4 ms·

Nothing in America is left un-exploited. Incredibly tragic to see yet another sizable contingent of Americans, often particularly vulnerable ones, squeezed by c

Nothing in America is left un-exploited. Incredibly tragic to see yet another sizable contingent of Americans, often particularly vulnerable ones, squeezed by capital. What foes. Private equity is such a vicious foe to mankind. Hostis humani generis: this profit motive corrupts our world, erodes at humanity, in every way it can. Just once, I'd like to see amalgamated capital try to improve the lot of the world, help humanity along. But no, never: always the swirling draining negative to suck life from the world.

anonym29 1y ago
[flagged]
- tmnvix 1y ago
  I was thinking about war-profiteering and the private companies that lobby for endless wars lately (think Du Pont, Rockeller, Halliburton, etc). It causes untold damage to humanity. It occurred to me that this sort of thing is absent in the Chinese economy as far as I'm aware. Yay capitalism?
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
    Endless wars pre-date capitalism. Western defense companies are hardly capitalistic. They are as "planned economy" as it gets. China is wildly capitalistic in many aspects. Maybe Chinese companies don't lobby for war because they are so bad at war that they can't see a route to profitability?
    - bdangubic 1y ago
      pretty cool to assume that china must be “bad at war” vs. thinking that you can be a lot more profitable in peace :)
      - fc417fc802 1y ago
        It's a valid question. Presumably a given company will do what is most profitable for it whether that's lobbying for peace or war. It's worthwhile to try to understand what the differences in either circumstances or policy might be that led to an alternate outcome.
      - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
        Bad reading comprehension.
legitster 1y ago
> Private equity is such a vicious foe to mankind. The boogeyman we have made out of private equity is pretty silly. It's not like being purchased by a publicly traded corporation is that much different, or even just a private buyer.
- YouAreMammon 1y ago
  [dead]
  - tpmoney 1y ago
    On the other hand isn’t the driver for “enshitification” the ever present chasing of profits for the next quarter
    - YouAreMammon 1y ago
      Quite so. Like most things, balance is required. Short term vs long term profitability is underappreciated in today's CEO class.
      - paleotrope 1y ago
        You have to beat inflation. It's not long or short term profitability, it's taking an asset and making it return more than inflation. Treasury bonds or stocks or mobile home parks or monkey nfts, it's all the same thing.
        YouAreMammon 1y ago
        Again, that's with the mindset that the reason to own shares is because they're an appreciating asset. If you study the history of what investing in a company via shares has historically meant, you'll find that it's only really in the last half century that the "appreciation game" came to the forefront. Dividends yields (or equivalent) were the evaluation criteria for these investments prior to our current era. You speak about inflation and stock as if the cause/effect relationship is crystal clear and unidirectional, I wouldn't be so confident about that.

anonym29 1y ago

[flagged]

tmnvix 1y ago
I was thinking about war-profiteering and the private companies that lobby for endless wars lately (think Du Pont, Rockeller, Halliburton, etc). It causes untold damage to humanity. It occurred to me that this sort of thing is absent in the Chinese economy as far as I'm aware. Yay capitalism?
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
  Endless wars pre-date capitalism. Western defense companies are hardly capitalistic. They are as "planned economy" as it gets. China is wildly capitalistic in many aspects. Maybe Chinese companies don't lobby for war because they are so bad at war that they can't see a route to profitability?
  - bdangubic 1y ago
    pretty cool to assume that china must be “bad at war” vs. thinking that you can be a lot more profitable in peace :)
    - fc417fc802 1y ago
      It's a valid question. Presumably a given company will do what is most profitable for it whether that's lobbying for peace or war. It's worthwhile to try to understand what the differences in either circumstances or policy might be that led to an alternate outcome.
    - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
      Bad reading comprehension.

legitster 1y ago

> Private equity is such a vicious foe to mankind. The boogeyman we have made out of private equity is pretty silly. It's not like being purchased by a publicly traded corporation is that much different, or even just a private buyer.

YouAreMammon 1y ago
[dead]
- tpmoney 1y ago
  On the other hand isn’t the driver for “enshitification” the ever present chasing of profits for the next quarter
  - YouAreMammon 1y ago
    Quite so. Like most things, balance is required. Short term vs long term profitability is underappreciated in today's CEO class.
    - paleotrope 1y ago
      You have to beat inflation. It's not long or short term profitability, it's taking an asset and making it return more than inflation. Treasury bonds or stocks or mobile home parks or monkey nfts, it's all the same thing.
      - YouAreMammon 1y ago
        Again, that's with the mindset that the reason to own shares is because they're an appreciating asset. If you study the history of what investing in a company via shares has historically meant, you'll find that it's only really in the last half century that the "appreciation game" came to the forefront. Dividends yields (or equivalent) were the evaluation criteria for these investments prior to our current era. You speak about inflation and stock as if the cause/effect relationship is crystal clear and unidirectional, I wouldn't be so confident about that.