Comments by "Average Alien" (@AverageAlien) on "CEO of Whole Foods Defends Capitalism, Talks Socialism" video.
-
23
-
9
-
6
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jimmyrecard5056 Uhhh, slave labour is the opposite of a free market. Slave labour directly contradicts the main principles of a free market, which is that everyone has maximum individual freedom. Actually the rise of capitalism is what ended slave economies and constant conquests of foreign lands to obtain wealth. It's thanks to capitalism that wealth can be attained peacefully and consensually.
The government does control the corporations, but their measures end up hurting the private sector more than anything else. Instead of free market capitalism we have corporations working together with the government, the government using stolen tax payer money to help these corporations remain on top. This is socialism.
You don't know what socialism is either. This is PRECISELY socialism, a couple of bloated monopolies that the government can manage more easily than hundreds of thousands of tiny private businesses.
These mini states, or corporations work together with the central state, to oppress and control the private sector. Workers unions and syndicates are also corporations. They are all entities separate from the central state, that work together with the central state to control prices and the market artificially, which always leads to mass starvation or oppression of the individual.
You've described corporations perfectly in your paragraph about socialism.
"power is split amongst the people who work for the company who would all have a say on how the business is run rather than all the power being with the rich owner."
So, exactly how corporations are run then? Corporations function exactly like mini states, they are a public hierarchy, owned by the people, or the shareholders, which also elect their president, or CEO. They are only private in the same way that the white house is "private" for the president.
PRIVATE companies on the other hand, are owned by an individual, which may choose to employ other individuals that are willing to work for them.
Obviously in a private company, you are the sole owner and your employees have no right to your property. This is a basic concept.
If you employ someone to fix your roof for a fixed wage and fixed hours, do they now own your roof? No. You still own your roof. You paid them for a specific job, and it's still YOUR roof.
Market crashes are caused by the state. Recessions are caused by the state. None of these things have anything to do with capitalism. Capitalism always has to save the country after one of these crashes, and if the state doesn't interfere, the free market will take over again and make recovery quick.
However, every time the state interferes after a crash with excessive regulation or meddling, recovery is about 10x as long.
So once again, we have proven that the state causes all the problems, and the free market has to run in and save the nation every single time.
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jimmyrecard5056 Once again, you have no fucking clue what capitalism even is, hilarious. Somehow in your head, giant PUBLIC corporations that can only remain afloat thanks to state imposed regulations and meddling, is the same as the private individuals owning the means of productions.
Capitalism is the PRIVATE sector only. No public mini state corporations. ONLY the private sector and the individuals that own their own company and tools without any state support or any state meddling or any external public help. The only way these private companies can stay alive is through profits. Profits indicate demand.
Apple and Alphabet are NOT private companies, they are public corporations that would all crumble in the natural free market environment. There is absolutely no way a company that massive can remain internally efficient and profitable, especially as new more profitable, smaller companies out compete them and manage better prices.
For example, Private youtube journalists get more views than the corporate media giants do. This is because there is a higher demand for those small private creators than there is for the products of the giant corporations.
So when massive corporations, with huge budgets, and huge teams can't compete with a single guy with a camera, and yet they're still on top, that basically proves that capitalism is being stifled.
Here's a better example. In the 1800s, Cornelius Vanderbilt competed with the government subsidized and regulated monopoly steam ship company owned by Fulton. He undercut his monopoly by being more efficient with his business and eventually lowering his prices by so much, that the tickets were FREE.
THIS is free market capitalism; unregulated competition with the market keeping companies in check, no minimum wages (they harm small businesses more than giant corporations) and no government subsidies or any other socialist meddling.
1
-
1
-
@jimmyrecard5056 And you've still failed to understand anything. It's like talking to a wall. Reminds of my arguments with flat earthers, but I digress.
I never said corporations were "government run" I said they were public entities, because they are. You do realise corporations go public right? And you do realise that means that they're no longer in the private sector, right? They're not privately owned, they're owned by the public and work like a mini state, operating BESIDE the central state, sometimes even competing with the central state, but usually working together with the central state.
The corporations don't control the government, the government controls the market, and works side by side with some corporations. Corporations like facebook and apple have gotten in trouble with the government in the past, completely destroying any garbage idea that they control the central state. And even if they did, that wouldn't change the fact that it's still not capitalism.
Socialism isn't sustainable, which is why it always leads to mass starvation, garbage quality of living, and eventual collapse, WITHOUT FAIL.
