Eat the Rich

[Saint Frankenstein]

Globalism and corruption are inevitable results of capitalism and crony money worship is its mantra.

What are you defining as capitalism? To me, it's just private property and private businesses making a profit. I don't think globalism is an inherent result of local businesses. I think it is plainly a result of government policies, as well as a sort of ideology.

 

[Stevicus]

I have a suspicion that the capitalists understand economics - they just lie about it so that we don't.

It may be more cultural - although that also seems to become a characteristic of the system. I agree that they understand it, but many people seem to view it in a more systemic sense. As if our economic system functions like some kind of mathematical equation, more of an abstraction which somehow seems detached from the human condition.

 

[Heyo]

What are you defining as capitalism? To me, it's just private property and private businesses making a profit. I don't think globalism is an inherent result of local businesses. I think it is plainly a result of government policies, as well as a sort of ideology.

With capitalism, in this instance, I mean the economic ideology (some call it theory) that "the invisible hand" of the free market will regulate everything combined with the imperative that a corporations only goal should be to generate return of investment.
When your business model is profit and globalization and corruption are profitable, then corporations should work towards globalization and corruption.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

With capitalism, in this instance, I mean the economic ideology (some call it theory) that "the invisible hand" of the free market will regulate everything combined with the imperative that a corporations only goal should be to generate return of investment.
When your business model is profit and globalization and corruption are profitable, then corporations should work towards globalization and corruption.

Well, that's a very biased, ideological definition of capitalism. When I search the term in Google, it gave me the definition in the screenshot.

 

[Heyo]

Well, that's a very biased, ideological definition of capitalism. When I search the term in Google, it gave me the definition in the screenshot.

It is the same as mine, only in less clear words. Notice the "controlled by private owners"? That is "the invisible hand", not controlled by the state. And "for profit" that is just what I said, "the imperative that a corporations only goal should be to generate return of investment".
The result is the same, if tax evasion is profitable, if off-shoring is profitable, if bribing politicians is profitable, do it.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It is the same as mine, only in less clear words. Notice the "controlled by private owners"? That is "the invisible hand", not controlled by the state. And "for profit" that is just what I said, "the imperative that a corporations only goal should be to generate return of investment".
The result is the same, if tax evasion is profitable, if off-shoring is profitable, if bribing politicians is profitable, do it.

So if I start a lemonade stand, I'm part of some "hidden hand" and that has something to with corporations? You're jumping ahead quite a bit from the definition Google gave.

 

[Heyo]

So if I start a lemonade stand, I'm part of some "hidden hand" and that has something to with corporations? You're jumping ahead quite a bit from the definition Google gave.

A business is a business and it works on the same principles, be it your lemonade stand or Coca Cola. You will buy imported lemons if they are cheaper than local grown and you will bribe a city official if that is cheaper than getting a permit.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

A business is a business and it works on the same principles, be it your lemonade stand or Coca Cola. You will buy imported lemons if they are cheaper than local grown and you will bribe a city official if that is cheaper than getting a permit.

I wouldn't, if I owned a business. Why do you have such a negative view of business owners? Sure, they can be corrupt but that doesn't mean all are corrupt.

 

[Heyo]

I wouldn't, if I owned a business.

Then you haven't understood capitalism and your lemonade stand will soon be owned by the neighbour's kid who does and you'd be working for her.

Why do you have such a negative view of business owners? Sure, they can be corrupt but that doesn't mean all are corrupt.

It is not a negative view, it is a logical consequence of the profit motive.
If you don't have a profit motive, you have a hobby, not a business. If you have a profit motive, you take opportunities to maximize profit.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I'm a 26 year old who's not against capitalism

It worked for the west, we're some of the richest nations on earth with plenty of opportunity and many folks want to move here.

I'm unashamedly pro-capitalism.

The wars, interventionism, and exploitation of other countries and their resources that countries such as the U.S, France, and England have historically engaged in don't seem to me to be anything they should be proud of, and such practices have contributed to the wealth of said countries.

Capitalist or not, some wealthy countries have certainly gained a portion of their global power and wealth through abusive and violent means.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I don't know. @Revoltingest was relating an account about a woman whose degree was in international diversity studies, and she was saying that she was trying for hundreds of jobs and getting nowhere. Why no one was offering her a job with that degree is unclear, although it seems that it didn't fit in with whatever skill set employers are seeking. But I don't know what was going on with this person or why she couldn't find a job.

Such a degree is probably similar to what some people would get when I was in college, but usually called "general studies," or some might call it "liberal arts." I think there may have been a time when a college degree in itself (regardless of what major it was in) was a sign of intelligence and refinement which would be an asset to any organization - and someone young enough who can be trained and molded into what they might call "executive material." Even better if they come from the right families.

But it's not really like that anymore, and employers are looking for more specialized skills than just "general studies."

