• 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!

Eat the Rich

Heyo

Veteran Member
That's bad capitalism. Good capitalism supports the economy with fair wages/compensation. The richer the labor force the more product it will be able to afford that is produced. It is in a companies own interest to make sure its employees are fairly compensated.
Some modern companies could learn from Henry Ford, one of the worst capitalists to ever exist. He insisted that a car should be affordable by the workers in his factories.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
That's bad capitalism. Good capitalism supports the economy with fair wages/compensation. The richer the labor force the more product it will be able to afford that is produced. It is in a companies own interest to make sure its employees are fairly compensated.
But it's pretty trivial to demonstrate that capitalism doesn't really work without a massive, exploited underclass who are paid significantly lower than the value of their labour. It's only in a company's interest to pay fair wages if they cannot get away with it - hence why so many major corporations either underpay their staff (wage theft is the most widespread form of theft in America) or farm out their production to other countries where workers have fewer rights.

There is no such thing as either "good" or "bad' capitalism. All of it is rolled up in the same core ideology that corporate interest and profit is put ahead of the common good. That's not "bad" capitalism, it's a fundamental component of ALL capitalism.
 
Last edited:

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
But it's pretty trivial to demonstrate that capitalism doesn't really work without a massive, exploited underclass who are paid significantly lower than the value of their labour. It's only in a company's interest to pay fair wages if they cannot get away with it - hence why so many major corporations either underpay their staff (wage theft is the most widespread form of theft in America) or farm out their production to other countries where workers have fewer rights.

There is no such thing as either "good" or "bad' capitalism. All of it is rolled up in the same core ideology that corporate interest and profit is put ahead of the common good. That's not "bad" capitalism, it's a fundamental component of ALL capitalism.

Where did you get your education in capitalism?
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Some modern companies could learn from Henry Ford, one of the worst capitalists to ever exist. He insisted that a car should be affordable by the workers in his factories.

Ford who had a net worth of $1.2 billion in the 1920s?
If only we could all be that bad at capitalism. :)
 

Secret Chief

nirvana is samsara
DAF2F8B6-4B4F-4911-B412-FAFEC859500C.jpeg
Holy **** there must be some RF rule banning posting videos of That****.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
That's bad capitalism. Good capitalism supports the economy with fair wages/compensation. The richer the labor force the more product it will be able to afford that is produced. It is in a companies own interest to make sure its employees are fairly compensated.
There is no "bad" or "good" capitalism. There is just capitalism. It's a system of commercial production that rewards excess wealth with the unmitigated power to capture even more excess wealth. That's it. It is completely amoral. It cares not where the excess wealth came from, by what means, or what one does with it apart from investing it to get more of it.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
They can't maximize profit if no one can afford it. One becomes wealthy by giving people what they want at an affordable price.
What you are calling "affordable", here, is really dubious.

If you are in business to make as much money as possible, would you rather sell 1 widget for $1000 dollars, or 10 widgets for $100 dollars, each? Keep in mind that the latter will cost YOU more than the former, and cut into those big profits that you're seeking.

So, no, the capitalist is not interested in selling more or better widgets at a cheaper price. All he's interested in is getting as much of your money as is possible. And if he can do that without giving you ANYTHING AT ALL, in return, he would much prefer that. Because that is actually the ultimate ideal of the capitalist prime directive: to get ALL OF YOUR MONEY. Once that has been achieved, you become irrelevant to the capitalist system. Which is why everything costs as much as the capitalists can get away with charging for them, regardless of their actual value. And is why everyone who is not a capital investors, stays one paycheck away from being broke.

It's a terrible system based entirely on the power it gives to greed, at the expense of everything and everyone else.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
There is no "bad" or "good" capitalism. There is just capitalism. It's a system of commercial production that rewards excess wealth with the unmitigated power to capture even more excess wealth. That's it. It is completely amoral. It cares not where the excess wealth came from, by what means, or what one does with it apart from investing it to get more of it.

Who is supposed to mitigate that power?
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Who is supposed to mitigate that power?
Usually, governments and other such regulators - though it could be argued that once enough capital is accrued even those forces can be bent to fit the desire of powerful enough oligarch. The other is worker unification.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
What you are calling "affordable", here, is really dubious.

If you are in business to make as much money as possible, would you rather sell 1 widget for $1000 dollars, or 10 widgets for $100 dollars, each? Keep in mind that the latter will cost YOU more than the former, and cut into those big profits that you're seeking.

So, no, the capitalist is not interested in selling more or better widgets at a cheaper price. All he's interested in is getting as much of your money as is possible. And if he can do that without giving you ANYTHING AT ALL, in return, he would much prefer that. Because that is actually the ultimate ideal of the capitalist prime directive: to get ALL OF YOUR MONEY. Once that has been achieved, you become irrelevant to the capitalist system. Which is why everything costs as much as the capitalists can get away with charging for them, regardless of their actual value. And is why everyone who is not a capital investors, stays one paycheck away from being broke.

It's a terrible system based entirely on the power it gives to greed, at the expense of everything and everyone else.

What works best is to undercut the competition. The exception to this is when you have a reputation of providing excellent products or services.

What you think you know about capitalism is completely wrong. If capitalism worked as you think it does, it would have defeated itself long ago. Yet here we are, were socialism is not. :shrug:
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Usually, governments and other such regulators - though it could be argued that once enough capital is accrued even those forces can be bent to fit the desire of powerful enough oligarch. The other is worker unification.

The the problem then is with the government.

Worker unification under a strong authoritarian leadership? Just another political party. We've enough trouble with Republicans and Democrats.
 

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
It seems many young folks have an impression of capitalism in the hardcore Victorian sense, not realising there's not just one concept or implementation of capitalism.

I simply don't see a comparison between a comfortable western elitist using "Eat the Rich" as an empty slogan and the people forced to engage in cannibalism because collectivisation produced famines in China, Ethiopia and the USSR. And when pushed, these millennials and gen Z will almost always dissociate themselves from their ideological predecessors because they are too "extreme", "inhumane" and "dictatorial". They only wear Che Guevara on a T-shirt because they don't know he was a homophobe and that Cuba put gays in concentration camps. I find efforts to "redefine" socialism to a level of shallow wokeness that you can "swipe left" for as an insult the horror, tragedy and heroism of those who actually dedicated their lives to it and are definitely not equivalent to one another.

It would appear both capitalism and socialism suffer from image problems and perhaps need updated wardrobes.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
... Is that your only response?

Because most haven't. Not usually part of public education so most people have a wrong understanding of capitalism.
I certainly didn't receive my understanding of capitalism through public education so I understand why so many misconception exist about it.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
It depends. I knew some guys who applied at a trucking company, which offered to pay for them to go to truck driving school as long as they made a commitment to work for them. Of course, I've heard from some truckers that truck driving is not the glamorous career as it would appear from the outside, so I guess everything has a downside.
That's going to school first.
Learning with another driver comes afterwards.
This is especially so with flatbed & lowboy drivers,
for whom rigging must be learned.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Not entirely: they're social democracies, so they combine elements of capitalism with socialism.
Capitalist countries don't become "socialist" just because
they have a social welfare system. Socialism is when
"the people" own the means of production....that is if we
are to use dictionary definitions rather than personal ones.
 
Top