One of the major problems people have with profit arises from the practice of some individuals of using their business in an illegal manner. This kind of human behavior is commonly referred to as profiteering. Webster's Dictionary defines profiteering as the act of making what is considered an unreasonable profit, especially on the sale of essential goods, during an emergency. Journalists have extended this definition to include illegal business practices.
Webster's definition has no substance in the body of historical and contemporary microeconomics. As I have previously explained, economic profit can be equal to, greater than, or less than opportunity cost. Any other description requires a value judgment on the part of the individual asserting the description. For example when Webster’s Dictionary talks about making an unreasonable profit, the adjective "unreasonable" is a value judgment on the part of the publisher that begs the question of efficiency and ignores the issue of scarce resources.
Illegal business practices that are erroneously tagged "profiteering" cannot be dismissed like Webster's definition, because these are criminal acts that have a basis in statutory law. However, one could ask if it is fair to put the label" profiteer" on people who engage in illegal business practices and not put a label on those engaged in other types of illegal activities. Why not establish a special label for all individuals who use their positions or professions to break the law? Then we could call lawyers who do this kind of thing, "lawyerteers"; men of the cloth, "religiteers"; news media people, "mediateers": film makers" movieteers": actors and actresses, "artisteers": and environmentalists, "environmentaliteers." Better yet, why not call all people who break the law, regardless of how they do it, criminals?
Webster's definition has no substance in the body of historical and contemporary microeconomics. As I have previously explained, economic profit can be equal to, greater than, or less than opportunity cost. Any other description requires a value judgment on the part of the individual asserting the description. For example when Webster’s Dictionary talks about making an unreasonable profit, the adjective "unreasonable" is a value judgment on the part of the publisher that begs the question of efficiency and ignores the issue of scarce resources.
Illegal business practices that are erroneously tagged "profiteering" cannot be dismissed like Webster's definition, because these are criminal acts that have a basis in statutory law. However, one could ask if it is fair to put the label" profiteer" on people who engage in illegal business practices and not put a label on those engaged in other types of illegal activities. Why not establish a special label for all individuals who use their positions or professions to break the law? Then we could call lawyers who do this kind of thing, "lawyerteers"; men of the cloth, "religiteers"; news media people, "mediateers": film makers" movieteers": actors and actresses, "artisteers": and environmentalists, "environmentaliteers." Better yet, why not call all people who break the law, regardless of how they do it, criminals?
No comments:
Post a Comment