1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/5722/profit-and-loss/

Profit and Loss

October 6, 2006 by

A. The Economic Nature of Profit and Loss

  1. The Emergence of Profit and Loss
  2. The Distinction Between Profits and Other Proceeds
  3. Non-Profit Conduct of Affair
  4. The Ballot of the Market
  5. The Social Function of Profit and Loss
  6. Profit and Loss in the Progressing and in the Retrogressing Economy
  7. The Computation of Profit and Loss
B. The Condemnation of Profit

  1. Economics and the Abolition of Profit
  2. The Consequences of the Abolition of Profit
  3. The Anti-Profit Arguments
  4. The Equality Argument
  5. Communism and Poverty
  6. The Moral Condemnation of the Profit Motive
  7. The Static Mentality

C. The Alternative

While enjoying without any scruples all the goods business delivers, wrote Ludwig von Mises, the consumer sharply condemns the selfishness of the purveyors of this merchandise. Neither does he comprehend that profits are indispensable in order to direct the activities of business into those channels in which they serve him best. He looks upon profits as if their only function were to enable the recipients to consume more than he himself does. He fails to realize that their main function is to convey control of the factors of production into the hands of those who best utilize them for his own purposes. FULL ARTICLE

{ 5 comments }

M E Hoffer October 6, 2006 at 1:48 pm

These “Weekend Reads”, over the last interlude, have been Outstanding.

Keep up the Good Work.

Gideon styles April 25, 2007 at 8:29 am

Profit and Loss

This frightening article is the ranting of a half senial madman
who has been wondering the corriders,mumbling to himself in some far flung ivory tower for far too long.

Incredible to think how academia nurtures and bestows acolades and seats of power on minds that are so addled and dangerously shallow in the engagement of their supposed subject.

Perhaps this is why fundamentalist attitudes hold so much power in society, because they are allowed to prevail as a political force from places where they ought to be under exploration and examination by questioning.

Here, this article (speech), very badly argued, very unfocused, often contradictory even offensive in it’s unabashed political zeal
denies the attributes of complexity to his subject.

He vehmently lectures points by insisting that we can’t question, that it is ‘impermissible’ to question.

You ask for a civil and intelligent comment, yet the content of this speech is neither.

I would go so far to say that it ought to be regarded as a an embarresment to your Institute, obviously run by out of touch, overtly right wing and academically questionable members.

goodbye
Please excuse my spelling – and allow for a dyslexic assesment.

Scott D April 25, 2007 at 9:22 am

Wow, did you really need eight paragraphs to say, “This article sucks, you’re a bunch of right-wing bastards. La-la-la, I can’t hear you.”

They come. They read. They learn nothing.

And by the way, you have no idea how tired I am of seing “-wing” attached to any direction. I’m pretty sure that if we added up all of the “right-wing” accusations and subtracted the “left-wing” ones, we would arrive at a number very close to zero. The reason? To put it very simplistically, liberals use faulty economics and conservatives use bad social policy. Both are a menace.

s v June 8, 2009 at 9:02 am

Profit and Loss is a masterpiece.

It is the strongest argument that I have seen for a love of markets, as opposed to ‘perfect competition’.

s v June 8, 2009 at 9:13 am

Profit and Loss is a masterpiece.

It is the strongest argument that I have seen for a love of markets, as opposed to ‘perfect competition’.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: