What about the small businessman? The person who has an idea and who decides to back themselves, putting a lot of time and effort into growing the brand. Are they also amoral, when in the fullness of time they can enjoy the salary/profits that their endeavours brought them? The nice house in a decent area, enough in the bank to pursue an expensive hobby, or fund a private education for their children etc etc. In short, enjoy the fruits of their labours.

Do we also disregard the jobs they may have created directly for their staff, or indirectly through the suppliers they use?

Are you actually proposing that at some point in the success of this enterprise, you would expect Big Brother in the shape of HMG, to impose whatever is the fashionable thinking, and set mandatory limits on the amount of profit that this business is making?

Seriously?

Profit is not a bad word.

It’s a zero sum game. There is a finite amount in the world. Profit somewhere = loss elsewhere.

If we remember that, maybe we could avoid the greed and avarice which has been like a runaway train of destruction since Thatcher/Reagan.

But as things are, we have a huge trade deficit (over £100bn a year, or about £1,500 per head of population), and a large slice of what we "export" is in services rather than manufacturing. And of what little manufacturing we have left, some 80% of manufacturing SME's export nothing.

Therefore increasing the minimum wage to the living wage (for example) would have no significant effect on exports whatsoever. it's a fallacy.

Fine.


No.


No.

I am saying that it is not good enough to let businesses set their own moral framework.
I am saying that if capitalism is to truly benefit society, then employment legislation and statutory business regulations etc are vital to curb unscrupulous business practices

Instead of going off one with an inflated straw man argument, why not address what I clearly meant?

In what way has history proven otherwise?

Are the total profit's in the world exactly the same as they were five thousand years ago? Or any time frame?

It’s a relative statistic isn’t it. As the amount of money in the world goes up, the value of it goes down.

So is the world's total wealth more or less than it was a thousand years ago?

how are you measuring wealth relative to a thousand years ago.

If our GDP goes up (apparently) we as a country have more money, if inflation also goes up we can buy less with it, if our currency falls against our neighbours we can buy import less. Are we richer or poorer at this point?

I'll use standard of living. Which measure do you want to use? Are we (whether the world, a country, or an individual or comparative standing, or whichever you choose) richer or poorer than we were a thousand years ago?

I think it is an impossible comparison to make. Standards of living can be improved by things other than finance. The fact that kids aren’t being killed and maimed by polio every summer is a clear increase in the standard of living. It doesn’t mean we are financially any richer.

I think it is just simply impossible to compare ‘wealth’ in that way. Besides when I mentioned a zero sum game, It isn’t necessary to compare to past years, the sum is between all the parties in the transaction. I cannot make a profit without either buying something for less than its worth (a loss to the seller) selling something for more than its worth ( a loss to the buyer) or adding more value than the cost of adding that value (a loss either to myself or my employees).

That's not how I read your original post, in which you postulated the theory that all large business was inherently amoral due to the need to maximise profit. I don't agree with you, and offered up a small business for comparison, and am still waiting to hear from you if think a small business, following the same business plan of maximising their profits, was also amoral.

And as there have been Rules and Regulations governing commerce from the year dot, and accepted, sometimes grudgingly by most as a fact of life, (apart from the criminal element), I'm not sure that more of the same is really going to improve everyone's lot.

That's sophistry.

This country has the Red Cross handing out food parcels, Save the Children spending money here and foodbanks growing at a massive rate.

A thousand years ago, one might have walked outside and got a few sticks to lay a fire to keep warm and to cook. One might have gone hunting for food or picked fruits and nuts and mushrooms etc.

Try doing that these days – not least in the urban environments in which most people live (having been herded, in effect, into them after enclosure and deforestation, in order to work in industry for the benefit of a limited number of people).

I mentioned in one of the comments I copied over at the top of this thread that the likes of Richer Sounds and John Lewis can treat their workforce decently and still be hugely successful, profitable companies. It is, at base, a moral/ethical decision to decide to do otherwise, although (as has been discussed here before) being listed means that the City applies artificial pressures on businesses (constant growth at rates determined by the City to be acceptable) that put increased pressure on companies to 2stop treating employees as an investment and start seeing them simply as a cost to be cut.

If the wealth – no matter how great – is not shared around more equally than it ever was, and takes account of the cost of living, then it is meaningless to talk of whether the world is wealthier, as a whole, than it was a millennia ago.

So it's clearly not "zero sum" when we are wealthier in terms of not being killed by polio for one. If you don't measure wealth in terms of health, lifestyle, enjoyment, longevity, then what's the point of wealth?
Your sums assume that the values of the products and services are equal to all parties at all times.