Change capitalism

Author: Benjamin

Posts

Total: 23
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 79
Posts: 780
4
6
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
6
10
They say capitalism is better because competition leads to better results. That is true. Competition allows almost any goals to be reached. So, let us change the goals. Profit only means redistribution of wealth. Even if you justify it as a result of fair market dynamics, its still just that, redistribution. We have created a system where people compete to steer the cash flow towards their own pockets. Any means necesary is NOT acceptable for achieving this goal. Lobbying is waste of money and politician's time, and it also undermines democracy. Money spent on advertisements is money witheld from hard working people with dire economic needs. 

The economy is becomming financialised: that means, businesses care more about money than being good businesses and serving their customers. This is madness. A company's value is NOT a function of its profit margins. Road building generates no profit, but they are invaluable services. This highlights the problem with capitalism. We need to have an positive economy that benefits society, and money often incentivises the opposite. The tobacco industry and their decades of lies is a brilliant example of the sort of economic activity that even proponents of capitalism must admit is unacceptable. Its possible to harm society and get rich of it.

That is madness. Capitalism should be about being the best, but today big business is a race to be the biggest badest villain to the employee and to society. We need to change the goals. First off, we need to focus on stakeholder value. Companies ought to prioritize their impact on workers and customers, not just the owners. Anything less is to legitimize exploitation in the name of profit. The country is made up of workers --- companies are harming the country if they take money from the employees and give it to the owners. Similarly, broad social harm caused by private industries must be beaten back. Companies must be punished if they harm society in the name of money. That is, put up a carbon prize so that no companies can doom the planet without paying for it. 


Capitalism and competition. These are such powerfull forces that it would be utterly foolish not to use them to solve the problems todays world face.


Face it, the economy needs to change. If you believe in small government then all you have is the market, and we can't afford sustaining a financialized poison economy.

oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Benjamin
 So, let us change the goals.
We speak of economic value as a separate concept from moral value but in a moral society there would not be much separation between the two.  If we agree that our first responsibility as nation, society, economy, generation, etc. is to raise the next generation of children and our second responsibility is to improve that generation's quality of life above our own generation and our third responsibility is to plan for the improvement of future generations then we should agree that what we value economically should reflect those moral responsibilities. At present, there's little economic benefit to having and raising  smart and healthy kids when that should be the most prioritized/rewarded activity in our society.  It should be far more profitable to participate in those activities that build and improve society like parenthood, teaching, nursing and less profitable to participate in those activities that don't.

Do you know Marilyn Waring, the NZ economist and politician?  She's quite eloquent  and forward thinking on this subject.
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Benjamin
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@Benjamin
When he founded the [World Economic Forum] in 1973, [Klaus] Schwab wrote the original Davos Manifesto aimed at urging corporate managers to reject shareholders and embrace a larger role as promoters of societal priorities. With that Davos Manifesto, the WEF now claims, “Stakeholder capitalism was born.”

Not quite. University of Calgary economist Randall Morck, editor of A History of Corporate Governance Around the World, sets the origins of legalized stakeholderism in Germany and the passage of the National Socialist government’s Shareholder Law of 1937. The law, writes Morck, “freed corporate managers and directors of their specific fiduciary duty to shareholders and substituted a general duty to all stakeholders.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/financialpost.com/opinion/terence-corcoran-the-murky-rise-of-stakeholder-capitalism/wcm/9eb39e48-1764-465f-90c7-97e3f277740c/amp/

What you are arguing for is not Capitalism. Stakeholder Capitalism, particularly in the currently proposed form, is just a new form of fascism. In the case of Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum, it is a global fascist-like system where "You'll own nothing. And you'll be happy" (https://youtu.be/MKwENH-m4oU).
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 79
Posts: 780
4
6
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
6
10
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
FACISM: a totalitarian governmental system led by a dictator and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism, militarism, and often racism.


