On Wednesday, February 22, 2012 3:55:26 PM UTC-5, studio wrote:
On Feb 20, 2:08 pm, JDR <jdrwarh...@gmail.com> wrote:--
> I am interested in what discussion may come from the following
> economic scenarios:
> First, a good or service is offered, which is purchased by a
> consumer. What is an acceptable amount of "profit" that should be
> made? Should there be any limit to what the "seller" can make?
Depends on the scenario of the sale... of which, there could be many
scenarios...
i.e. what if the seller was the manufacturer of a patented item that
was in high demand... but he purposely limited production so he could
only sell to rich people for a higher profit margin?
But let me back-up a second; you're assuming they will make a sale,
and a profit...
might you wonder why there are so many non-profit organizations around
already?
> If someone can produce a good or service for say $1 and sell it for
> $1,000 - is that okay?
It's ok with me if they don't want to make any, or limited sales.
But it wouldn't be ok with me if it's something all/many people needed
to have.
i.e. a flu shot, gasoline, food, medicine, etc etc.
> If it is not, then what would be an acceptable
> amount of "profit"? Let's use percent, rather than any specific
> dollar amount - so they we can talk about any scenario, not just the
> example I listed. For example, a 50% profit would mean having sold
> the item for $1.50
50-100% markup is typical. But again, it depends on what it is and how
much effort/skill goes into it.
> The next question then is what should happen to the profit? I am
> talking profit, after all expenses are paid for, beyond funds needed
> to keep the business running. How should the profit be split up - or
> - redistributed/ or not? Again, let's talk numbers (percentages)
> here, not political rantings. For example, should 100% stay with the
> owner? Should it be split amongst all who work for the "company or
> ownership"? If so, who should get what?
Depends on how much labor goes into making the product, how hard the
product is to sell, and how much effort the owner put into
manufacturing the product...
i.e. it might be an easy product to get funding for... but it might
require great skill and/or care by labor to manufacture, or much time
to sell... or just the opposite or variation.
> Remember, if we stick to using percentages, what we answer to question
> 1 shouldn't impact our thoughts/answers on question 2. Some might
> feel differently about $1mil in profits vs. $10 in profits - but by
> using percentage, it's the same difference. Percentage should level
> the playing field.
>
> Lastly, we shouldn't need to note our political leanings here, just
> numbers. I feel that by using numbers (something we should all be
> able to agree on -not necessarily the final number, but just what a
> number is - a value) maybe we can come closer to finding agreement or
> compromise....vs using words to keep us divided.
Just numbers can be misleading and open to interpretation of what
those numbers mean.
i.e. If you say; good news! only 40% of babies died this year ...
because their parents couldn't afford the 1000% markup on a patented
vaccine the baby needed to survive.
So is it 40% of ALL babies, or 40% of babies that make-up 10% of
babies that needed a particular vaccine, or is it 99% of of all
parents who bought the patented vaccine are now bankrupt?
But if it were your baby, it wouldn't matter what the percentage was,
you might want to kill the bastards for shutting you out of the market
and murdering your baby.
---
Greg from Boston wrote:
> The real question is who do you want to enforce the numbers?
Not you Greg.
> And apparently a tough question
No it was the easiest one so far.
And thanks for not answering the questions.
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment