[Closed] Why is "profit" a dirty word?

Profit isn't immoral. But personally I think to profit from somethings that should be publically owned is.

I remembered it was best to not feed the two trolls or get involved as you both just want a response not a debate as your long litany of personal prods and goads so amply demonstrates in just one post.

Ps still not even an attempt at a defence just some name calling

That's like saying men (in general)~ are jealous of rapists because they can have sex with anyone they want.

it is? really? are you sure?

Incidently its the thing that's wrong with the 'system' the moment if you ask me. Privatising everything, privatisation should be used as an efficiency tool. Once thing have reached an efficient profitable level, they should be taken back into public ownership, and profits should then be passed on to everyone as savings.

Profit gets dirty because people are greedy.

Northwind - Member
Virgin Trains profit from public subsidy while delivering falling standards and increasing prices, I think it's pretty reasonable for people to be down on that.

This is a great example of a great headline not being supported by the facts of the matter.

Firstly, rail fares are regulated. The inflation busting formula was defined under the last government and linked to RPI rather than CPI - the agreement is subject to legislation that means the formula can't be touched until 2015 at the earliest. Operators are required to raise additional revenue under the formula and that revenue is then disbursed to national rail for infrastructure and to staff via the negotiated increases for the unionised element of the workforce.

The increased prices are therefore very little to do with Virgin as they don't have control over them - the profit generated based on the working capital employed, and the need to pay a franchise fee of c£1Bn every few years means that despite the public perception of fat cat train operators because of the fare rises it's not a brilliant investment and they can go bust - as happened to National Express and one other franchisee.

As for the falling standards, there are a record number of passengers travelling, and a record number arriving on time - both in absolute and percentage terms. Some of the rolling stock is showing its age but why would an operator make a decision to invest with a 20-30 year payback period when they can lose the franchise and their capital investment after only 8 years?

What we probably shouldn't lose sight of is that despite our rail fares being high, the overall cost of the train journeys (fare paid + taxpayer subsidy) is a lot lower per passenger mile than other countries. So we have a choice - given there's limited extra capacity on the train network do we:

1. Raise tax and subsidise existing passengers more - so everyone pays more even those who don't travel?
2. Increase capacity by investing in infrastructure or other forms of travel - creating competition that almost inevitably drives down prices as has been seen in things like Telecoms and Energy, both of which are cheaper in the UK than many other European countries?
3. Nationalise the whole lot and borrow the £80B or so to do that and then hope it will be better run under public ownership - bearing in mind that the train networks with the worst safety record in Europe are now those that are publicly owned / run?

I personally think the virgin service is ok but not great. The fare increases are largely out of their hands and amongst other things go on giving the train drivers ridiculous wage rises every year that mean my mate who works as a driver now gets total remuneration approaching £90K a year with overtime - significantly more than most pilots who have to pass an incredibly demanding training course - and works 35ish hours a week and getting 6-8 weeks leave a year.

[i]Ps still not even an attempt at a defence just some name calling [/i]

Crude attempt, hardly worth validating other than to correct it by suggesting that instead of just sitting back, looking down the barrel of your sniper's rifle, inviting folk to [i]defend[/i] (presumption / deliberate attempt to prejudice the discussion, tut).

Try being the prosecution and explain your problem with profit.
(Expects any such attempt to be insultingly one sided and full of holes)
😉

Regarding Teso and their profits, according to http://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/apr/21/tesco-record-profits-supermarket they made £3bn last year and according to http://www.tescoplc.com/index.asp?pageid=276 they get 75 million shopping trips a week.

I make that about 77p profit per shopping trip, which sounds quite reasonable to me.

Expects any such attempt to be insultingly one sided and full of holes

Still not a defence but you knew that

nom nom nom

Anyway bikes to ride

[i]I doubt i coud hit your dizzying heights and I wont challenge you on your area of expertise[/i]
Outing you for deliberately attempting to prejudice a discussion. Just a pity you thought you could slide that by everyone. Says a lot.

[i]Still not a defence but you knew that

nom nom nom

Anyway bikes to ride [/i]

The defense can't respond before it's heard the prosecution. So, in true Junky stylee, it's been easier for you to sneer and attempt to rebuke others, even after being invited to offer your own opinion.
You personify Mr Smiths remarks, admirably.
Thank you and byeeeee.
😀

Get a room.

[i]neilwheel - Member
Get a room.

[/i]

We're already there, this is as good as it gets. Suck it up, butter cup.
😉

Profit is only regarded as dirty by people who feel they are being profited from.

There's a very fine line between profit and greed.. All too often that line becomes invisible..

People seem to have an inbuilt predisposition towards becoming aroused by it and that's not good for the future of humanity.. I reckon a high five, in the face with a chair should be applied when people start getting turned on by walking that tightrope

Suck it up, butter cup.

No thanks, I'll just skip your posts if you obviously have nothing useful to add.

robdixon - Member

This is a great example of a great headline not being supported by the facts of the matter.

You don't seem to dispute the most important point- that Virgin (like all but one of the other private train companies) makes a net benefit from subsidies- they pay a franchise fee, then get more back as a result. I wish I had to pay a fee like that. "Here's your £200 rent- now where's my £300 "living in the house" subsidy?"

That's even leaving aside hidden subsidies like slashing track charges and having network rail run up massive publically underwritten debt (*) instead of having the operators pay their share.

(* and then working very hard to remove it from the national debt figures)

Whether the ticket prices are driven from government or the train companies doesn't actually matter- what matters is that the public pays more for an essential service which devours subsidies yet claims to make a profit. Either way, it's taxpayer's money.

Oh, service- it's just not true that Virgin are delivering good punctuality, they were the worst of the rail providers last year. It's also not true that it's at a record high as an industry, in fact it's falling.

There is no legal limit to profit, so big-business evolves into profiteering because CEOs are driven to make shareholders feel wealthy, not to make them feel ethical. Big business does this by driving up prices and driving down costs to make the shareholder wealthier while the customers and workers become poorer.

Profit gets dirty because people are greedy.

This..any enterprise needs sufficient profits to pay its staff, develop new products or services and provide a return to investors.

Any of those to excess is greed and usually ends up with someone else paying the price indirectly.

I just wonder how these companies like Starbucks and Amazon carry on, when they've never actually made a profit? Gawd bless em for persevering though 😉

I just wonder how these companies like Starbucks and Amazon carry on, when they've never actually made a profit?

Same as the UK to an extent, as long as they are paying their debts and don't have a cash flow problem, then they are fine.

In theory...

Nothing wrong with profit as anyone making excessive profits will soon find others trying to get a share - seems supermarkets might be going through this.

Monopolies can make unfair profits so we have the Gov't to help make sure that doesn't happen 🙂 In cases where, say Virgin make more money than seems right for a train line, there should be companies competing to get the contract so the right price is set.

In theory.

[i]Incidently its the thing that's wrong with the 'system' the moment if you ask me. Privatising everything, privatisation should be used as an efficiency tool. Once thing have reached an efficient profitable level, they should be taken back into public ownership, and profits should then be passed on to everyone as savings.[/i]

That's hilarious! 😀

[i]"You don't seem to dispute the most important point- that Virgin (like all but one of the other private train companies) makes a net benefit from subsidies- they pay a franchise fee, then get more back as a result. I wish I had to pay a fee like that. "Here's your £200 rent- now where's my £300 "living in the house" subsidy?""[/i]

But this overlooks the painfully obvious fact that having a franchise [b]isn't[/b] a guarantee of making a profit - as the franchises that went bust found out. It's not a "fee for a guaranteed profit" when they have to:

- take the financial risks associated with operating the service (staff, customer risks)
- raise and finance the capital required to operate the service e.g. the hundreds of millions required for rolling stock
- stimulate the demand / passenger numbers for the service

...Get any of these wrong and it's a loss or bankruptcy.

robdixon - Member

But this overlooks the painfully obvious fact that having a franchise isn't a guarantee of making a profit

I'm not overlooking it exactly, I just don't think it's at all relevent. Yes it's possible they could fail to make a profit while delivering a poor and growing poorer service at greater cost to the taxpayer and customer- that doesn't make it OK that they're doing all those things.

@Rockape63 - that is indeed hilarious !

Have you heard the one about the French, German, and Chinese governments, owning and taking profits from our vital energy/transport infrastructure to spend on their own people ?

That's absolutely hilarious too.

Along with the old "privatise the profit nationalise the loss" joke it must rank as one of the most hilarious of the privatisation jokes.

In my eyes, profit is a good thing, it means a company can grow and hire more people and it also means it can pay more money to employees (be they high or low level).

