Sustaining Capitalism in a Finite World

I'm not sure that is possible. Maybe we can just eliminate systems that breed greed and reward it, like capitalism.

 

What do you mean "our"? Are you an owner or shareholder in all the food that is allegedly going to waste?

Ridiculously naive. A childish fear, really. Plenty of companies value competition. In fact, most do. Entrepreneurs will attempt to do better than their competition. Crony capitalists will use political power (a problem of too much government, rather than capitalism) to limit their competition and gain protections. That's not the same as seeking monopoly control.

Monopoly control, which is impossible to achieve except through political power, makes a firm sclerotic and bureaucratic. Just like the sort of organization you think ought to do all economic planning.

 

Indeed, the world ought to be run by moralists, like you.

 

Up your moralist. At least I'm not an IMmoralist. If you aren't interested in discussing ideas and risking discovery, maybe it would be more satisfying for you to simply abstain from participating. Personal attacks are too easy, even for people like you.

 

I forgot how quick you are to whine about anything you perceive as a personal attack against you, yet you never hesitate to use them yourself.

 

If you aren't interested in discussing ideas and risking discovery, maybe it would be more satisfying for you to simply abstain from participating. Personal attacks are too easy, even for people like you.

 

If you aren't interested in discussing ideas and risking discovery, maybe it would be more satisfying for you to simply abstain from participating. Personal attacks are too easy, even for people like you.

 

The other side of that question might be "What is it that we're producing too much of?"

 

Even WSDEs?

 

Yes I own the world, or ADM, whichever. All the same.

I have absolutely no clue what strawman you are trying to create to respond to things I never said.

 

You are now on my ignore list. Congrats! You're the first.

 

No. I think I've already addressed that. I meant "every capitalist business" because it's driven by private profit.

 

That's because that was a reply to Kode. The board can be confusing when it mashes posts together with separate quotes.

 

Not every capitalist business is driven by profit. While profit allows for further investment and draws investors, there are businesses that are driven more by social purpose. In California and some other states, they will form as class B Corporations. There are also business enterprises that are not-for-profit. They roll their surpluses back in to maintaining low prices or providing scaled pricing. This is common with schools and other organization organizations.

As a business development expert, I can't even think of many small businesses that I've dealt with that are primarily motivated by profit. Everyone wants to earn a good living from their efforts, and most of the time they have values that far outweigh the profit motive.

 

Every WSDE is also driven by private profit. If a WSDE isn't profitable, it goes out of business, just like any other business.

 

There's a difference between being profitable and being driven by profit.

 

No there isn't.

 

There is? What's the difference?

 

OBVIOUSLY, you wouldn't know, probably because of being either uninformed or misinformed.

 

WSDEs are profitable, but service to the workers and to the community take priority. That is what drives them. For example, WSDEs have a history of not laying off workers during economic downturns because that is how the workers vote. If they were driven by profits they would lay off workers in such cases. Also, they use their profits according to workers' votes, and typically they save a portion for downturns to help sustain them. And some of the profit is distributed to the workers. Workers would not vote to stockpile profits to the detriment of the workers, or to some of the workers.

 

So instead of capital expenditure, they save profits for a rainy day?

Also - if you require profitability to survive...you are driven by profit.

As a human being, you may choose to give away some of your food because you have a different set of moral values than the next person...however, you are still VERY MUCH driven by the need for food.

 

In a WSDE, the workers ARE the owners, so to say that a WSDE prioritizes the owners is nothing different from a non-WSDE business.

Also, there are many businesses that prioritize their treatment of hired workers and service to the community. To say that all non-WSDE businesses are run by greedy people who don't care about workers or the community is an over generalization. To say that all non-WSDE business try to eliminate competition is another gross over generalization.

Perhaps your intolerance of businesses that don't operate by your preferred business model is coloring your judgement and causing you to make stereotypical generalizations. Do you believe that all non-WSDE business owners wear top hats and monocles?

 

No. It, like WSDEs, must be profitable in order to survive. You can't assume that it's driven exclusively by profit.

 

Certainly not, and I didn't say that. And I didn't just say they "certainly" don't "save profits for a rainy day". Be sure to read and grasp context.

Did you understand my examples? Doesn't seem so.

I am not driven by a need for food. Such needs become more important to the point of being a focus and "drive" if the need is not adequately met and is at risk of further erosion. WSDEs are government by legislation that covers much of what can and cannot be done.

 

Wow. That is shockingly short-sighted.

Did I say that?

Did I say that? The standard, textbook essence of capitalism is private ownership by those who hire workers, and which operate for private profit. Meanwhile, the S.C. has ruled that the primary job of corporations is to make profits for stockholders, most of whom consist of the corporate elite.

I can VERY easily say similarly about you and your judgement.