• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Oh, that poor "deprived" and "abused" Walmart corporation!

PureX

Veteran Member
One should have power over what one owns.
Monetary investment is not the only criteria for "ownership" in a reasonable, equitable system.
If you don't like the way I run my business,
you can patronize the one down the street.
That's your power.
When your business effects the lives and livelihoods of other people (as every business enterprise does), it's not "your business" anymore. It's PARTLY yours, but not totally. Which is why you should not have total control over it.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
When everyone shares in the control, and the profit, it's called cooperation. When everyone has to fight to be recognized and accommodated, it's called competition. Competition is a very ineffective and unfair method of operating a business enterprise. As we all can see from the results. It generates big winners (undeserved) and big losers (exploited). Whereas cooperation ensures that everyone is being represented, and rewarded, according to their contribution.

Communism is a disaster for all for the elite.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
"Extra money" is absolutely worthless until it's either spent, or invested. So as long as there is some profit to be gained on the capital being invested, people will invest it.

So the real question is; should the capital investor have ALL THE POWER AND CONTROL of the business invested in, and TAKE ALL THE PROFITS for him/herself if it's successful, when the investor is not producing the product or service, nor consuming it? And the answer is 'no', because the business enterprise effects the lives and livelihoods of all three, and therefor should be controlled by all three, and if successful, it should reward all three.
Or investors can bugger off and face incredible limits on how much you can make from investments so no one makes money simply by having a lot of money. That is where you see gross abuse of our system, because investors are not producing, manufacturing, contributing, and they tend to not work.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Like I said, it's not a question of capitalism being toxic, it's just a question of how bad it has to get before people are finally willing to admit it, and do something about it.
Its a matter of having accurate perspectives. In no way are we living under anything that resembles fascism.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Or investors can bugger off and face incredible limits on how much you can make from investments so no one makes money simply by having a lot of money. That is where you see gross abuse of our system, because investors are not producing, manufacturing, contributing, and they tend to not work.
Investment capital is a very good and necessary aspect of any economic system. And it can't exist without some profitable return. But it does not warrant being given the right of total ownership, and total control over the invested business enterprise, because that enterprise effects the well being of so many other people.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
You are such a rat, always making my point better
with a tenth of the words.
b52e1bff41122d66aac6133d5718b6fb.gif
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Try refusing to participate in the system as see what happens to you.

Participating in the system works great for me.
What kind of idiot would "refuse"?

You could try to emulate Thoreau of course.
Go try it!
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Investment capital is a very good and necessary aspect of any economic system. And it can't exist without some profitable return. But it does not warrant being given the right of total ownership, and total control over the invested business enterprise, because that enterprise effects the well being of so many other people.

Nobody has total control not even of a vegetable
stand. You must be in some alternate reality.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Investment capital is a very good and necessary aspect of any economic system. And it can't exist without some profitable return. But it does not warrant being given the right of total ownership, and total control over the invested business enterprise, because that enterprise effects the well being of so many other people.
Unless you're disabled, you work for a living. Capital investors are not doing this. They make money by doing absolutely nothing more than having money. Dont blame Walmart, blame centuries of legislation that has stacked the cards heavily against the proletariate while gifting significant benefits to those already of affluence.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
But cooperation is the pathway to overall success. You shoud someday learn the difference between these two words.

Ah a cute lil attempt at a put-down. From you it has
the power of a butterfly sting.

Cooperation is what commies try to force on people.
Capitalism does voluntary with what wiser than you
termed enloghtened self interest.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Unless you're disabled, you work for a living. Capital investors are not doing this. They make money by doing absolutely nothing more than having money. Dont blame Walmart, blame centuries of legislation that has stacked the cards heavily against the proletariate while gifting significant benefits to those already of affluence.

I am kind of on the sidelines for personal reasons, but
my family is hugely involved in investment in HK,
Singapore, NYC, Vancouver and Toronto.

The image of "doing nothing" that you conjure really
is such a total mismatch for the reality of the work
that entails.

It is no cpincidence that with few exceptions the
richest are workaholics.

