or a home, but they do not want the producers to benefit.

A business will not invest the time, effort, and money to produce the values that we need to sustain our lives if it isn’t going to benefit—make a profit. The profit motive is why farmers and ranchers produce the food we need. It motivates energy companies to produce electricity, gasoline, and jet fuel. Without the profit motive, who would produce smart phones, computers, automobiles, and the countless other products that we need?

I want my grocer to make a profit, because that allows him to maintain his store and keep the shelves full. If my mechanic doesn’t make a profit, he will close his shop, and I will not have someone dependable to service my car. I want my favorite restaurants to be profitable so they will be there when I want to dine out. I want businesses to profit so that they are able to satisfy my needs and desires.

Profits enable businesses to serve people. Profits are pro-people.

Similar Posts

  • The Cost of Compromise

    In modern politics, compromise is widely regarded as a virtue. “Reaching across the aisle”–working with one’s political opponents, is seen as the paradigm of leadership. But compromise is neither a virtue nor leadership. It is moral cowardice. In any compromise between good and evil, only the evil will win. For example, let us say that…

  • The False Alternative of Dictatorship or Dictatorship

    In opinion piece Andrew P. Napolitano presents us with the false alternative of dictatorship or dictatorship: One is not truly free if one cannot leave the government. This applies to people as well as to political subdivisions. The forced retention of people or geographical units under the government’s monopolistic jurisdiction is totalitarian. Without the threat…

  • The “Radical Center”

    This was originally posted on Live Oaks on March 25, 2010. Comments have not been migrated. Thomas Friedman bemoans the political divisiveness that arose during the debate over health care “reform”. He fears that Democrats will lose seats in November, resulting in more gridlock in Washington. His solution: That is why I want my own…

  • Capitalism

    Capitalism is the social/political system that recognizes and protects individual rights—the freedom to live as one chooses so long as one respects the freedom of others to do the same. Individual rights pertain to freedom of action. They protect an individual’s freedom to take the actions that he deems necessary to sustain and enhance his…

  • The Nihilism of BLM

    In mid-August, Black Lives Matter (BLM) protesters marched through a Seattle neighborhood demanding that the white property owners give up their homes. The neighborhood, which has undergone gentrification, was once predominantly black. One protester said, Give black people back their homes! You’re sitting there comfortably — comfortable as f—k as if they didn’t help gentrify…