You gotta love it when a socialist liberal evokes economics to back up a point they're making. Economics is completely not on their side. But when it's necessary, they usually defer to a bought-and-paid-for economist to help them out. Here's a liberal blogger's take on profits:

I'm a bit puzzled by something (well, not really). As anyone will learn in a basic economics class, while the pursuit of profit is the raison d'etre for businesses, profits themselves should be generally frowned upon by your efficiency-loving economist. Profits (or above normal rates of return) should exist as reward for innovation, or risk-taking, but otherwise are a sign of some market imperfection - generally market power. So, what can we conclude when the owners of the Philadelphia Inquirer doesn't consider a profit margin in the "mid-teens" to be high enough?

Where did this guy take economics? If it were true that low profits were the mark of efficiency, the Soviet Union would have been the most efficient economy on the planet. There's a reason that U.S. firms make large profits and provide resources efficiently. No matter how many times you point out the almost direct correlation between profit-seeking behavior and economic progress, these people never figure it out.

Wellity, wellity, wellity. It seems the "Paper of Record" has been printing all the news that's fit to plagiarize. And where did the not-so-esteemed Jayson Blair plagiarize from? The Washington Post, that's where. And that's on top of the stuff he just made up entirely.

I've been saying it for a while, but I'll say it again: The Post kicks the Times' ass.