Comments by "Regis" (@Timbo5000) on "What Causes a Recession or Depression?" video.

You're missing a lot here. The corporation gets its fair share for what it offers society, but how that corporation distributes this profit internally is not necessarily fair at all. If you're self-employed, what you earn is exactly what your fair share is. If you're employed with a corporation, your boss decides what your share is and how much of the profit goes directly into his own and/or shareholders' pockets. And most of the time an extreme amount of money is taken away from the corporation and placed in only a few private pockets, leaving workers in the dust. Workers, insofar their employed, do not get paid for what they contribute to society. Money always seems to concentrate at the top. Not because it's fair, but because that is what naturally happens in any competitive system; in the end the top amasses all of the resources unless there's a counterbalance. It's perfectly natural that the rich have the resources to become even richer, and this process repeats itself until the vast majority of wealth is located at the top. For example, being able to buy a few apartments to rent out is essentially free money if you can temporarily miss the first investment and wait for it to pay back. That money can in turn be used to start various businesses, the money from that can be used to invest elsewhere or expand, etc. etc. Simply having resources means you will naturally allocate a lot more in the long run, because there are so many opportunities open for you to make more money. In the end, this means the rich get ever richer and those without resources stay behind. The natural end game is that most wealth is right there at the top. But do we want this? It's difficult to say what exactly is "fair", as there are many actors within a corporation that all deserve a share, from the workers up to the managers up to CEOs and shareholders. How do we measure the "value" of their contribution? Is having money and lending it to someone else a lazy contribution because it requires no effort, or is it a huge contribution because without it the corporation'd be nowhere? Is working a 40 hour week to produce goods an unimportant contribution because workers are interchangeable and provide unskilled labour, or is it a large contribution because they spend the most labour-intensive contribution to the corporation and produce the goods that lay at the centre of what that corporation does? There is no such thing as deciding exactly what is everybody's "fair share". The only certainty is that the corporation at large gets exactly the amount of money that consumers want to exchange with it, and therefore gets its fair share from what it contributed to society. How that share is divided within the corporation should at least be generally proportional. If 75% goes to a few higher ups and, 10% is spent on costs and 15% is left for employees, I don't think that's fair. Yet that is the current reality. I don't see how anybody's fair share can be 50 billion dollars or something crazy like that.
4
@TheImperatorKnight The cause is the aim for endless economic growth, not necessarily state intervention. Even without state intervention, bankers and investors are sure to create bubbles themselves in their strife for endless max profit. As long as we pursue endless economic growth instead of an economy that actually provides for people's needs and leaves it at that (which can and will include economic growth, but won't see growth as a goal in itself), bubbles will exist and pop. I feel you're putting too much of the blame on the state, as if they're the sole cause of this. In truth many different actors play a role in the creation and prolonging of economic bubbles, including the state. The root cause to me seems the aim for maximum economic growth, regardless of whether that is what society needs at that moment. I'm wondering if capitalism is possible witout this layer of growth-obsession.
3