CAPITALISM: Capitalism is an economic system in which private individuals or businesses own capital goods. The production of goods and services is based on supply and demand in the general market—known as a market economy—rather than through central planning—known as a planned economy or command economy.


What you are arguing for is not Capitalism. Stakeholder Capitalism, particularly in the currently proposed form, is just a new form of fascism.
Excuse me? That's wrong by definition! 
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 79
Posts: 780
4
6
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
6
10
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Do you believe it should be legal to murder people for cash? If not, then you already support "facism" and a "controlled" economy. The only disagreement is how far we are willing to go to protect people. A right to life? A right to basic needs? A right to economic freedom, FREEDOM from exploitation and instability?




I believe freedom is of utmost importance. But your freedom to swing your arm ends where my nose begins. Extrapolate this principle to economics.
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@Benjamin
It is not the same fascism as was found in Germany. I said it was a global fascist-like system. Nationalism is replaced with globalism. The dictator is replaced by an oligarchy of technocrats. But the main idea of corporatism is still there.

Let me ask this of your ideas for Capitalism that values stakeholders over shareholders: is the government a primary stakeholder in this new system?

Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum, perhaps the biggest driver behind the push for this system, seem to think so.
To ensure that both people and the planet prosper, four key stakeholders play a crucial role. They are: governments (of countries, states, and local communities); civil society (from unions to NGOs, from schools and universities to action groups); companies (constituting the private sector, whether freelancers or large multinational companies); and the international community (consisting of international organizations such as the UN as well as regional organizations such as the European Union or ASEAN)...It leads to the stakeholder model as we know it today, valid anywhere in the world. When the well-being of people and planet are at the center of business, the four remaining key groups of stakeholders contribute to their betterment. As all of these groups and their goals are interconnected. One cannot succeed if the others fail.
What is being pushed as Stakeholder Capitalism today, even if you don't agree with all aspects, is just a new private-public partnership on a global scale - the Great Reset.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Benjamin
They say capitalism is better because competition leads to better results.
Among other things, yes.

Profit only means redistribution of wealth. Even if you justify it as a result of fair market dynamics, its still just that, redistribution.
Not "redistribution"; just "distribution."

We have created a system where people compete to steer the cash flow towards their own pockets.
Comparative Advantage is fundamental in Economics. You do what you're best at, while minimizing the opportunity costs of everything else, in order to maximize your returns.

Any means necesary is NOT acceptable for achieving this goal.
Are you suggesting that a moral economy is necessary? Delineate the tenets and principles of this moral economy; substantiate them as well.

Lobbying is waste of money and politician's time
It's in fact not. Lobbying produces the ends favored by both the politician and his/her corporate cohort.

and it also undermines democracy.
Democracy is not worth defending.

Money spent on advertisements is money witheld from hard working people with dire economic needs. 
Withheld? Please delineate the exclusive claim and/or entitlement working people with dire economic needs bear on money spent by advertisers.

The economy is becomming financialised: that means, businesses care more about money than being good businesses and serving their customers.
That is not what that means. Transition to financial services reflects an economy's tertiary sector. "Caring" about being a good business and/or serving customers depends on its management--regardless of the transition.

A company's value is NOT a function of its profit margins.
If we qualify value in the context of Economics, then yes it is.

Road building generates no profit
Incorrect.

but they are invaluable services.
The State certainly functions as so.

This highlights the problem with capitalism.
No, it doesn't. In order to highlight a problem with a system or framework, you first have to UNDERSTAND said system or framework; you've exhibited thus far no such understanding.

We need to have an positive economy that benefits society, and money often incentivises the opposite. The tobacco industry and their decades of lies is a brilliant example of the sort of economic activity that even proponents of capitalism must admit is unacceptable. Its possible to harm society and get rich of it.
There's a rather simple "solution" isn't there? Stop buying Tobacco-based products. But people won't, will they? So who's really responsible?