I am a leftie, and i don't object to private companies making a profit at all, indeed if they didn't they wouldn't be able to pay any taxes into the treasuries big pot.

However what i do object to is corporations that make billions in profits, pay there workers a poor wage in this country and employ child labour/dangerous conditions where they can, do their best to avoid paying any tax and pay the very small minority at the top of the corporation more money in one year than most people could dream of earning in a life time.

Profits = capitalism = screwing over people/the environment to do so

Profit isn't a dirty word. Loss is. At least when you are in business.

Profits = capitalism = screwing over people/the environment to do so

Thus why I stated earlier socialism is the alternative and everything becomes nationalised and all motivation is sucked out of society. Look at Cuba for an example.

Profit is not a dirty word. Those people that suggest otherwise are being short sighted.

Profits = capitalism = screwing over people/the environment to do so

Thus why I stated earlier socialism is the alternative and everything becomes nationalised and all motivation is sucked out of society. Look at Cuba for an example.

Profit is not a dirty word. Those people that suggest otherwise are being short sighted.

Yes I noticed the complete lack of motivation the staff on the intensive care unit that saved my sister's life last month had. It must have been because their goal wasn't to make a profit.

As others have written, profit allows my employer to invest in new equipment, remain competitive and generate salary and dividends for us shareholders and our families while delivering an honest ethical product to our customers, which in turn enables them to succeed and generate the cash with which they can run their own businesses and so on ad infinitum.

Anybody with fancy ideas about the sin of profit ought to go and live a self-sufficient life in Antarctica because living in Britain they are benefiting from the immense profits made by centuries of international trade, which of course includes slavery, an inseparable part of the equation.

Yes I noticed the complete lack of motivation the staff on the intensive care unit that saved my sister's life last month had. It must have been because their goal wasn't to make a profit.

[img] [/img]

Pointless pic.

Private companies - without profit there'd be no investment in business. If a company wants to expand it might ask people to invest cash, those investors want their money back later with a bit extra to make the investment worthwhile. Companies choose either take loans or offer equity to get this money - the more money needed the more likely it will be in the form of equity. So those that get equity are now partial owners of the company and will get a share of it's future profits, it is likely that the equity will never be bought back by the company so the holders of the equity will want to be able to trade it if they want their cash back. The value of that equity will reflect expected future profits so the price will rise and fall based on how well the company is doing.

All in all this works pretty well really.

Public companies don't have the same pressures on being profitable, this can be a good thing in some ways - perhaps encouraging a longer-term approach to things. Private companies are generally very concerned with profit as equity holders can replace the management if they choose to, or sell to another company if they think being part of the other company would result in greater profitability.

So are private or public companies better for the economy? Hard to imagine what our society would be like with only publicly owned supermarkets - higher wages, higher food costs, lower choice?

Hard to imagine what our society would be like with only publicly owned supermarkets - higher wages, higher food costs, lower choice?

There are lots of good co-operatives around the world - fewer now in the UK than there used to be, but the co-operative movement was a brilliant way of getting cheap, good food to lots of people.

mudshark - Member

Pointless pic.

Not at all. It's an excellent way of highlighting the absurdity of the extremists who want to introduce the profit motive everywhere.

Obviously you wouldn't expect anyone with a profit fetish to like that picture.

It would be a pointless pic if we* didn't have hospitals being run by Virgin Healthcare. They're not in it to help people, they're in it to make a profit.

*well, when I say "we", I mean "you" - we don't have that madness here in Scotland. Yet.

"We need to start again, The money, who gets the money?

"No one, its all spent on the sick"

Wow, all the money is spent on the sick?

I thought that the majority of the NHS budget was spent on staff wages?

Look at Cuba for an example

Aren't they under sanctions for everything? Not really a fair comparison is it?

I thought that the majority of the NHS budget was spent on staff wages?

Staff for curing sick people...

Look at Cuba for an example

the world would be a better place if we all did

ninfan - Member

Wow, all the money is spent on the sick?

I thought that the majority of the NHS budget was spent on staff wages?

That's stunningly idiotic even by your standards Z-11.....the suggestion that medical costs don't include staff wages ! 😆

bencooper - transport is an important public service so how about we follow your principles and put your bike shop under public ownership? what exactly is it that you do that adds any value over a bike shop run by the public sector and why should we allow you to make a profit on it? 😉

You're making a big assumption there 😀