• 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!

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
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.
Do you plan to personally take up arms against us capitalists?
 

PureX

Veteran Member
What's your alternative to capitalism?
Democratic socialism. A system in which the consumers, the producers, and the investors all have an equal say in how the nation's business enterprise is being operated, and can therefor share in it's success or failure.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
When we look more like the peasants of Tsarist Russia or Medieval Europe you'll have a point.
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.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
If someone opens a family bakery or grocery store,
what will be done to them. What if they try to reinvest
and grow?
Greed would be severely punished...off to prison with them.
Only noble competent state run operations would supply
baked goods....healthy politically correct baked goods
which are free of gluten, sugar, & bogourois flavors.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Democratic socialism. A system in which the consumers, the producers, and the investors all have an equal say in how the nation's business enterprise is being operated, and can therefor share in it's success or failure.

What us "the nation's business enterprise"? I never heard of it.

Who are "the producers"?
 

Audie

Veteran Member
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.

Not a question, to you. And your opinion is just your
opinion.

Too bad you were not in China in 1949.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Greed would be severely punished...off to prison with them.
Only noble competent state run operations would supply
baked goods....healthy politically correct baked goods
which are free of gluten, sugar, & bogourois flavors.

Try to imagine management of even a bakery
divided up among three groups with competing
or opposite goals.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Try to imagine management of even a bakery
divided up among three groups with competing
or opposite goals.
Why on Earth would anyone ever invest money & work to
start a bakery, only to turn over control to the community?
All work, but no profit or power.
Free donuts perhaps?

Had dinner with a gal who emigrated from Poland.
She lived under the workers' paradise of socialism.
Young people here tell her about how great socialism is.
She explains how it actually was.
It seems that those who love socialism most are those
who don't have to experience it in the real world.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Try to imagine management of even a bakery
divided up among three groups with competing
or opposite goals.
Yes, each would have to learn to accommodate the needs/desires of the others, or the business could not exist. Just as it should be.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Why on Earth would anyone ever invest money & work to
start a bakery, only to turn over control to the community?
All work, but no profit or power.
Free donuts perhaps?
"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.
 
Last edited:

Audie

Veteran Member
Yes, each would have to learn to accommodate the needs/desires of the others, or the business could not exist. Just as it should be.

Of course. Any business that does meet the needs
of suppliers, workers, consumers and investors does
fail unless put on govt life support.
That is nothing new or different

What ¡s it really, you have figured out a
better way than what people have done around
the world since deepest antiquity?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
"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 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, should reward all three.
One should have power over what one owns.
If you don't like the way I run my business,
you can patronize the one down the street.
That's your power.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Of course. Any business that does meet the needs
of suppliers, workers, consumers and investors does
fail unless put on govt life support.
That is nothing new or different

What ¡s it really, you have figured out a
better way than what people have done around
the world since deepest antiquity?
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.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
"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 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, should reward all three.

"Affects".

No investor ever can possibly take all the
profits for himself. Cant be done.

All the power and control. Not really. Except for
sole-owner one is tightly constrained by other
investors' interests.

The POTUS has a lot of power but he is constrained
in a great many ways. He cant just do things.

'All three" are rewarded by the presence of a successful
business providing goods and services. I get plenty
of benefit from businesses in which I have investments,
but not a clue how to run.

The person with the drive, vision and skill naturally
benefits most. Do you know how to run any kind
of business? What possible contribution could
you make to thr management of Caterpiller?
 
Top