4 ms·
> No, the actual way is to go company by company and dismantle them. And by Starting with the biggest it sends a message to others that perhaps they should chan
by tekknik 3y ago
> No, the actual way is to go company by company and dismantle them. And by Starting with the biggest it sends a message to others that perhaps they should change before they too get broken up.
You will never finish if you go company by company, there’s just too many. Additionally no company ever stops anything until forced to. Your suggestions will not solve anything.
- zelphirkalt 3y agoIf they are all so interchangable, then I guess no one should care too much about them being split up either. Just need a high enough frequency of splitting to keep the market sane.
- tekknik 3y agoAre you suggesting free markets are a bad thing? If people think it’s bad, they can stop using the company. If you can’t convince everybody that it’s bad and they should stop using the company, then doesn’t this mean your thoughts are not the average?
- AndrewKemendo 3y agoBasically you just said it's hopeless So what's the solution?
- tekknik 3y agoI reverse this question to you, what is the solution? I have none but asking companies to change will do nothing. Forcing them to change is a dictatorship. So you tell me what the solution is?
- AndrewKemendo 3y ago1. Set the example by creating or joining organizations that are not based on Capital owning the majority of the organization (cooperatives, non-stock not-for profit etc..) 2. Increase taxes on non-labor capital growth to directly fund full employment programs Eg make "profit" impossible
- tekknik 3y agoAnd i state again, setting an example will do nothing, as it hasn’t. Banning MBAs will have more of an effect.