That is madness. Capitalism should be about being the best, but today big business is a race to be the biggest badest villain to the employee and to society.
Once again, no real understanding of Capitalism.

We need to change the goals. First off, we need to focus on stakeholder value. Companies ought to prioritize their impact on workers and customers, not just the owners.
Provide an exemplar of Companies prioritizing just the owners an not their workers or customers.

Anything less is to legitimize exploitation in the name of profit. The country is made up of workers --- companies are harming the country if they take money from the employees and give it to the owners. 
Because of Marx's labor theory of value?

Similarly, broad social harm caused by private industries must be beaten back. Companies must be punished if they harm society in the name of money. That is, put up a carbon prize so that no companies can doom the planet without paying for it. 
You mean carbon emissions which ALLEGEDLY exacerbate "Global Warming"?

Capitalism and competition. These are such powerfull forces that it would be utterly foolish not to use them to solve the problems todays world face.
Except your vision for Capitalism is to achieve Socialist ends, thereby defeating the purpose of Capitalism.

Face it, the economy needs to change. If you believe in small government then all you have is the market, and we can't afford sustaining a financialized poison economy.
You're under the delusion that this economy is Capitalist. It's not. It's under the direction of quasi-communists exploiting the appeal of socialism.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@oromagi
We speak of economic value as a separate concept from moral value but in a moral society there would not be much separation between the two.  If we agree that our first responsibility as nation, society, economy, generation, etc. is to raise the next generation of children and our second responsibility is to improve that generation's quality of life above our own generation and our third responsibility is to plan for the improvement of future generations then we should agree that what we value economically should reflect those moral responsibilities.
At face value, I would agree with this. However, I'm going to presume you're not speaking in favor of Capitalism.


At present, there's little economic benefit to having and raising  smart and healthy kids
That isn't true at all.

when that should be the most prioritized/rewarded activity in our society.  It should be far more profitable to participate in those activities that build and improve society like parenthood, teaching, nursing and less profitable to participate in those activities that don't.
Why do you think this is?
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Athias
I'm going to presume you're not speaking in favor of Capitalism.
Why would you ever presume that?  I am a Liberal- liberals invented free market capitalism.

At present, there's little economic benefit to having and raising  smart and healthy kids
That isn't true at all.
That's in the context of individual benefit.  Please detail some of the economic benefits afforded to parents in the US.  Yes, there are some tax benefits but those tax benefits don't compensate for the cost of raising smart and healthy kids.  I'm looking for total monetary benefits of raising children vs. not raising children.
when that should be the most prioritized/rewarded activity in our society.  It should be far more profitable to participate in those activities that build and improve society like parenthood, teaching, nursing and less profitable to participate in those activities that don't.
Why do you think this is?
Traditionally, care-taking was assigned to women and women were expected to work without compensation.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@oromagi
Why would you ever presume that? 
Just a suspicion based on your commentary.

I am a Liberal- liberals invented free market capitalism.
As facetious as this may be, "liberals"--even the classical ones--didn't invent free market Capitalism. (#PhysiocracyRules!)

That's in the context of individual benefit.  Please detail some of the economic benefits afforded to parents in the US.  Yes, there are some tax benefits but those tax benefits don't compensate for the cost of raising smart and healthy kids.  I'm looking for total monetary benefits of raising children vs. not raising children.
Before your preemptive cutting me off at the knees and challenging me to a "versus," let's first explore the nature of my contention. You stated, "At present, there's little economic benefit to having and raising  smart and healthy kids." This takes only into account the immediate short term--especially considering over the time which this argument should be considered, children cannot generate income or face high unemployment rates (a product of policy enforced by the liberals who you have claimed "invented" the free-market.) However, over the long term, this changes (of course, this is HIGHLY CONTINGENT on those who we're talking about--especially if we're considering individuals.) Case in point: my siblings and I (there are nine of us) combined generate incomes that far eclipses the combined incomes our parents (and they're both physicians.) Because of their investment, the children they've produced can pay them back ten-fold.

