Sustaining Capitalism in a Finite World

Refer to the S.C. ruling on the primary task of corporations.

 

Are all capitalist businesses traditional C corporations?

 

I'm not critical of WSDEs. I am in favor of businesses choosing any business model they choose.

 

Agreed - however let's be honest about the purpose of businesses though. Profitability and survival.

 

Yes, the reason for starting a business is generally to make money for the owners. Otherwise, one would start a charity. This holds for WSDEs as well. They are started with the goal that they will be a profitable venture for the owners.

 

If the world is finite wouldn't that be a problem for any economic system?

 

I think we have a winner.

 

Obviously not. Be careful to not confuse or spin what I said on this.

 

I can say the same since I am not in favor of eliminating any existing business models.

 

You can't say the same, as you constantly criticize non-WSDE business models.

 

Okay so not all capitalist businesses are driven solely by profit. I will dismiss your initial statement to that effect.

 

Criticizing and favoring elimination are not the same. Your line of reasoning is showing to be illogical today.

 

You're doing it again. I previously specified that the standard, textbook essence of capitalism is private ownership by those who hire workers, and which operate for private profit. And there are other variations/permutations on it.

You are obviously looking to trap me and prove something rather than discuss this honestly when you imply that I must be precise, 100% accurate, and include no exceptions. And it's getting old.

 

You said that private businesses must try to eliminate competition because they're profit driven. But the fact is that not all businesses are profit driven. So I've just debunked another one of your sweeping anti-business generalizations.

 

No you didn't I said not all businesses are profit driven. Se my last post that you quoted! I said "there are other variations/permutations on it" in a context that says some of those variations do not seek profit. Do you really think I don't know about non-profit corporations for example?

You're still trying.

 

?? unrestrained capitalism would mean unrestrained interest in pleasing your customers and workers. Do you understand?

 

and this creates an opportunity for new competition thus capitalism solves the problem in the unlikely event this problem ever occurs. Do you understand?

 

absurd of course now that we have what they call, globalization. Imagine how brainwashed you must be to think about power in few hands at the least opportune time in the history of the world to think about it??

 

You're not engaging a person who's interested in an honest discussion. You've been pegged as anti-worker and thus, by extension, anti worker owned enterprises. The fact that you have not followed the traditional argument has left Kode

You've been pegged as anti-worker which is why the example of a WSDE was used. You're supposed to argue for a insanely rich guy at the top whose sole interest is making more and more money and oppose the idea of more owners each simply taking a smaller chunk of what's left. Because it's COMPLETELY DIFFERENT I tell ya.

 

text book essence of capitalism is caring, caring about pleasing your customers and workers more than anyone else in the world can.

 

that guy goes bankrupt while the guy at the top who cares most about his customers and workers succeeds. Capitalism is caring. Now do you understand?

 

a liberal is always in favor of violence. How else would you start a co-op's when people are free to start them now but don't because they are not competitive.

 

If you aren't interested in discussing ideas and risking discovery, maybe it would be more satisfying for you to simply abstain from participating. Personal attacks are too easy, even for people like you.

Going back to the starting OP, these quotes would fall under "appeal to authority."

 

The OP of this thread begins immediately with a false premise, "a foundation of capitalism is increasing accumulation".
THE foundation of capitalism is 'private ownership' as opposed to 'state ownership', although many governments have employed and applied taxes on various forms of property primarily land, and even more so when the owner has invested a large amount in making improvements on it increasing its value which can make it difficult to maintain ownership as a result of inflation.
Not everything is finite, if it was we would eventually starve having eliminated the food supply. Consumption, as a result of increasing population does put a strain on some things, like the fishing industry which could harvest some species into extinction without government imposed limits and price increases allowing it to continue at a slower pace and provide a living for those it employs.
No matter what form of government people live under capitalism will continue to exist as long as some nations allow their people to be free. Capitalism is most productive when government allows it to operate by voluntary exchange in a free market system without monopolization impeding competition. I see no viable option to capitalism which would result in as rapid progress produced by capitalism that would not require force by government to 'try' and achieve.

 

There are thousands of them in the U.S.