Capitalism, The Best Solution to Poverty

[macdoc]

You continually imply that negative consequences for employees are inherent and they are not.
Corporations are NOT mandated to lift standards of living or labour but many do for their emerging economy forces and value the labour force that makes their products.
Apple is one of them
https://www.apple.com/supplier-responsibility/

[macdoc]

It's simply fallacious to chide Jim for just 'not liking profit' when it's clearly the fairness (or otherwise) of the distribution of the gains that actually are being made that he's talking about - and which are the issue here.

The issue here is whether misbehaviour - a subjective term - is inherent in capitalism ....it is not ...it is a choice.
Who determines what is fair and who determines what is risk?
There any number of situations where unions have ended up forcing corporations out of a business....how is that "fair" to anyone.
Should a corporation continue to support an unprofitable enterprise?

You seem to treat labour as this helpless baby in a world of wolves.....sometimes the union is the wolf.

So Jim ...what is a "non-capitalist" business

[Brian Peacock]

You keep asserting that there's basically nothing wrong with the system, it's how it's implemented which is where the problems lie. What you're reluctant to accept is that how things are operated in practice is the system, and that that system is designed, constructed, operated, and enforced by those who already have the financial and political power to materially influence things in accordance with their values and ideals. Those people are clearly not workers or unions, and as if to highlight this you yourself point out that companies are not obliged or authorised (mandated) to raise living standards, and therefore are not responsible for enhancing the well-being of society at large.

[pErvinalia]

[macdoc]

Don't put words in my mouth
There is lots wrong with capitalism as it is practiced but none of that is inherent.

Do you really think that benefitting humanity as a whole is the driving force.
Personal gain, upward mobility is for the greater part of humanity.

Corporations balance making money, doing no harm and staying within the governing laws of the region.
Supra national corps are problematic as so much money is outside the purview of national laws and easily avoided.
That's a problem for governing bodies to resolve and they are trying.....some sort of billionaire tax is in the works.

Billionaire's tax
The proposal would introduce an annual tax levied on the net wealth of Australian residents, regardless of where their assets are held, and the net wealth of non-residents who hold Australian assets from 1 July 2022

“The G20 proposal is for a 2% annual tax on the world's richest people, which would be the bare minimum, given the frightening pace at which they have accumulated wealth in recent years.”4 days ago

'A historic step': G20 discusses plans for global minimum ...

The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com › news › feb › taxation-w...
4 days ago — It estimates the measure could raise $250bn (£197bn) a year from the 2,756 known billionaires, who together are believed to be worth $13tn. The idea is based on

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2024/f ... 0-brazil[b]

What's YOUR solution since you like pontificating. I'll wait

[pErvinalia]

Marxism!

[Brian Peacock]

Don't put words in my mouth
There is lots wrong with capitalism as it is practiced but none of that is inherent...

Isn't that exactly what I said, because if the problems aren't inherent to the system/capitalism, then they must lie in how it's operated/implemented?

Can't see how that's putting words in your mouth - seems like a fair reflection of your view to me.

[JimC]

It still remains true that a capitalist system largely devoid of external checks and balances (such as unions, a robust free press and government regulation) will automatically tend towards practices with are harmful to their workers and the environment. Currently, the degree to which these checks and balances operate around the world is highly variable, from reasonably effective in European democracies, through rather dodgy in the US to almost non-existent in many third world countries. Mac, you made the point that global corporations are problematic, exactly because they can operate in those latter countries to increase their profits by avoiding unions and regulators. The temptation of corporations to do that is precisely what I mean by an inherent tendency of capitalism to maximise profits without any other ethical factor operating, if they can get away with it.

Having said all that, realistically there is no valid alternative to free enterprise of some sort, as long as the external checks and balances operate effectively. Pure socialism typically becomes a vehicle for authoritarian excesses; even without that, it does not seem to provide an environment where innovation can flourish. So, I'm not to be classed as anti-capitalist, just cynical about its potential for abuses without outside limiting factors...