Traditionally, care-taking was assigned to women and women were expected to work without compensation.
Naturally. Who would pay them for rearing their children? Even more so presuming that her husband's income as of a result of their marriage was commutative? And even though fathers on average generate more income than mothers on average, women who bear prospects of having children, are still entering the labor force. Why do you think that is?


Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 79
Posts: 780
4
6
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
6
10
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I said it was a global fascist-like system. Nationalism is replaced with globalism.
Instead of a nation being controlled by a racist leader to serve selfish goals at the peril of other nations, you have a free market economy designed to make the world a better place instead of solely considering selfish interests. Your idea of "facism" is the opposite of real, historic facism. This association is not logical.



Is the government a primary stakeholder in this new system?
Are you asking if the economy affects the government? If so, obviously yes. If on the other hand you are asking if I am advocating a central planning economy, NO.



Just a new private-public partnership on a global scale - the Great Reset.
Reset to what, excactly? I believe making a conscious effort to make the world a better place will make it a better place. Are you saying the world SHOULD be a bad place, or that if it is we should do nothing about it? Or are you saying that the world is already perfect and any attempt to change it will make it worse? Let me be more concise. Capitalism is great but not without flaws -- and the biggest one is that everyone is incentivised to give no fucks about the world. This leads to a tragedy of the commons. The obvious solution is to adjust capitalism such that individual interests align with everyone's interests. :ets make capitalism a force for good. 


Do you think a tragedy of the commons is the best way for capitalism to work? If not, then you agree with me that capitalism should be tweaked.


What is your suggestion? How do we improve capitalism without "making a deal with the devil" (that is humanity as a whole).
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 79
Posts: 780
4
6
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
6
10
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
The dictator is replaced by an oligarchy of technocrats.
Thats a flaw of capitalism itself. I say we give more economic power and freedom to the people in the world. In the name of democracy and FAIR capitalism.
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 79
Posts: 780
4
6
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
6
10
-->
@Athias
You first have to UNDERSTAND said system or framework
My personal knowledge has no bearing on the validity of my points, and your claim about ignorance on my part is an ad honimen. I do in fact understand economics and the philosophy and practise of capitalism. Do you expect me to give a lecture on the basics? I assume you are knowledgeable and don't need an introduction.


Delineate the tenets and principles of this moral economy; substantiate them as well.
A single principle can suffice: Money should not be aquired through immoral means. You cannot kill for money, commit robbery or sell poisenous food in your restaurant, not even use slaves in your factory. This principle is already a foundational part of our legal system, so I don't see how you would contest it. We are civil people and not barbarians. When we recognize that all humans are created equally and endowned with inalienable rights, the economy must obey a moral code.


Democracy is not worth defending.
Do you prefer feudalism? Dictatorship? Oligarchy? Tribalism? My oppinion is we stick with democracy untill we find a better system.


Withheld?  Please delineate the exclusive claim and/or entitlement working people with dire economic needs bear on money spent by advertisers.
Businesses spend money on advertisement. That is money not spent improving the service or the conditions/salary of workers. This serves nobody. A cental pilar of stakeholder capitalism is that businesses and the people working in them are not just means to an end, but an end in themselves. The conditions and sallaries of workers is important in an of themselves. Disagreeing  is to dehumanize the majority of people on earth, saying their lives don't matter.


If we qualify value in the context of Economics, then yes it is.
My point excactly. The economy works under the assumption that simply making money is a virtue in and of itself. A road or fire department isn't valueable or productive, but apparently drug empires are, and so is scamming and robbery. How does this view make sense in a wider context? Whats valuable and whats desireable is not the same, often quite the contrary. We recognize this with economic crime, but apparently use a double standard when it comes to business.


