4 ms·

It's not about dismantling walmart. At least from the 'socialist' point of view, its redistributing capital that is just sitting idle. For example, take away th

by kart23 6y ago

It's not about dismantling walmart. At least from the 'socialist' point of view, its redistributing capital that is just sitting idle. For example, take away the majority of zucks and bezos stock, and just give it away evenly to the people. That's not dismantling the company, its just a redistribution of wealth that has been earned off the backs of middle class.

friendlybus 6y ago
The middle class signed up for the trades offered by zuck/bezos. Why are they owed?
- kart23 6y ago
  I don't really agree with it, I'm just trying to explain the viewpoint. They're not owed in a fully capitalist system, but I can see some merit for the idea that inequality has gotten so bad that there needs to be external intervention to fix that, and redistribute the wealth that is currently concentrated in the top 1%. Giving normal people that money would be a good thing for the economy, and I can see some benefit to it. Now of course in practice it wouldn't be legal and getting that money from them would be near impossible, but its interesting in theory.
  - friendlybus 6y ago
    If you give them money, they'll spend it at Amazon and bezos will get it back. What's the point? The rich are the first to encourage a witch-hunt against the rich. It drives up business.
- scelerat 6y ago
  I don't see how you can you say too many people "signed up" for the system we have. 99% are simply born into it with little to no understanding or bargaining power whatsoever. To the extent that consumers do have a choice, that is somewhat true, but the examples of Facebook and Amazon are as much incredible luck of being in the right place and the right time, exponential explosion of brand new modes of communication and commerce, and all kinds of unintended consequences. Again, to say the middle class "signed up" for this is hardly the case. At the very least there are issues of power and information imbalances. Take the example of someone comparing the price of something at Amazon and the same thing at a local bookstore and deciding that it's worth the $0.50 savings to go with Amazon. It is easy -- and incorrect -- to say, "well, they signed up for the massive corporate supply chain consolidation and the dissolution of many local economies' autonomy that transactions like this will precipitate when performed at a large scale." The average consumer simply doesn't have the access to data that corporate boards and politicians do, nor do they have the historical and statistical training to make an educated analysis of their implications. Finally, even though there are people and organizations who urge alternative consumer patterns, the reach and the volume of their message pales in comparison to the marketing, PR and advertising armies employed by large corporations and their political allies.
  - friendlybus 6y ago
    You assign too much reasoned behaviour to 'luck'. Its impossible to discuss reason if you hide it behind luck. The average consumer doesnt need to be given a bachelor's degree in economics to make a choice on making a company bigger or smaller with their purchase. I know people who support smaller business and it is independent of education. Amazons offer to the end consumer, is not a hard sell. Theres no drug dealing physical addiction, nobody wakes up with a horses head in their bed and no guns held to people's head. The offer is buy an item that costs money. That's it. People sign up. They want 0.50c cheaper with overnight delivery. The people see the benefit and convience of internet shopping and choose it. Small businesses failing to keep up and relying on thinking of the population as dumb and unlucky to force redistribution of wealth are not helping their own case. Many small businesses have succeeded massively off the same medium amazon is using, the internet and it's not 'luck'.
Natsu 6y ago
But their capital isn't idle. For the most part it consists of ownership via the stock market in large conglomerates that employ huge numbers of people and provide goods and services to significant portions of the planet. That's why I don't see what good "dismantling" them does. Say someone offs Google tomorrow. The website dies and we're left with a bunch of people who have no job and some servers and buildings and whatnot that are less useful to anyone than when you started.

by kart23 6y ago

friendlybus 6y ago

The middle class signed up for the trades offered by zuck/bezos. Why are they owed?

kart23 6y ago
I don't really agree with it, I'm just trying to explain the viewpoint. They're not owed in a fully capitalist system, but I can see some merit for the idea that inequality has gotten so bad that there needs to be external intervention to fix that, and redistribute the wealth that is currently concentrated in the top 1%. Giving normal people that money would be a good thing for the economy, and I can see some benefit to it. Now of course in practice it wouldn't be legal and getting that money from them would be near impossible, but its interesting in theory.
- friendlybus 6y ago
  If you give them money, they'll spend it at Amazon and bezos will get it back. What's the point? The rich are the first to encourage a witch-hunt against the rich. It drives up business.
scelerat 6y ago
I don't see how you can you say too many people "signed up" for the system we have. 99% are simply born into it with little to no understanding or bargaining power whatsoever. To the extent that consumers do have a choice, that is somewhat true, but the examples of Facebook and Amazon are as much incredible luck of being in the right place and the right time, exponential explosion of brand new modes of communication and commerce, and all kinds of unintended consequences. Again, to say the middle class "signed up" for this is hardly the case. At the very least there are issues of power and information imbalances. Take the example of someone comparing the price of something at Amazon and the same thing at a local bookstore and deciding that it's worth the $0.50 savings to go with Amazon. It is easy -- and incorrect -- to say, "well, they signed up for the massive corporate supply chain consolidation and the dissolution of many local economies' autonomy that transactions like this will precipitate when performed at a large scale." The average consumer simply doesn't have the access to data that corporate boards and politicians do, nor do they have the historical and statistical training to make an educated analysis of their implications. Finally, even though there are people and organizations who urge alternative consumer patterns, the reach and the volume of their message pales in comparison to the marketing, PR and advertising armies employed by large corporations and their political allies.
- friendlybus 6y ago
  You assign too much reasoned behaviour to 'luck'. Its impossible to discuss reason if you hide it behind luck. The average consumer doesnt need to be given a bachelor's degree in economics to make a choice on making a company bigger or smaller with their purchase. I know people who support smaller business and it is independent of education. Amazons offer to the end consumer, is not a hard sell. Theres no drug dealing physical addiction, nobody wakes up with a horses head in their bed and no guns held to people's head. The offer is buy an item that costs money. That's it. People sign up. They want 0.50c cheaper with overnight delivery. The people see the benefit and convience of internet shopping and choose it. Small businesses failing to keep up and relying on thinking of the population as dumb and unlucky to force redistribution of wealth are not helping their own case. Many small businesses have succeeded massively off the same medium amazon is using, the internet and it's not 'luck'.

Natsu 6y ago

But their capital isn't idle. For the most part it consists of ownership via the stock market in large conglomerates that employ huge numbers of people and provide goods and services to significant portions of the planet. That's why I don't see what good "dismantling" them does. Say someone offs Google tomorrow. The website dies and we're left with a bunch of people who have no job and some servers and buildings and whatnot that are less useful to anyone than when you started.