18 MARCH
Morality and Profits
Is there sufficient profit?
Joseph Schumpeter's "innovator," with his "creative destruction," is the only theory so far to explain why there is something we call "profit." The classical economists very well knew that their theory did not give any rationale for profit. Indeed, in the equilibrium economics of a closed economic system, there is no place for profit, no justification for it, no explanation of it. If profit is, however, a genuine cost, and especially if profit is the only way to maintain jobs and to create new ones, then capitalism becomes again a moral system.
The weakness on moral grounds of the profit incentive enabled Karl Marx at once to condemn the capitalist as wicked and immoral and assert"scientifically" that he serves no function. As soon, however, as one shifts from the axiom of an unchanging, self-contained, closed economy, what is called profit is no longer immoral. It becomes a moral imperative. Indeed the question then is no longer: "How can the economy be structured to minimize the bribe of the functionless surplus called profit that has to be handed over to the capitalist to keep the economy going?" The question in Schumpeter's economics is always: "Is there sufficient profit?" Is there adequate capital formation to provide for the costs of the future, the costs of staying in business, the costs of "creative destruction"?
3月18日
道德与利润
利润是否充足？
约瑟夫·熊彼特的“创新者”及其“创造性破坏”理论，是迄今为止唯一能够解释我们称之为“利润”之物存在的理论。古典经济学家非常清楚，他们的理论无法为利润提供任何合理的解释。事实上，在封闭经济体系的均衡经济学中，利润没有立足之地，既没有正当理由，也没有解释。然而，如果利润是一种真实的成本，尤其如果利润是维持和创造新工作的唯一途径，那么资本主义就再次成为一个道德体系。
利润激励在道德层面上的薄弱性，使得卡尔·马克思能够立即谴责资本家是邪恶和不道德的，并“科学地”断言资本家没有任何作用。然而，一旦人们不再接受一个不变的、自给自足的封闭经济体的假设，所谓的利润就不再是不道德的，而成为一种道德上的必然要求。因此，问题不再是：“如何构建经济结构，才能最大限度地减少资本家为了维持经济运转而不得不上缴的、被称为利润的无功能剩余？”熊彼特经济学中的问题始终是：“利润是否充足？”资本形成是否足以支付未来的成本、维持企业运营的成本以及“创造性破坏”的成本？
