2 ms·

There's no inherent morality to the corporate bottom line (one of the biggest flaws in "free market" thinking is that if a theory is beautiful, it must also be

by beat 11y ago

There's no inherent morality to the corporate bottom line (one of the biggest flaws in "free market" thinking is that if a theory is beautiful, it must also be moral). If corporations can get the government to help subsidize employment, they'll do so. The only solution to exploitation is to make "do nothing" a viable alternative. Right now, in America at least, welfare is a difficult and humiliating process. Employment is the only way to have any dignity at all, and employers exploit that - they underpay for awful jobs, and force employees to rely on welfare anyway. And this isn't even considering all those whom, for whatever reason, aren't really able to work. Physical or mental health, family needs, and more can all impair the ability to do a job even if one is available, and the government supported alternatives are, again, difficult and humiliating. If employers were forced to compete not against humiliation, but rather against choice, they'd have to make the jobs suck less and pay more. Even burger-flipping would need to start getting decent treatment, the kind those of us in high demand jobs have come to expect.

phkahler 11y ago
>> The only solution to exploitation is to make "do nothing" a viable alternative. Yes. I've been leaning toward that idea. Retired people need to be able to do nothing, and why not most people? If you want to live in a small house and grow your own food, why should that be prevented? Property taxes need to be zero for people, and cost of living needs to be as close to zero as possible. Then you don't need higher wages or welfare for people to get by. Instead we give tax breaks to companies and tax the heck out of people. Then wonder how to support those who can't work, or don't have in-demand skills. Speaking of skills, how about low cost education instead of government backed free for all in tuition costs?
coldtea 11y ago
>There's no inherent morality to the corporate bottom line (one of the biggest flaws in "free market" thinking is that if a theory is beautiful, it must also be moral) Actually they think something even more naive, that the individual immoralities and egoisms at play (maximizing individual profit) work out for the benefit of all in the end.
- iofj 11y ago
  Generally speaking people make the argument that maximizing individual profit is inevitable. Socialist systems simply make the group of people that maximize individual profit very small. In reality the difference between capitalism and communism has nothing to do with money, it is about control. In capitalism those with money (who made previously successful economic decisions) mostly decide. In communism the government (who are people too) decide directly. The problem with government decisions/communism is that people always seem to refuse to accept reality in some way. Something must keep existing, and damn the economic impact. Then the impact becomes significant compared to the size of the economy, and the system dies. Capitalism forces governments to accept the confines of reality (mostly), communism does not. This is unfortunately exactly the problem most socialist thinkers have with it. For example, climate change might be unsolvable under capitalism. What you don't realize is that this is a good thing, not a bad thing, as the only alternative is to expend all resources we have in a failed attempt at achieving that. The only thing that would happen if we did that, of course, is the collapse of our society. (just using this as an example, I'm not saying preventing climate change is unachievable)

by beat 11y ago

phkahler 11y ago

>> The only solution to exploitation is to make "do nothing" a viable alternative. Yes. I've been leaning toward that idea. Retired people need to be able to do nothing, and why not most people? If you want to live in a small house and grow your own food, why should that be prevented? Property taxes need to be zero for people, and cost of living needs to be as close to zero as possible. Then you don't need higher wages or welfare for people to get by. Instead we give tax breaks to companies and tax the heck out of people. Then wonder how to support those who can't work, or don't have in-demand skills. Speaking of skills, how about low cost education instead of government backed free for all in tuition costs?

coldtea 11y ago

>There's no inherent morality to the corporate bottom line (one of the biggest flaws in "free market" thinking is that if a theory is beautiful, it must also be moral) Actually they think something even more naive, that the individual immoralities and egoisms at play (maximizing individual profit) work out for the benefit of all in the end.

iofj 11y ago
Generally speaking people make the argument that maximizing individual profit is inevitable. Socialist systems simply make the group of people that maximize individual profit very small. In reality the difference between capitalism and communism has nothing to do with money, it is about control. In capitalism those with money (who made previously successful economic decisions) mostly decide. In communism the government (who are people too) decide directly. The problem with government decisions/communism is that people always seem to refuse to accept reality in some way. Something must keep existing, and damn the economic impact. Then the impact becomes significant compared to the size of the economy, and the system dies. Capitalism forces governments to accept the confines of reality (mostly), communism does not. This is unfortunately exactly the problem most socialist thinkers have with it. For example, climate change might be unsolvable under capitalism. What you don't realize is that this is a good thing, not a bad thing, as the only alternative is to expend all resources we have in a failed attempt at achieving that. The only thing that would happen if we did that, of course, is the collapse of our society. (just using this as an example, I'm not saying preventing climate change is unachievable)