But you know that. Even if the ideologically pure
cannot grasp it.
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Monetary investment is not the only criteria for "ownership" in a reasonable, equitable system.
"Criterion" is the singular form.
When your business effects the lives and livelihoods of other people (as every business enterprise does), it's not "your business" anymore. It's PARTLY yours, but not totally. Which is why you should not have total control over it.
The people & government already have partial control.
Government regulates.
The people control with their spending.
What you propose is total government control because
it is politicians running it who take the owner's power,
& grant it to themselves & others....to the extent they
deign to allow it.

If the workers really want to share in the risks & benefits
of ownership, they may buy stock. They could even
start their own company. This is power they already have.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Try refusing to participate in the system as see what happens to you.
The beauty of capitalism is that there's no need to prevent people from
forming voluntary communist enclaves within the overall capitalist structure.
They're no threat to capitalism....Most people prefer free economic
association over the limits & languor of socialism & communism.
So I welcome hippies & radicals to form communes & cooperatives.
It's your right. Good luck.

But socialism & communism.....they require a powerful government to
forcibly suppress free economic association because it would otherwise
spread among the ambitious, the productive, & the independent minded
& those who want more than is rationed to them by Big Brother's Ministry
Of Fair Allocation.
 
Last edited:

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
But you know that. Even if the ideologically pure
cannot grasp it.
I have known investors. Their work is of such importance we would find ways to manage without if they all quit (and in a post jobs world, we will have to figure that out by then). We were better off when we told the church we dont actually need it, despite their claims just as we'll be better off after we tell WallStreet to bugger off, despite what they tell us.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
"Criterion" is the singular form.

The people & government already have partial control.
Government regulates.
The people control with their spending.
What you propose is total government control because
it is politicians running it who take the owner's power,
& grant it to themselves & others....to the extent they
deign to allow it.

If the workers really want to share in the risks & benefits
of ownership, they may buy stock. They could even
start their own company. This is power they already have.
The people have very little control, now, because capitalism has failed them, as it always will, by creating an oligarchy of corruption via huge wealth disparity. We are wildly deluded if we with think we are "free" in this system. Or that we could implement any other, from within. The current government of the U.S. represents no one but the wealthy oligarchs that bought and paid for every significant member in it. And they are steadily dismantling every law and policy that protects the citizenry from their economic exploitation and abuse. Capitalism in the U.S. has been a wild success for the very wealthy elite, who want to own and control everything and everyone. They now do own and control nearly everything: the government, the media, the federal reserve, and they use them to continue to enrich themselves at everyone else's expense. And that "expense" continues to increase, and with that increase comes the very real suffering of more and more actual humans. Unnecessary suffering. And when that suffering becomes too much for people to endure, they will revolt. They'll have no choice. And in the end, it'll be because the richest country in the history of the world still couldn't manage to share its wealth among its citizens in an equitable manner. GREED will have made that impossible.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Ever heard of warfare? It may not be reasonable, but it is sometimes necessary, as a last resort. And not all our enemies are outside our borders. In fact, the most dangerous ones are not only among us, but are in positions of great wealth and power.
I know. You have a pat answer for everything to justify acting on your personal belief in the Holy Workers Paradise.

That you personally have the ability to pick and choose who is attacked and how is an enviable ability. Do you get to have sex with all the women that join cult too or is it just the killing?

So if there is some difference between the two of us (besides the homicidal religious mania issue) it is perfectly justifiable for me to avoid rational and reasonable resolution of that issue and just slaughter. Got it.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
The people have very little control, now, because capitalism has failed them, as it always will, by creating an oligarchy of corruption via huge wealth disparity. We are wildly deluded if with think we are "free" in this system. Or that we could implement any other. The current government of the U.S. represents no one but the wealthy oligarchs that bought and paid for every significant member in it. And they are steadily dismantling every law and policy that protects the citizenry from their economic exploitation and abuse. Capitalism in the U.S. has been a wild success for the very wealthy elite. They now control everything: the government, the media, the federal reserve, and they use them to continue to enrich themselves at everyone else's expense. And that 'expense" continues to increase, and with that increase comes the very real suffering of more and more people. Unnecessary suffering. And wen that suffering becomes too much for people to endure, they will revolt. They will have no choice. And in the end, it's because the richest country in the history of the world still couldn't manage to share is wealth among its citizens in an equitable manner. GREED will have made that impossible.
This just reeks of powerless victimhood.
Remember that one's outlook on life is merely that...not reality.
 
Top