Sorry...I should have been clearer.
If you're seeing a degree as a means of gaining employment, then getting a degree in international diversity studies probably qualifies you for lecturing in international diversity studies, and not much more. Plenty of degrees like that.
I, for one, would love to study Classical history, but I got myself a teaching degree instead, because I wanted a job at the end of it.

Equally, though, I would love to study Classical history, just for the sake of it, so I wouldn't suggest the degree is worthless...just not of much value in gaining employment.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Then you haven't understood capitalism and your lemonade stand will soon be owned by the neighbour's kid who does and you'd be working for her.

Strongly disagree with your analogy here, and I have run a successful business.

It is not a negative view, it is a logical consequence of the profit motive.
If you don't have a profit motive, you have a hobby, not a business. If you have a profit motive, you take opportunities to maximize profit.

Whilst there is an element of truth in this, the thing people never seem to do with these discussions is to throw context in.
I'm not bribing a government official for the same reason I don't bribe a cop who pulls me over. I might plead my case, but crossing a legal line introduces risk, and mitigating risk is important to long term profit motives.
Sustainable and repeatable business practices are important.

Not to mention the type of staff I'm trying to attract, and the type of customers I want to attract.

In your analogy, I might be able to source my lemons cheaper from the third world, but selling my product as a premium product, locally sourced and grown, with 5c in every dollar going to support <insert well-respected and local af charity here> will work fine.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I wouldn't, if I owned a business. Why do you have such a negative view of business owners? Sure, they can be corrupt but that doesn't mean all are corrupt.

Agreed. There are more corrupt ones than I like, but I've worked with some fine people as well.

 

[Heyo]

Strongly disagree with your analogy here, and I have run a successful business.



Whilst there is an element of truth in this, the thing people never seem to do with these discussions is to throw context in.
I'm not bribing a government official for the same reason I don't bribe a cop who pulls me over. I might plead my case, but crossing a legal line introduces risk, and mitigating risk is important to long term profit motives.
Sustainable and repeatable business practices are important.

Not to mention the type of staff I'm trying to attract, and the type of customers I want to attract.

In your analogy, I might be able to source my lemons cheaper from the third world, but selling my product as a premium product, locally sourced and grown, with 5c in every dollar going to support <insert well-respected and local af charity here> will work fine.

You have understood capitalism. You didn't bribe government officials because the risk of getting caught times the fine you'd have to pay was not profitable. But that is only because laws and regulations exist. In an environment where it would have been profitable, it would have been bad business practice to not take the opportunity.
Same goes with making premium lemonade. If taking that niche is profitable, it is a good business decision. If your customers all buy your neighbour's cheap lemonade, you go bankrupt.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

How do you see socialism working?

I never mentioned socialism.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You have understood capitalism. You didn't bribe government officials because the risk of getting caught times the fine you'd have to pay was not profitable. But that is only because laws and regulations exist. In an environment where it would have been profitable, it would have been bad business practice to not take the opportunity.
Same goes with making premium lemonade. If taking that niche is profitable, it is a good business decision. If your customers all buy your neighbour's cheap lemonade, you go bankrupt.

So, then, transparency, regulation and policing play a key role in an effective and maintainable capitalist society.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So, then, transparency, regulation and policing play a key role in an effective and maintainable capitalist society.

I would agree with this. The question remains, however, whether this becomes impossible once certain corporations become large enough to influence not only public attitudes but actual legislation. America is a pretty good example of how, even in a system with relatively strong checks and balances, corporations can and will still usurp a huge amount of political power and influence for their own ends.

So the issue may not be whether capitalism is being "misused" or going "unchecked", so much as the issue may simply be capitalism itself.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I would agree with this. The question remains, however, whether this becomes impossible once certain corporations become large enough to influence not only public attitudes but actual legislation. America is a pretty good example of how, even in a system with relatively strong checks and balances, corporations can and will still usurp a huge amount of political power and influence for their own ends.

So the issue may not be whether capitalism is being "misused" or going "unchecked", so much as the issue may simply be capitalism itself.

I think that makes a level of sense. People seem more concerned about government overreach than company overreach, for some reason, but both are problematic, if different in scope.

 

[Secret Chief]

I think that makes a level of sense. People seem more concerned about government overreach than company overreach, for some reason, but both are problematic, if different in scope.

Governments seem unwilling and/or unable to deal with "overreach." I wish I paid as little as percentage of tax as google do. If I tried that I'd soon have the tax office after me.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Governments seem unwilling and/or unable to deal with "overreach." I wish I paid as little as percentage of tax as google do. If I tried that I'd soon have the tax office after me.

That's definitely an 'and'.
However, if we're going to throw rocks at capitalism on this one, we should save a few for democracy in the age of social media.

We have the attention span of goldfish, and a group of people who are validated by a popularity contest every four years.

Taking a hardline with a corporation and losing jobs because of it won't play well.
And many constituents are voluntarily signing up and helping those corporations gather private information, etc, without anyone forcing it.