Stop buying Tobacco-based products. But people won't, will they? So who's really responsible?
Individuals are responsible for their own actions, and similarly, Corporations are responsible for theirs. Lying to make a fortune of off suffering IS immoral.


Capitalism should be about being the best, but today big business is a race to be the biggest badest villain to the employee and to society. 

""Once again, no real understanding of Capitalism.""
 The thing is, contemporary capitalism is fine-tuned for exploitation. Companies generally cannot afford to care about human workers because that would render them at a disadvantage. The past proves this point. Slavery is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to unfair treatment of workers. Even you must agree that capitalism incentivices slavery because not having to pay a sallary and practically owning the workers puts you at a competetive advantage. 


Provide an exemplar of Companies prioritizing just the owners an not their workers or customers.
Slavery. Amazons cruel treatment of workers. The entire legal and illegal tobaco and drug industry. Rockerfeller massacre of strikers. You need not look far to see that the human ego that makes communism impossible also causes immense harm in our "free" economy. Abuse and exploitation, to the highest degree circumstances will allow, is the rule, not the exception. To assert that a system which only rewards profitt never leads to tragedy is to not understand economics.


Because of Marx's labor theory of value?
Nope, because of logic. Constant abuse of the masses only benefits the few powerfull enough to evade said problems and often profit from the suffering. An economy is good for the country if it benefits the people living in the country. Capitalism is better than feudalism and communism but still can be improved.


You mean carbon emissions which ALLEGEDLY exacerbate "Global Warming"?
Look, I get that you don't trust the narrative, but the effects are not limited to future catastrophy. Harvard research suggests 8 million deaths in 2018 due to pollution by burning of fossil fuel. Pollution is like forcing people, and the globe, to smoke sigarettes -- the resulting death and misery is tangible and well established. The carbon tax would incentive clean non-toxic energy production, all without central planning by the government. This is a moral imperrative.


Except your vision for Capitalism is to achieve Socialist ends, thereby defeating the purpose of Capitalism.
Are you saying disincentivicing unnecesary evil in a capitalistic economy makes it socialist? 


You're under the delusion that this economy is Capitalist.
You claim I am ignorant of economics and yet you don't seem to understand what capitalism means. Capitalism means private ownership and economic freedom. That is, the government doesn't own everything and doesn't tell you which products to buy or which company to work for. The united states is by definition capitalist.
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@Benjamin
A few responses
Instead of a nation being controlled by a racist leader to serve selfish goals at the peril of other nations...
While this has been a way that fascist nations have operated, this is not what fascism is generally speaking.


Your idea of "facism" is the opposite of real, historic facism.
I said it was a new form of fascism, implying it has similarities but is not identical to previous forms of fascism. I also said it was a global fascist-like system. They do not want sovereign nations. They want a single global "nation" (if you can even call it that) under the rule of an oligarchy of technocrats. If the world becomes a single global super-nation, it will just operate on a larger scale than an individual nation.


The dictator is replaced by an oligarchy of technocrats.
Thats a flaw of capitalism itself. I say we give more economic power and freedom to the people in the world. In the name of democracy and FAIR capitalism.
An oligarchy of technocrats is not a flaw of capitalism because there should not be an oligarchy at all. That's why the stakeholder capitalism being pushed into the U.S. should be rejected.


What is your suggestion? How do we improve capitalism without "making a deal with the devil" (that is humanity as a whole).
I don't believe capitalism needs to be fixed necessarily. Capitalism has done more for the world in terms of lifting people out of poverty and providing for people's needs than any other economic system in history. Since I do not believe the problem is with capitalism, the solution is not to change capitalism. The problem is a moral one, not an economic one. Therefore, the solution must be moral in nature rather than economic.

Capitalism does not force people to be greedy or take advantage of others. You can be a business owner and have integrity in a capitalist system. And such a person can do tremendous good for both their workers and society as a whole. You can't fix the human tendency toward greed with any economic system. And you can't legislate people to be more compassionate or less greedy. That requires an internal change, not external compulsion.
___________________

Here are a few quotes you have made here that I think fairly summarize what you are saying:
The economy is becomming financialised: that means, businesses care more about money than being good businesses and serving their customers.

We need to have an positive economy that benefits society, and money often incentivises the opposite. 

Capitalism should be about being the best, but today big business is a race to be the biggest badest villain to the employee and to society. We need to change the goals. First off, we need to focus on stakeholder value. Companies ought to prioritize their impact on workers and customers, not just the owners.

Capitalism is great but not without flaws -- and the biggest one is that everyone is incentivised to give no fucks about the world.

Let's maybe take a step back for a moment to make sure I understand exactly what you are arguing for.

  • What aspect of capitalism (be very specific) gives incentive for everyone to only care about profit and not care about the well-being of others?
  • What aspect of capitalism (be very specific) would you change, and how would that cause companies to prioritize their impact on society rather than greedy profiteering?
  • Who are the stakeholders whose values will be prioritized, and what specific role will they play in shaping the business practices of a company under your proposed changes?
  • What means will stakeholders have to enforce these practices to ensure companies follow through?
  • What authority does the company/shareholder have to veto the proposals of stakeholders?
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 79
Posts: 780
4
6
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
6
10
-->
@Athias
@Fruit_Inspector
Soooo:
  • Facism is about a single nation and race, the new facism is about the world
  • Facism is about a single unelected leader, the new facism is about capitalism.
  • Facism is about politics, the new facism is about economics.
Admit it, this new form of facism is so different that any argument against historic facism is harmless against the new version.



An oligarchy of technocrats is not a flaw of capitalism
Rich dudes with too much power is a flaw of any system involving rich dudes. Stakeholder capitalism would take some of that power away and give it to the people being ruled by the rich technocrats. More specifically, we remove their ability to exploit and maltreat people, thus protecting the weak against their enormous influence.



Capitalism has done more for the world ... the solution is not to change capitalism.
Agreed. Allowing free trade, abolishing fixed economic classes and rewarding risk-taking has promoted immense economic growth. While the rich benefit more, the poor do aswell. However, the economic freedom that capitalism rellies on requires the rich people to have far less influence over the lives of their workers. You say that changing capitalism won't achieve anything, but that contradicts your first statement. Changing the economic system untill it became capitalism did achieve a lot, and it did so without fundamentally changing human nature. I have no trouble seeing how today's problems can be helped in a similar manner.



  • What aspect of capitalism (be very specific) gives incentive for everyone to only care about profit and not care about the well-being of others?
Capitalism rewards the least altruistic, because those that prioritise profits will always outcompete those that don't. Its ususally not viable or desireable for companies to care about their effects on society at large or their exploitation of workers. The thing is,  Capitalism is protects unethical economic practises under the pretext of competetive necesity. Workers suffer under the system becuase good wages are automatically a disadvantage for the company.



  • What aspect of capitalism (be very specific) would you change
Here are some ideas:
  1. Punish unethical business practises that have already proven to significantly harm society, customers or workers  (by economic or criminal law)
  2. Give workers a say in their own lives, that is, the owner of a company cannot be the only ones dictating the policies that control workers's lives.
    1. I want strong unions to ensure workers's interests get heard
    2. Better yet, have the workers represented in the leadership of businesses
  3. Give workers a safer lives with less fear and more freedom
    1. Make it impossible to fire workers quickly and without adequate justification and warning
    2. Make searching for new jobs easy and always possible.  
    3. Support workers as long as they are unemployed to ensure FREEDOM TO CAREFULLY CHOOSE A DESIREABLE JOB WITHOUT TIME CONSTRAINT
  4. Rewarding ethical business practices and good working conditions and wages. In this way, even jerk CEO's would want to run their business cleanly.
Basically, I want the majority of people (the workers) to reclaim controll of their own lives and have their own interests 



  • What means will stakeholders have to enforce these practices to ensure companies follow through?
That is the magic of capitalism and the free market. You don't need to enforce any policies, only incentivice them. For example, we could cut taxes for companies that give workers higher wages. Not only would we fix capitalisms exploitation of workers, we would also shrink the government and allow people to spend money however they like. Another option is outright taxing companies and spending the money on improving the lives of workers. 



