Profit is sweet

In its simplest form, profit is defined as the excess of returns over expenditure in a transaction or a series of transactions, but simplicity in this case results in a gross misstatement. Realistically, profit is what makes the world go round, around, about, up and down and anywhere else for that matter. Ignorance of its true meaning is symptomatic of fatality. So what is profit?
Any attempt to write about profit will probably be afflicted by inadequacy, irrespective of unlimited space, as well as severe criticism from earlier theorists aggressively protective of their point of view. Nonetheless, nothing ventured nothing gained! At the worst this is another addition to journalistic archives, and at best it may spark debate between the perspicacious amongst us, eventually shaking those at the helm of affairs towards national profit.
Profit is as old as desire. While vehemently opposed to the theory, on a personal basis, profit appears to be the enabler behind desire, which in turn, spurred evolution and revolution. The brave cavemen having hunted down a T-Rex and desiring a Brachiosaurus could only vet his appetite if he ensures surplus T-Rex meat after feeding his family and kin, a profit to do what he wants with. In this hypothetical version of the world, agriculture was invented by those unable to hunt or to digest handouts. Spending on meat was possible through surplus gain, their profit.
In reality, the primary catalyst for historical appreciation in the quality of life is mankind's pursuit of unbridled desires. Conquests, trade, invention and production are all tools of the insightful and each has a common driver, desire. Mathematically speaking, physical and mental exertion is directly proportionate to the quality and quantum of desire with future desires being balanced by stored effort in the shape of wealth. The realisation that wealth can only be fed by profit spawned greed, happiness became a by-product and man redirected his quest towards profit.
Greed = Desire = Effort = Profit = Wealth = Happiness. Unprofitable effort, however honourable, is a waste. In the quality of life equation the central position is occupied by profit.
Unto medieval times, profit was synonymous with physical conquest. While there are pervasive indications that this philosophy has recently been rejuvenated, civilisation of societies hatched economic warfare in modern times. Nonetheless, the benchmark for determining success at all levels, national, corporate and individual, in whatever form earned is profit.
There was a time when individuals were categorised by family values. Today profits earned or inherited as represented by savings is the sole criteria for classification. Poor ranking is where earnings are insufficient to even meet basic necessities and while middle-class struggles to make ends meet, the rich are only worried about how to spend their profits. In order to maintain this advantageous status quo, the rich invented philanthropy to sustain the poor class as well as to counter any revolutionary tendencies. How and when moral gains lost to material gains is a debate better left to historians, critically the current slogan is money buys everything, except that prerequisite for having money is profit.
The capitalist model is quite simple. Spending and wealth are dependent upon profit; while effort and morality are irrelevant in the larger picture. The desires to have a bigger house, bigger cars, better education for offspring, etc can either be appeased by a rich dad or through profits earned. As profits increase, designer clothes creep in followed by a bigger house and cars and so on so forth. Interestingly, this good fortune does have a trickledown effect on all dependants of the household, whether intentional or otherwise. Irrespective of what the pundits propagate, abundance begets charity. The poor in developed nations are probably comparable with the middle class in the least developed nation. Contributing more is dependent upon earning more profit.
At the corporate level profit needs no introduction or explanation. In day-to-day parlance, the word profit is equated with businesses only, which in itself, is a fallacy. Salary not spent is also profit. Why did Standard oil, which the bureaucrats in league with the politicians dismantle a century ago, survive and is now glorified in its reappearance as Supermajors? Profit.
The rise of the Supermajors, against all odds and plots of public sector forces, is a testimony to the power of Profit. While government's fixation with successful private ventures remains largely inexplicable, probably wrath fuelled by envy and vanity, the former prevails because of profit. Apple is not a banana company, simply because of profit.
At the national level, the populace is hypnotised to believe that profit is an alien word. On simple logic this assertion appears untenable. How can the whole survive without it, if the body and soul of both its components, individual and corporate, is profit? A popular dictum idolised in the corridors of power is, "It is not the business of government to be in business". Excuse me! Than what is? Taxing other's profit, and in fact in the case of developing countries taxing losses, and spending them in a manner unfavourable for making profit.
If there had been any truth in this, China would not be what it is today. Let there be no doubt, Chinese government's business is business, for profit. All oil producing nations have nationalised their mineral resource and directly manage these businesses, why is oil different from any other business? Evidently, rich nations are those who are themselves in business or are dictated to by their country's businesses. If there is any truth behind the conspiracy theory that Corporate America is the puppet master of the world's only superpower, this could have only been achieved through and for profit.
Since the above assertions are easily verifiable, how come economists and politicians in general dispel the theory that those proficient is making profits would be better at running the government. Well, probably because if they agreed with the evidence they themselves can lose their jobs. On a more serious note, the counterarguments are based on businessman's unfamiliarity with monetary and fiscal policies, conflict with resolving income inequalities and ignorance of poverty alleviation and development issues. Well if all this be true, than a businessman can be taught economics and the country can have the best of both worlds, conversely how do you teach an economist how to make a profit?
How often do you come across a professional who changes his Mercedes every year? As George Coote aptly realised, "Every family should have at least three children. Then if one is a genius the other two can support him". Notwithstanding that we may need to revisit our family planning initiatives, true genius then, is not the capacity to reflect and invent, but the ability to commercialise the outcome, for profit.
Ray Kroc did not invent the Big Mac he just knew how to sell it for profit. Public sector is mostly about spending money generated from taxing the populace. When the public screams explosively against the inhumanity of burdensome taxation, government can simply borrow against future taxes from questionable well-wishers. How difficult can it be to spend money? Well, not at all, if you have it, if you don't, it is suicidal. In order to spend at all you need to generate a profit.
Taxation is not profit; at best it is a non-commensurate cost of services whether rendered or not. Forcing family members to share the cost of the household does not qualify as business acumen. At the national level, only an increase in national assets will constitute a profit.
National assets can only increase through external trade or services. Consider, with external debt around dollar 50 billion and an annual trade deficit even after adjusting inward remittances, the only way we can ever pay our debt is to sell the "family silver"! The problem with this strategy is that if you still can't make ends meet, you barter your freedom for food for eternity. Net positive external revenues are the only true national profit.
While preparing to write this article, one was conscious of the enormity of the task ahead. The humble objective was to start a debate on the importance of profit making at the national level as against accepting alms. Fanciful phrases and questionable theories will not prompt corrective action. Living in a fool's paradise we will remain impervious of the impending financial Tsunami, of which the first signs are already evident. Unfortunately, limitations of time and space require closure. Unfortunately, while arguments in support of profit at all levels have been offered above, the debate must go on. Although personally allergic to sequels, in this case an exception is probably desirable; accordingly comments and criticism are solicited and encouraged before Part II. In the meanwhile however, it was, it is and it will always be, all about profit.