Capitalism has won, it has proven itself to be the ONLY functioning economic model to have ever existed, constantly fixing the fuckups of the state and keeping standards of living above any others in all of history.
Every capitalist country has the highest standards of living that this planet has ever seen, any and all progress is a direct result of free market capitalism (or war) and without capitalism we'd still be stuck in medieval times.
Capitalism is the most efficient and sustainable economic model ever invented, with profits accurately predicting and revealing demand and the location and quantity of that demand.
Without capitalism, nothing has any value, nothing can work efficiently. Without capitalism no one would be able to work out the prices of any item. This is why socialism always leads to mass starvation, thanks to profits being ignored and supply and demand being a complete mystery. It's impossible to calculate efficiency without capitalism, so when the state invents a price for a product, it will always either be overpriced or underpriced, leading to shortages or overproduction.
Also your definition of socialism is hysterical. It's obvious you're a 12 year old child. Socialism is nothing like "money going to help others" and is more like "Mass theft of property from people by the state at gunpoint, with everyone ending up as a slave to the state in a gulag or concentration camp."
Literally every single problem you've come up with can be attributed to the state and socialism, and every single solution can be attributed to capitalism.
Absolute comedy.
1
-
@Weazla- Wrong. Regulation is what causes capitalism to be subverted by socialistic corporations. It leads to monopolies and the stifling of small businesses.
Not sure what you mean by "classic capitalism." Capitalism is capitalism. It has one definition and one meaning.
There are plenty of socialistic policies in the US. Welfare for starters, which is just stolen money going to the lazy. Subsidised corporations, bailouts, and any form of public healthcare is all ran on stolen tax payer money. I agree, welfare is bad for all classes. But socialism has nothing to do with the working class. Looks like you don't know what socialism is, or you use wikipedia for your definitions. You're thinking of marxism.
There is no such thing as state capitalism. That's an oxymoronic term invented by socialists to hide the failures of socialism. It's like saying "free authoritarianism." No such thing. The state and capitalism are two complete opposites. They can't both work at the same time. You either have one or the other.
Now you can have some capitalistic elements in your country, to prevent your country from drowning itself economically. A small private sector, untarnished by the evil state perhaps.
Also "democratic" is NOT the same as capitalist. Democracy is the final form of fascism. The US isn't a democracy.
Scandinavian countries are very socialist. And they suffer because of it. Men and women have never been so far apart in terms of life choices, and the suicide rates are shockingly high.
Subsidising multibillion dollar corporations is socialist. Corporations are mini states, working alongside or competing with the central state. They are NOT private capitalist businesses. They are ran on stolen tax payer money and regulations that prevent smaller businesses from taking them down, because smaller private businesses are infinitely more efficient and competitive.
You said it yourself. "If it weren't for government subsidies then these corporations would fail."
You took the words right out of my mouth. These corporations are anti-capitalist, anti-competitive, and tyrannical socialistic entities. Without stolen tax payer money being pumped into these bloated corpos, the free market would take over and the economic balance and stability would return. Every single time the socialist state causes a recession, capitalism has to step in to save the day, only for the state to start meddling with it again and thus causing the cycle to continue. The tyrannical greedy state never learns.
Thanks to state meddling, progress is halted, and competition can't occur. This is why monopolies exist. Capitalism naturally prevents this if allowed to exist unregulated and with zero state interference. Profits indicate demand for a product or service. No profit indicates no demand. Profit from high demand can then be reinvested into the business to increase production efficiency and therefore meet the higher demand. Thanks to capitalism, no one starves in the 1st world. Not involuntarily at least. Everything is as cheap as it can possibly be, and everything is progressive, free, and competitive. Transactions of goods and services only happen with individuals consent.
Until the socialist state steps in. That's when everything goes wrong. When the state monopolises healthcare for example, either running it on stolen tax payer money or through heavily subsidised corporations which leads to extremely high prices and lack of quality or competition.
Without profits, there is no incentive to maintain quality, or progress. Without profit, you can't calculate the value of anything, and therefore can't calculate any demand. This is why a fully socialised economy will always lead to starvation and mass death.
Looks like you need to read up basic definitions for capitalism and socialism. Before replying again, make sure that you do. And don't use wikipedia, they literally stated that fascism is right wing. Clearly a bunch of incompetent or lying leftists.
It was that easy to destroy all of your arguments. Up your game next time, kid.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1