No. The profit motive is the pursuit of making a profit from one’s production. The opposite is the loss motive — to pursue a loss. The pursuit of profit is the moral right to pursue one’s happiness applied to the one’s economic endeavors.
To pursue profit is to pursue creation. It is an act of virtue and not a vice.
Profit is not made by conning others, but by creating something of value that did not exist before.
When a man enters any productive endeavor, he starts with a given sum of capital (unspent wealth). If after a period of time, if he is left with more than he started, he has earned a profit. If he is left with less then he started, he has incurred a loss.
As wealth is required to support one’s life, the increase in wealth through production and trade — the creation of profit — adds to one’s life.
Stealing wealth from others, through fraud or force, is not profit, but theft (an initiation of force). Whether that theft is called a mugging, welfare, or “voluntary” taxation [a contradiction in terms], it is still theft.
There is no such thing as a profit that is too high or too low. That is, there is no such thing as an “excessive” profit. There is only the profit that men earn.
If any company is a single seller in any industry and starts making profits higher than other industries, due to high prices; it will attract competition into its industry, as other capitalists move their capital from less profitable markets to more profitable ones. If the profits are due to lower production costs, which other companies are unable to match, then the company deserves its profit.
If any business attempts to charge prices higher than the market will bear, he will lose all his business to his competition, since he cannot force his competition out of business. The businessman’s power is dollars — not guns.
If a business attempts to “corner the market” by charging prices that are too low (i.e., below its’ variable costs of production), the business may drive competitors out of the market temporarily (at the price of eating up its financial capital and eroding its profits); but, as soon as the business raises its’ prices (in order to reap profits in order to build back the capital it has given away by selling products below their variable cost), new competitors will enter the market.
The only way a company can gain profitably gain market share by lowering its’ prices, is if it can lower its costs of production. If a business can charge the lowest price because it has figured out how to build a better mousetrap (i.e., produce more for less), then it deserves whatever market share it can obtain.
The profits of capitalists are not the surpluses extorted from labor, but are the result of the proper use of one’s capital, as losses are the result of the improper use of capital.
Why are the laborers who demand a share in the capitalist’s profits, silent in demanding their share of the capitalist’s losses? Why don’t they return their past wages when a business ends up at running at a loss for the year? If labor is the cause of profits, then is it not also the cause of losses? A moments reflection will point out that laborers are only responsible for their job description — they are not directly responsible for the losses of business — and that the cause of an enterprise’s profit and loss lies primarily with the owner.
If an employer pays a worker a lower salary than the worker wants, the worker is free to leave the job and look for a higher paying job.
Let any worker in Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, or Communist China try to attempt such a feat as leaving his job without permission of the state, and he will soon find what exploitation means.