  • What authority does the company/shareholder have to veto the proposals of stakeholders?
Again, I am not proposing a planned economy or destruction of private ownership over the means of production. Neither the government nor any other "stakeholder" will take over the role as CEO. Rather, the interests of stakeholders will define what courses and decisions are acceptable and possible. If a company wants to reinvent slavery, say, they won't by law be permitted to do so. That kind of law doesn't invalidate capitalism, just restrict it inside reasonable ethics.

9 days later

Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
My personal knowledge has no bearing on the validity of my points,
Your personal knowledge has bearing on your capacity to exhibit understanding of the subject matter.

and your claim about ignorance on my part is an ad honimen.
No, it isn't. I'm very much in a position to qualify your understanding of the subject. And note that I addressed a number of your points individually before I rendered my conclusion that you have little to no understanding of the subject.

I do in fact understand economics and the philosophy and practise of capitalism.
You have yet to exhibit this.

Do you expect me to give a lecture on the basics? I assume you are knowledgeable and don't need an introduction.
No, I expect you to extend conclusions that are consistent with the practice and "philosophy" of Capitalism.

A single principle can suffice: Money should not be aquired through immoral means. You cannot kill for money, commit robbery or sell poisenous food in your restaurant, not even use slaves in your factory. This principle is already a foundational part of our legal system, so I don't see how you would contest it. We are civil people and not barbarians. When we recognize that all humans are created equally and endowned with inalienable rights, the economy must obey a moral code.
And what does this have to do with the practice and philosophy of Capitalism?

Do you prefer feudalism? Dictatorship? Oligarchy? Tribalism? My oppinion is we stick with democracy untill we find a better system.
I prefer anarchy.

Businesses spend money on advertisement.
Redundant.

That is money not spent improving the service or the conditions/salary of workers.
No, but it is money spent exposing a target base to a good and/or service. A good/service cannot be consumed if one doesn't know about it. And reciprocally, a business cannot sell a good and/or service if consumers are not consuming--meaning no money for "improved" worker conditions and salaries.

This serves nobody.
Incorrect.

A cental pilar of stakeholder capitalism is that businesses and the people working in them are not just means to an end, but an end in themselves.
First, why are you qualifying Capitalism with the modifier, "stakeholder?" Second, how is "stakeholder" Capitalism different from just plain old Capitalism?

The conditions and sallaries of workers is important in an of themselves.
So a mom and pop shop? Those are nice, I suppose. But again, what does this have to do with Capitalism?

Disagreeing  is to dehumanize the majority of people on earth, saying their lives don't matter.
Well then, I disagree.

My point excactly. The economy works under the assumption that simply making money is a virtue in and of itself. A road or fire department isn't valueable or productive, but apparently drug empires are, and so is scamming and robbery. How does this view make sense in a wider context? Whats valuable and whats desireable is not the same, often quite the contrary. We recognize this with economic crime, but apparently use a double standard when it comes to business.
If a free market consists of a composite of individual values from individuals who participate, then a drug empire would thrive over, for example, a fire department, if said individuals value drugs over fire department services. When you implicate that road and fire department services should be valuable or more valuable than drugs, scamming, etc., of whose value are you speaking: yours or everyone else's?

 The thing is, contemporary capitalism is fine-tuned for exploitation.
Once again, you've qualified Capitalism with a modifier. So, once again, how is "contemporary" Capitalism different from just plain old Capitalism?

