| Annotation: | Methods. The article is based on a study, during which the following methods were used: abstraction – when establishing the essence of the concept of «profit»; general and specific – when revealing its specificity in the conditions of functioning of market economy; logical and historical – in the study of the retrospective development of ideas about the essence and nature of profit. Results. The article considers the economic essence and role of profit in market conditions. It is shown that profit is not only the stimulus of economic activity of the enterprise, but also the main source of its development. The amount of profit of any enterprise is the basis of the economic and financial results of its activities. The nature of profit in political economy is investigated, in particular by mercantilists. who argued that the emergence of profit is connected with trade, and by physiocrats, who consider profit only in the sphere of production. It is proved, that the concept of profit in the economic system exists in connection with the presence of commodity-money relations, the emergence and development of the institution of ownership, especially private. In the article, considerable attention is paid to the classics of political economy, namely, A. Smith, D. Ricardo, K. Marks. Considerable attention is paid to the study of works of modern scientists and on what basis it is found out that in our opinion, the most accurate definition of the profit belongs to S. V. Mochernyi, who notes that the profit is turned into a derived form of surplus value, which in quantitative terms is the difference between the sales price of the goods and the cost of capital for its production. Novelty. It is recommended to consider profit taking into account social relations as a means of satisfaction of interests of participants of market relations, participating in its formation; economic relations as part of value added that is embedded in the production and actually goes to enterprises in the form of proceeds from the sale of products; financial relations - as a kind of financial results of activity of enterprises, which is determined by a positive balance between the income earned and the costs incurred by the enterprise. Practical value. The authors justify the distinction between the categories of «profit» and «financial result». It is determined that the profit is part of the financial result of the enterprise. The profit is the main source of financing enterprise development, improvement of its material base, provision of all forms of investment. |
| Literature: | - 1. Bezhinova, L. I., & Vlasova, N.O. (2005). Efekt finansovoho leveredzhu yak kryteriy optymizatsii struktury kapitalu torhivelnoho pidpryiemstva. Visnyk Don. DUET, 3(27), 185.
- 2. Boychuk, V.A., Proskurovych, O.V. (2010). Modelyuvanny adaptyvnoho upravlinnya prybutkom pidpryiemstva. Visnyk Khmelnytskoho natsionalnoho universytety, (1), T.2, 71-76.
- 3. Vasylenko, L.P., Hut, L.V. & Okseienko, P.O. (2006). Finansy pidpryiemstv u skhemakh i tablytsyakh. Kyiv: Dakor.
- 4. Vlasova, N.O., & Melushova, I.Yu. (2008). Efektyvnist formuvannya finansovykh rezultativ pidpry- iemstv rozdribnoi torhivli. Kharkiv: KHDUKHT.
- 5. Mochernyi, S. V. (Ed.). (2002). Ekonomichna entsyklopediya. (Vols 1-3). Kyiv.
- 6. Sey, Zh. Traktat po politicheskoi ekonomii. Re- trieved from http://library.tneu.edu.ua/files/EVD/HTML/sey/say.htm
- 7. Kruhlova, O.A., Kozyb, V.O., & Kozub, S.O. (2018). Yakist prybutku yak efektyvnosti upravlinnya pidpryiemstvom. Visnyk KhDU. Seriya ekonomichni nauky, (28), 115-119. Retrieved from http://ej.journal.kspu.edu/index.php/ej/article/view/75.
- 8. Lyshylenko, O.V. (2003). Teoriya bukhhalter- skoho obliku. Kyiv: Tsentr navchalnoi literatury.
- 9. Mazaraki, A.A. (2010). Torhovelne pidpryiem- stvo: stratehiya, polityka, konkurentospromozhnist. Kyiv: KNTEU.
- 10. Men, T. (1985). Bohatstvo Anhlii vo vneshnei torhovle. Merkantilizm. Moskva: Soksekzim.
- 11. Poddierohin, A.M., Bilyk, M.D., & Buriak, L.D. (2008). Finansy pidpryiemstv. (7th ed.). Kyiv: KNEU.
- 12. Pokropyvnyy, S.F. (2001). Ekonomika pidpry- iemstva. (2nd ed.). Kyiv: KNEU.
- 13. Rikardo, D. (1955). Nachala politicheskoy ekonomii i nalogovogo oblozheniya. Soch. Moskva: Politizdat.
- 14. Skaliuk, R.V. (2020). Sytnist ta znachennia fi- nansovyh rezultativ v systemi rozvytku hospodarskoi dialnosti promyslovikh pidpriemstv. Naukovi pratsi KNTU. Ekonomichni nauki. (18). 135-141.
- 15. Smit, A. (2007). Isledovanie o prirode I prichi- nakh bohatstva narodov. Seriya: Antolohiya ekonomich- eskoi micli. Moskva: Eksmo.
- 16. Shvets, V.H. (2003). Toeriya bukhalterskoho obliku. Kyiv: Znannya-Pres.
- 17. Marks, K. (1867). Das Kapital. New York. P.
- 413.
|
Archive