Profit: Its Social Motivation and Function

I found this site in a roundabout way via this page over at Liberated Space.

I tooled around a little bit, and aside from an essay making a valid criticism of the turgid and pleonastic prose of Joseph Schumpeter, this essay, described by the author as "a brief treatise on this commonly referenced and highly sought subject of economics," particularly caught my eye, if only because being against profit has always seemed to me to imply that you then must be for losses. Am I making a bit of a logical fallacy, there? Constructing a bit of a strawman? Granted. The point serves, however, to illuminate the narrow way in which the far left always tries to define profit as synonymous with exploitation. This is, in fact, what Punkerslut attempts to do at the outset:

Profit serves primarily as an economic idea. If a merchant were to purchase a single loaf of bread for one dollar and to sell it for two dollars, that would be a single dollar of profit, or what many economists would call a 100% profit return. What does money translate to for the merchant? It translates specifically to privilege: the right to possess and consume products and services, which would otherwise be unreachable, had the merchant sold his labor, instead of selling commodities.

Now, my first complaint of the above quote is that it is simply a string of non-sequiturs. What does each sentence have to do with the previous - outside the broadest sense, that they are all somewhat concerned with the subject of "profit"? You can see, though, the foggy outlines of the basic Marxist notion that profit is exploitation of the "laboring class" (the only "class" that creates value - the Proletariat) by the "merchant class" (the parasitic "class" that produces nothing - Capitalists).

But is the laboring class really the only class that creates value? Why is profit restricted to the Capitalist class? Can't a laborer value his wages more than the labor he has exchanged - thereby "profiting" from the transaction?

Reading Punkerslut's essay just makes me sad.

And some good news: the PATRIOT Act reauthorization has failed

The Senate roll call vote is here. Unless a reauthorization passes, various provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act set to expire after three years will expire on December 31, 2005. These provisions include roving wiretaps, the ability to obtain certain kinds of business records without a court order, expansion of wiretap capabilities, certain kinds of sharing between agencies of information obtained via wiretap, etc. The specific details of what was in the Senate bill and the corresponding House bill may be found here (PDF).

Some of the pieces of these bills were beneficial, e.g., placing a sunset provision on the use of National Security Letters, which predated USA PATRIOT and which do not currently have an expiration date. Others extended provisions due to sunset on December 31, 2005 to 2006 or later years. (The ACLU has a lawsuit against the constitutionality of National Security Letters.)

The vote was 52-47; 60 votes were needed to end the filibuster. 2 Democrats and 50 Republicans voted yes, 41 Democrats, 5 Republicans, and one independent voted no.

Arizona: McCain and Kyl both voted yes.

UPDATE (March 25, 2007): The link for the ACLU's lawsuit on National Security Letters is stale, you can now find that information here.

Double Standards

This is possibly the converse of the Cory Maye case: When a cop kills an innocent person by mistake, they usually don't even get charged or go to trial. When they do, they get off. (Hat tip to Radley Balko at the Agitator.)

We've previously covered bad behavior by cops here.

(Added 2:55 p.m.: Balko has another piece on the frequency of botched drug raids here. He estimates them at 46 a month in New York alone, up until 2003 when the Alberta Spruill case led to public attention to such abuses. That was a case where a 57-year-old woman died of a heart attack after a flash grenade was thrown into her apartment in a raid on the wrong apartment.)

Bush administration approved warrantless wiretaps on U.S. citizens

News is now out that the Bush administration, in 2002, authorized the National Security Agency to conduct eavesdropping (on international email or phone calls) against U.S. citizens without court oversight. The NSA's domestic surveillance is supposed to be limited to foreign embassies and missions, and to require court approval. This is not a power granted to the president by the U.S. Constitution.

This abuse of power has apparently been exercised against as many as 500 people in the U.S. at any given time. The NY Times reports that some NSA officials, to their credit, refused to participate due to their concerns about the legality of the program.

Note that the standards which the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court uses to approve wiretaps are already incredibly low (their decision algorithm is pretty close to "say yes to everything"), but apparently that was considered too great a barrier and it had to be bypassed.

Approval of torture, secret CIA prisons in Europe, kidnapping citizens of other countries and taking them to Afghanistan... apparently the Bush administration has no respect for the U.S. Constitution on the principles behind it.

Happy 214th to the Bill of Rights

On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution was approved. Happy birthday, Bill of Rights! Wishing you were still here in full force...

More fake paranormal photos

Paranormal.about.com had a photo contest for fake paranormal photos. Some of them are pretty good, like the winning photo of a "wasp thing." Most are at least as good as the ones in the NY Metropolitan Museum of Art's exhibition on "The Perfect Medium: Photography and the Occult."

Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica

The December 2005 issue of Communications of the ACM contains an "Inside Risks" column raising concerns about some of the risks of Wikipedia:

relying on Wikipedia presents numerous risks:

* Accuracy: You cannot be sure which information is accurate and which is not. Misinformation has a negative value; even if you get it for free, you've paid too much.

* Motives: You cannot know the motives of the contributors to an article. They may be altruists, political or commercial opportunists, practical jokers, or even vandals (WP: ``Wikipedia:Most_vandalized_pages'').

* Uncertain Expertise: Some contributors exceed their expertise and supply speculations, rumors, hearsay, or incorrect information. It is difficult to determine how qualified an article's contributors are; the revision histories often identify them by pseudonyms, making it hard to check credentials and sources.

* Volatility: Contributions and corrections may be negated by future contributors. One of the co-authors of this column found it disconcerting that he had the power to independently alter the Wikipedia article about himself and negate the others' opinions. Volatility creates a conundrum for citations: Should you cite the version of the article that you read (meaning that those who follow your link may miss corrections and other improvements), or the latest version (which may differ significantly from the article you saw)?

* Coverage: Voluntary contributions largely represent the interests and knowledge of a self-selected set of contributors. They are not part of a careful plan to organize human knowledge. Topics that interest the young and Internet-savvy are well-covered, while events that happened ``before the Web'' may be covered inadequately or inaccurately, if at all. More is written about current news than about historical knowledge.

* Sources: Many articles do not cite independent sources. Few articles contain citations to works not digitized and stored in the open Internet.

But the authors don't seem to recognize that most of these risks apply to all published sources, not just Wikipedia or online sources. The reliability of sources on the Internet needs to be examined, just as the reliability of conventionally published sources needs to be examined. They also don't mention that volatility can be a benefit, reflecting rapid change as more or better information becomes available.

A comparison by Nature found that the treatment of scientific subjects by Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica is of comparable accuracy. This CNN article, referencing Tom Panelas of Britannica, says "Britannica researchers plan to review the Nature study and correct any errors discovered."

I bet Wikipedia will have its errors corrected before the Encyclopedia Britannica will. I encourage writers to continue criticizing Wikipedia for inaccuracies they discover--their criticisms are beneficial, as they spur corrections. For example, if you read former Britannica editor Robert McHenry's critique of the Wikipedia entry on Alexander Hamilton and then read the entry as it stands today, you'll see that all the specific complaints he had have been corrected.

Ford doesn't cave to Donald Wildmon

There was some recent press about Land Rover and Jaguar not advertising in gay publications due to pressure from Donald Wildmon's American Family Affiliation. While those specific units have decided not to advertise in gay publications, Ford itself will continue to run advertising there for all of its brands including Land Rover and Jaguar. Ford has released a letter describing its commitment to support diversity within its workplace as well as to continue marketing to the gay community (which has about half a trillion dollars in annual consumer spending--gay couples have, on average, greater discretionary income than straight families). (Hat tip to Dispatches from the Culture Wars.)

It's always nice to see a corporation not giving in to boycott threats from crackpots like Wildmon.

Bill O'Reilly "War on Christmas" lies, Falwell idiocy

Dispatches from the Culture Wars reports on a number of Bill O'Reilly fabrications in part of his campaign about a bogus "War on Christmas":

1. He claims that Saginaw, Michigan opposes people wearing red and green clothing. This is a complete fabrication.

2. He says the Plano, Texas school system tells children they can't wear green and red clothing. This is a complete fabrication.

3. He says the U.S. Postal Service no longer issues Christmas stamps with a religious theme. This is a misinterpretation of their decision not to issue new 37-cent stamps this Christmas because the price is going up to 39 cents on January 8 and they still have a huge inventory of 37-cent Madonna and Child stamps to sell this year.

4. Jerry Falwell's "Friend or Foe" campaign sent a demand letter to a Wisconsin school that was putting on a play called "The Little Tree's Christmas Gift" insisting that the song in that play (put together and copyrighted back in 1988) which is sung to the tune of "Silent Night" be changed back to the original words. O'Reilly claimed that "In Wisconsin, an elementary school changed the name of 'Silent Night' to 'Cold In the Night.'" The school has buckled under the pressure and removed that song from the program. This case is completely absurd--the play tells a story about a little Christmas tree, and the song in question was a song that the little tree sings, to the tune of "Silent Night." Who's really anti-Christmas here?

Summary of the Richard Sternberg saga

Daniel Morgan has put together a good summary of the facts and myths of the Richard Sternberg saga. Sternberg was the editor of The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, the journal which published Stephen Meyer's paper on intelligent design ("The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories").