I'm not rejecting the profit motive, never have. Making a profit AND a stable society and citizenry aren't mutually exclusive, unless you're going to set up a dynamic that MAKES them mutually exclusive and solidify that exclusivity by defining a concept (capitalism/commerce) in absolute terms.
"9 billion dollars is a hell of a fucking profit! Our companies sound, our employees are happy, our economies stable and we project 11 billion by next year!"
"9 billion dollars is a hell of a fucking profit! BUT, we could have made 12 billion if we moved our operations overseas, paid those employees much much less, added to the destabilization of our homeland stability and we project 15 billion by next year!"
We're at a crossroads, at this point in our history. Do we use a concept to better our society and it's citizenry or do we use a concept to justify absolutes that derail society and it's citizenry?
Greed can be a good motivator. Heck, it can even be behind innovation, technology, goods and services when it comes to commerce...but greed devoid of any other intentions, than greed, is a run away destructive force that ALWAYS eventually has detrimental consequences.
Well the way I read your initial post was that you did reject the profit motive. Although at this point I should ask, why not? I quoted Adam Smith in my first post to show how everyone's "greed" satisfies what everyone wants and creates an economic system. But you implicitedly rejected the concept of any such system didn't recognize anything in the least bit natural as to how a market works.
So given that, why tolerate the profit motive? I mean, what do you require to have a "stable society and citizenry?" Can you conceive of a way of doing that without the profit motive?
