cgrew: I understand your angst on the matter, but there comes a point when the so called profit becomes too "excessive".
I would be interested in what you define as "so called profit". It is a term that is new to me despite my having worked in for profit organisations for decades. Is it some special form of profit that is not what is normally referred to as being profit, or some special part of profit, etc?
I would also be interested in what you regard as "too excessive". Could you couch that in terms of that returned to shareholders, that retained for research and development, that retained as working capital (business expansion, more jobs, etc), etc, that ordinarily come out of profit. Assuming, of course, those things are included in your "so called profit".
If return to shareholders is to be regarded as an "excessive" aspect of "so called profit" or of profit should, for example, the likes of the shareholding of the institutional shareholders such as the NZ Superannuation Fund, insurers and banks, etc get some special treatment in order to ensure they remain sustainable protecting the general publics investment in them, and should retail shareholders participate in some different less rewarding way?
I would also be very interested in who you consider should determine when "so called profit" becomes "too ""excessive""" and the process they would go through in order to determine that was so. Of course, if "so called profit" is only "so called" and so not profit at all would you describe why it matters if it is or is not "excessive"?
So many questions spring from your one sentence claim and I am sure there are many more. So thanks for your time responding.