• Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    I want to respond but would ask if you would humor me in my line of questioning. If not, no worries.

    Why should we assume that without the influence of nepotism that capitalism will continue on the same path of corporate greed?

    • RBWells@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      Human nature. I don’t think it’s the worst economic system, but if you measure everything in dollars, and say that a business venture’s only task is to make value measured in dollars, I don’t see how it can avoid exploitation.

      As an accountant I want to say it might work if businesses were required to pay all the costs they currently externalize and hand to society and the future (so pollution or underpaying employees would be more expensive than being clean and paying more of the $ to the workers) but I’m not completely convinced.

      As it stands now, companies become profitable because they aren’t paying what it costs to produce their stuff. It seems baked into the system.

      • Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        So, in my mind wealth should last a generation. That is, wealth that is allowed to compete in the market. Ok, well that’s nebulous but it is also a new idea to me. Say a CEO at the end of his life has no choice but to pass on his wealth to his children, which then can’t re-enter the market as an investment tool but can only be used for consumer goods and services or maybe residential real estate. Or alternatively putting it back into the company as means for growth which can propel others into higher levels of management. Anyway, kinda just wanted to have this discussion from the onset.

        Thanks for being a bro.