3 ms·

If it's profitable it will likely survive in some form, thanks to capitalism.

oneplane 4y ago
Not if 'profitable' is not deemed enough, which is the problem. It's simply never enough (hence the many references to unrealistic infinite growth), so what is most likely to happen is some way to 'restart' the growth count, so we can have a pretend-infinite-growth party again. Maybe a merger, maybe a spinoff, maybe a some other construction.
- throwawaylinux 4y ago
  > Not if 'profitable' is not deemed enough, which is the problem. This is not the case under capitalism, it happens under regulated economies. Under capitalism, "profitable" _is_ the signal of the net value something generates, and that is its own motive. > It's simply never enough (hence the many references to unrealistic infinite growth), Untrue. Many people and companies operate under steady (or even declining) profits, still run while they generate profit. > so what is most likely to happen is some way to 'restart' the growth count, so we can have a pretend-infinite-growth party again. Maybe a merger, maybe a spinoff, maybe a some other construction. A great number of good options for valuable companies and products and services are available under capitalism yes, this is one point I will agree on.
  - oneplane 4y ago
    We're talking about the silly Netflix story here. Not capitalism and/or other companies.
    - throwawaylinux 4y ago
      Strange retreat, but no we were talking about capitalism as well. If we were just talking about netflix story, in that case what we're talking about is a CNN article claiming these things might happen which really has little basis in actual reality or how capitalism works. The _actual_ Netflix is still here, and it is still here despite being deemed not profitable enough by many.
      - oneplane 4y ago
        Okay. We're still just talking about Netflix, mainly because I have referred to the article and to Netflix in every reply, and because I've explicitly stated it in the first and last reply as well. If you would like to interpret it differently, that's up to you and I can't really help you with that.
        throwawaylinux 4y ago
        No, we weren't just talking about Netflix and not capitalism. Not in the original thread you first came to, and not in your replies either.

Not if 'profitable' is not deemed enough, which is the problem. It's simply never enough (hence the many references to unrealistic infinite growth), so what is most likely to happen is some way to 'restart' the growth count, so we can have a pretend-infinite-growth party again. Maybe a merger, maybe a spinoff, maybe a some other construction.

throwawaylinux 4y ago
> Not if 'profitable' is not deemed enough, which is the problem. This is not the case under capitalism, it happens under regulated economies. Under capitalism, "profitable" _is_ the signal of the net value something generates, and that is its own motive. > It's simply never enough (hence the many references to unrealistic infinite growth), Untrue. Many people and companies operate under steady (or even declining) profits, still run while they generate profit. > so what is most likely to happen is some way to 'restart' the growth count, so we can have a pretend-infinite-growth party again. Maybe a merger, maybe a spinoff, maybe a some other construction. A great number of good options for valuable companies and products and services are available under capitalism yes, this is one point I will agree on.
- oneplane 4y ago
  We're talking about the silly Netflix story here. Not capitalism and/or other companies.
  - throwawaylinux 4y ago
    Strange retreat, but no we were talking about capitalism as well. If we were just talking about netflix story, in that case what we're talking about is a CNN article claiming these things might happen which really has little basis in actual reality or how capitalism works. The _actual_ Netflix is still here, and it is still here despite being deemed not profitable enough by many.
    - oneplane 4y ago
      Okay. We're still just talking about Netflix, mainly because I have referred to the article and to Netflix in every reply, and because I've explicitly stated it in the first and last reply as well. If you would like to interpret it differently, that's up to you and I can't really help you with that.
      - throwawaylinux 4y ago
        No, we weren't just talking about Netflix and not capitalism. Not in the original thread you first came to, and not in your replies either.