[macdoc]

Again....nothing inherent to capitalism...all choices and what you stated could apply to any kind of organized human activities, governments, NGOs less often, religions famously so, military the list goes on ....even medical as famously shown by the US medical system....any doctor can choose to harm or help..

Oversight with teeth is critical to offset abuse of power.

Why do you assume capitalism is not internally driven by ethical standards....as they are subject to customers approbation or risk loss of sales.

You still don't like profit and yet admit there is little alternative.
Human nature/innovation is driven by reward and checked by social forces tho there ARE some inherent checks ( see FAS kids without those internal checks which are not taught )

The boogie man is human nature - in any arena/frame ....not capitalism.
There are always outliers, psychopaths, sociopaths that require more forceful intervention by society.

[Brian Peacock]

Again. the choices that people, institutions, public and private bodies make within the context of Capitalism is the system.

[JimC]

Again....nothing inherent to capitalism...all choices and what you stated could apply to any kind of organized human activities, governments, NGOs less often, religions famously so, military the list goes on ....even medical as famously shown by the US medical system....any doctor can choose to harm or help..

Oversight with teeth is critical to offset abuse of power.

Why do you assume capitalism is not internally driven by ethical standards....as they are subject to customers approbation or risk loss of sales.

You still don't like profit and yet admit there is little alternative.
Human nature/innovation is driven by reward and checked by social forces tho there ARE some inherent checks ( see FAS kids without those internal checks which are not taught )

The boogie man is human nature - in any arena/frame ....not capitalism.
There are always outliers, psychopaths, sociopaths that require more forceful intervention by society.

It's not that "I don't like profit" - I understand that it is a natural and required part of the capitalist system. Really, all I'm saying is that capitalist organisations have an understandable tendency to strive for higher and higher profits. Some of the ways this can happen are benign, and some (involving abusing workers or the environment) are not. If there is little or no "oversight with teeth" (your phrasing) then almost inevitably the organisation will use any and all measures to maximise their profit - that is clearly shown by the actions of global corporations and their sweatshop factories in third world countries. You mention ethical standards, in the same sentence as saying that they are "subject to customers approbation or risk loss of sales". Perhaps true, but in that case, it's not about ethical standards, but self interest in defending their business. In any case, companies have great abilities these days to spin or greenwash their actions to minimise damage to their reputation which might impinge on sales.

Again, companies will vary in their tendencies to increase profit by fair means or foul, perhaps around a normal distribution. A company that veers too far to the robber baron end may suffer consequences from customers or governments, but a company that veers to far to the "we'll be ethical, hang the profits" direction will be outcompeted by their more mercenary rivals. The median tendency will still be mercenary, but may be kept under control by a political and social environment containing "oversight with teeth". In third world countries, not so much...

[pErvinalia]

Again. the choices that people, institutions, public and private bodies make within the context of Capitalism is the system.

Yeah the choices people make are to maximise profit, regardless of the effect it has on society and the environment.

[JimC]

Again. the choices that people, institutions, public and private bodies make within the context of Capitalism is the system.

Yeah the choices people make are to maximise profit, regardless of the effect it has on society and the environment.

It is people making choices, but their position in a capitalist organisation virtually mandates those choices...

[JimC]

I'll add something further to consolidate my centrist tendencies...

It is difficult to see moving to a realistic alternative to capitalism from our current situation. Full-on socialism has its own, virtually automatic tendency to reduce individual freedom beyond reasonable limits, suppress innovation and slide towards authoritarian rule. So, my view is the classic social democratic position of allowing free enterprise, but having a range of well designed controlling structures via democratically elected governments, unions and informed public opinion. Possibly a fool's hope, I know...

[aufbahrung]

Yep centrism, compromise, blurring lines, a fudge - no geek likes it, not even a system really. It's the best there is though, and the only one you can live with as a ape out the jungle.