Companies generally cannot afford to care about human workers because that would render them at a disadvantage. The past proves this point.
What past?

Slavery is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to unfair treatment of workers. Even you must agree that capitalism incentivices slavery because not having to pay a sallary and practically owning the workers puts you at a competetive advantage. 
Not only do I not agree, but also this point is excessively ignorant. Private individuals are not present in slavery because the law sanctions the ownership of another person. Slavery has never been, nor is it now Capitalistic. It's communistic. BECAUSE IT WAS HELD TOGETHER BY LAW.

Slavery.
Ignorant point.

Software problem which doesn't explicitly delineate the fault or the benefit of the owners.

The entire legal and illegal tobaco and drug industry.
Give an exemplar.

Evidence that the owner was involved?

You need not look far to see that the human ego that makes communism impossible also causes immense harm in our "free" economy.
You presume that this is a "free" economy. The United States Economy has for over a hundred years been a quasi-communist/socialist Economy.

To assert that a system which only rewards profitt never leads to tragedy is to not understand economics.
Once again, you've exhibited little to no understanding of Economics, because Economics doesn't deal with or analyze "tragedy."

Nope, because of logic. Constant abuse of the masses only benefits the few powerfull enough to evade said problems and often profit from the suffering. An economy is good for the country if it benefits the people living in the country. Capitalism is better than feudalism and communism but still can be improved.
And what does this have to do with, again, the practice and "philosophy" of Capitalism?

Look, I get that you don't trust the narrative, but the effects are not limited to future catastrophy.
Don't presume to know what I do or don't trust.

 Harvard research suggests 8 million deaths in 2018 due to pollution by burning of fossil fuel. Pollution is like forcing people, and the gobe, to smoke sigarettes -- the resulting death and misery is tangible and well established. The carbon tax would incentive clean non-toxic energy production, all without central planning by the government. This is a moral imperrative.
Please argue or make reference to material which substantiates causation.

Are you saying disincentivicing unnecesary evil in a capitalistic economy makes it socialist? 
No, I'm saying the presumption that "unnecessary evil" is a byproduct of Capitalistic practices and "philosophy" is a Socialist talking point.

You claim I am ignorant of economics and yet you don't seem to understand what capitalism means.
Seem is not an argument.

Capitalism means private ownership and economic freedom.
Yes.

That is, the government doesn't own everything and doesn't tell you which products to buy or which company to work for.
No. It means that the government doesn't regulate the production and dissemination of goods and services by private individuals.

The united states is by definition capitalist.
Not even remotely.

Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,893
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Benjamin
Soooo:
  • Facism is about a single nation and race, the new facism is about the world
  • Facism is about a single unelected leader, the new facism is about capitalism.
  • Facism is about politics, the new facism is about economics.
Admit it, this new form of facism is so different that any argument against historic facism is harmless against the new version.
They’re two sides of the same coin when it comes to fascistic hatred of Jewish people. 
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,068
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Sum1hugme
Marx was a bourgeois hypocrite.
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Yep
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Marx was a bourgeois hypocrite.
What gave it away? Was it his being put up in London by his rich, very Capitalist friends?
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,068
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
His wife was a big clue too.
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,198
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Benjamin
They say capitalism is better because competition leads to better results.
Free market has already won.  Old news. Is the world now better for all of what the free markets have led us too here on Earth?

I dont think so. Ghandi quote{?}...' there is enough for everybody's need and not enough for everybody's greed '...

Once humans get beyond their basic needs, --and this includes sex---  then what brings humans most happiness? 

1} a goal to competently complete a task, ex grow a garden of food, or berm to direct water away from, or towards,  their place of dwelling?

2} to mingle and share family experiences ex to engage in activities that involve things in motion, throwing or kicking things aka sports and the ability to control the speed and trajectories of such things in motion?

3} to mingle and share ideas regarding 1 and 2 above as well as other ex whats it all about, is basic needs and happiness enough for humanity?