5 ms·

Guilds at least paid taxes and provided not only for members and their families but also for the poor. Can’t say the same of capitalist firms.

gridlockd 8y ago
What a bargain, I keep you poor by locking you out of my occupation, then I'll give you bit of charity so that you must thank me for it as well.
- FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago
  What a bargain, I keep you poor by exploiting not only your labor but your country (and if you dare not be capitalistic I will invade you and install a dictatorship) but hey, a billionaire will create a philanthropic organization to help him dodge taxes so thank you capitalism!
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - gridlockd 8y ago
    So, if only those poor exploited countries had a system of guilds that kept poor people from getting compensated for labor by for-profit enterprise, then... then what? Can you actually explain your theory there?
    - harimau777 8y ago
      I think that the idea may be that guilds had a social/religious obligation to provide for the poor and generally be a positive force in the community. In addition, guilds were localized enough that social forces could keep them accountable to the community. On the other hand, America has adopted the belief that large corporations are only obligated to maximize profit for their shareholders and they are too large and decentralized for social forces to effectively hold them accountable.
      - gridlockd 8y ago
        > I think that the idea may be that guilds had a social/religious obligation to provide for the poor and generally be a positive force in the community. How could a group of people who monopolize on a trade "generally be a positive force in the community"? Just because they "provide for the poor" (on their terms)? > On the other hand, America has adopted the belief that large corporations are only obligated to maximize profit for their shareholders and they are too large and decentralized for social forces to effectively hold them accountable. Those corporations are also obligated to actually pay their employees, who are obligated to pay taxes. What does the state do with all that income? Fund welfare programs and infrastructure. People may believe the those corporations get "all the money", but on the average corporate profits[1] account for far less money than public spending[2]. [1] https://b-i.forbesimg.com/timworstall/files/2013/05/cp_gdp.png https://b-i.forbesimg.com/timworstall/files/2013/05/cp_gdp.p... [2] https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/960x0/https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Ftimworstall%2Ffiles%2F2015%2F10%2Fsocialwelfare.jpg https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/960x0/https%3A%2F%2Fblogs... Those who have paid attention to history understand that there's a fine balance here. Too much taxation and the economy collapses, making everyone poor. Too little taxation and the infrastructure and social system suffers unnecessarily. Those who understand nothing keep complaining about corporate paper profits and wealth inequality, as if those were the measure for actual welfare.

gridlockd 8y ago

What a bargain, I keep you poor by locking you out of my occupation, then I'll give you bit of charity so that you must thank me for it as well.

FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago
What a bargain, I keep you poor by exploiting not only your labor but your country (and if you dare not be capitalistic I will invade you and install a dictatorship) but hey, a billionaire will create a philanthropic organization to help him dodge taxes so thank you capitalism!
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- gridlockd 8y ago
  So, if only those poor exploited countries had a system of guilds that kept poor people from getting compensated for labor by for-profit enterprise, then... then what? Can you actually explain your theory there?
  - harimau777 8y ago
    I think that the idea may be that guilds had a social/religious obligation to provide for the poor and generally be a positive force in the community. In addition, guilds were localized enough that social forces could keep them accountable to the community. On the other hand, America has adopted the belief that large corporations are only obligated to maximize profit for their shareholders and they are too large and decentralized for social forces to effectively hold them accountable.
    - gridlockd 8y ago
      > I think that the idea may be that guilds had a social/religious obligation to provide for the poor and generally be a positive force in the community. How could a group of people who monopolize on a trade "generally be a positive force in the community"? Just because they "provide for the poor" (on their terms)? > On the other hand, America has adopted the belief that large corporations are only obligated to maximize profit for their shareholders and they are too large and decentralized for social forces to effectively hold them accountable. Those corporations are also obligated to actually pay their employees, who are obligated to pay taxes. What does the state do with all that income? Fund welfare programs and infrastructure. People may believe the those corporations get "all the money", but on the average corporate profits[1] account for far less money than public spending[2]. [1] https://b-i.forbesimg.com/timworstall/files/2013/05/cp_gdp.png https://b-i.forbesimg.com/timworstall/files/2013/05/cp_gdp.p... [2] https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/960x0/https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Ftimworstall%2Ffiles%2F2015%2F10%2Fsocialwelfare.jpg https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/960x0/https%3A%2F%2Fblogs... Those who have paid attention to history understand that there's a fine balance here. Too much taxation and the economy collapses, making everyone poor. Too little taxation and the infrastructure and social system suffers unnecessarily. Those who understand nothing keep complaining about corporate paper profits and wealth inequality, as if those were the measure for actual welfare.