• SneakyThunder
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    By that logic, thieves are virtuous and valued by society.

    Thieves are forced to return what they stole, they don’t (usually) accumulate capital

    In reality, the wealthy are creating value for themselves and their peers

    Could you please provide an example? Even something like Apple products (luxuries) are used by people that can’t be called rich. So it’s hard for me to understand how wealthy could create their separate economy

    • Belgdore@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      thieves are force to repay…

      Depends on your definition of theft. I define theft to include the net profits that are not shared with the workers.

      how would you describe their separate economy…

      Most of us don’t get to participate in IPOs and hedge funds. The capital needed for that has been stolen from us by people who refuse to share with us the fruits of our labor.

      “But you work for a wage that you agreed to take”

      Because the other option is to starve to death.

      • SneakyThunder
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Because the other option is to starve to death.

        That’s pessimistic… Food can be grown…

        theft includes the net profits that are not shared with the workers

        How businesses would innovate without accumulating capital? What happens if they suffer a loss? What would they pay their workers?

        IMO it’s not theft, it’s just a price you’re paying for someone else to deal with risc possible losses while providing you stable income.

        Not talking about reserch, marketing and realization of goods/services, that someone without capital can’t do on their own.

        • Belgdore@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          If I don’t work for the system then I starve. I’m not talking’s about a Malthusian disaster. I can’t grow food because I don’t own land.

          I specifically said net profits should be given to the works. They can then invest in new ventures and become decision makers. That would maintain innovation. By only having those at the top make decisions you actually limit the things getting innovated because you only have a few minds working on it. There is nothing that would prevent a company from having a research fund like they currently do. I said net profit for a reason. The issue is money exiting via exorbitant corporate salaries and dividends and investments in unrelated things that do not benefit the workers.

          When was the last time a billionaire went broke they aren’t assuming any risk. The workers who you say aren’t assuming a risk go homeless and starve when the company fails and they can’t find a job.

        • rektdeckard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Food can be grown…

          This argument always makes me laugh. On what land? Most of us live in cities. “So don’t live in a city!” OK great, how do I afford property? “Work a different job to save”. OK but now I have the money I need. We live in a specialized society. Not everyone needs or wants to be a farmer, and that is a good thing.

          How businesses would innovate without accumulating capital?

          Strawman. Nobody is saying money is bad. We are saying regulated markets are more egalitarian and more representative of societal value than free ones. Implicit in every neo-liberalist argument is this assumption that money is the only market for societal value. But that is not an established fact. How much monetary value does your grandmother make for you? Your kids? I thought so.