Of Profits and People
There is a grand conflict in economics, between the businesses’ good and the public’s good, in an economic, social and environmental sense. Businesses are motivated to turn the highest profit possible while that can easily come at the expense of the whole economy, the society, the environment and the ultimate health and well being of the individual in society.
When this conflict comes into effect, it is ultimately a kind of deference to the economy, society and environment that is needed in order to ensure the well being and survival of the businesses and the business members. Money is what fuels a business. However, when profits are high, it is a sign that there is more wiggle room to support the economy’s well being, the society’s well being and the environment’s well being. Profits themselves are what motivates businesspeople to produce the goods and services that we demand in our society. However, when profits themselves serve no other value than to enrich the compensation packages of the executives under the cloak of calling it “for the shareholders”, the fact of the matter is, is that human beings don’t actually need and should not technically want profits past a certain amount, especially if it comes at the non-monetary expense of the economy, society and the environment in which and on which the business leaders make their money.
Money itself has no value in our society other than to serve as a medium of exchange. All other notions of money, such as that it’s a tool to maintain the debt of society or that it itself is the ultimate commodity of value is completely false and antithetical to healthy human mental and social function. The former simply puts people into a kind of false-slave mentality that blinds them to all the other ways that they’re free beyond the paper-tiger “debt” of the central banks while the latter is merely a hallucination and fixation upon an abstract concept not unlike an addiction to a physical drug.
It is time that we move beyond the false notions of linear-equilibrium economics to embrace the new, more empirically grounded field of complexity economics and systemic function. The one deceives and leaves us dupes to the business leaders’ poor priority choices, while the latter is more factual and leaves us with the tools and the practical justification for healthy systemic and individualistic function.
Even Adam Smith would reject the bastard child that Capitalism has (and always technically was) and embrace this new social conceptualization of economic function and purpose. Don’t believe me, actually read the whole of his book, The Wealth of Nations. He rejected corporatism in the 18th century, and he’ll reject it now in the 21st. It’s nothing but greed off the necessary restraints that prevent it from killing itself and all of us that are around it. To say it is otherwise is either a lie or the product of a delusional brain.
Think about it.
Because the time is coming for us to decide, whether or not we’re going to embrace the new knowledge and adapt our societ(ies)’ function, logic, legal system and priorities to the new, and more accurate understanding about the world we’re in and our place in it, or die clasping to the old notions like a sickly child dying in the arms of its mother.
We can either struggle outwardly onto life, or struggle inwardly onto death.
Think about it.
It Comes Undone Scoop.it Page
- Dan Pallotta: The way we think about charity is dead wrong – YouTube September 3, 2015
- Priorities, Strategies, Consumption Patterns, and Definitions of Success August 30, 2015
- We Are Buddha July 5, 2015
- Of Ants and Humans July 5, 2015
- Evidence-Based Policy-Making July 4, 2015