not really. a small profit accounts for the risk and work involved in obtaining it. Problem is to often its way outsized and if not the secondary objective is massive loss for the public sector to shoulder.
turns out that the ultra wealthy losing 99% of their money is actually not going to hurt them nearly as much as you or i losing even 25% of our savings.
calling that “risk” is like saying i took a “risk” walking outside without an umbrella today, and using the fact that i got wet as an excuse to firehose like 800 other people.
moving further into nuance, i do believe that investment should be rewarded when successful under capitalism. we probably agree on this point.
however, “rewards” in the form of long term fuck-you-money profit hundreds to thousands of times the magnitude of the non-owning laborer at the expense of those who built the business with their lives, is unacceptable and outright theft.
you know at first I thought you were way wack but I did reread and you did say corporations and I was looking it at more generally. ie. owning a business. that being said what I was arguing really was your last line about profit being theft which as a generality is wrong but yeah large corporations making obscene profit is wrong.
yeah, while there is crossover, profit is not the same thing as meet and appropriate compensation for investment. profit is strictly defined as revenue minus costs. businesses that pocket huge sums of profit in the form of executive compensation or stock buybacks are evidence that costs are far too low, that there is theft of cash that should rightfully be reinvested to the creators of that revenue value, that is, the laborers.
you have some other weird definitions of what being a corporation means going on, but it’s not altogether important to my point so i’ll leave us at this weird fortunate agreement lol.
In the context of capital owners, financial “risk” only refers to the potential loss of excess capital beyond what’s necessary for survival. Meanwhile, for laborers, it can mean risking everything, including basic needs like shelter, food, and healthcare, in case of financial setbacks. There is incredible disparity in consequences between the two groups when facing financial challenges, both in raw value and in the number of lives at stake.
Guess why I find one to be more of a problem than the other. 🙄
if a worker loses money they risk becoming a poorer worker. is the worked paid? do they have money? what level of money makes one a capitalist? in your world. I had someone else come along with similar concerns but they seemed to just be talking about corporations which I kinda get then but commerce happens on all levels.
so workers do not own anything they make profit off of? Like a car they use to do uber rides? in this world. that is what you think? you think that is reality?
Uber drivers are gig workers, and firmly in the Proletariat. They ultimately use and depend on Uber’s infrastructure and Capital. Owning a car for personal use and also using it for your job you work for a wage for does not mean you profit off of ownership in the manner a Capitalist profits off the work of others.
Ill accept it for the arguments sake. How about a homeowner that rents out a room and they only advertised with a sign in the window they bought themselves. They also have a job keep in mind. The rent from the room does not exactly pay all their needs it just offsets the mortgage. Are they workers?
not really. a small profit accounts for the risk and work involved in obtaining it. Problem is to often its way outsized and if not the secondary objective is massive loss for the public sector to shoulder.
yes really.
what risk? the risk of losing control of the business and becoming a laborer just like you and me?
no the risk of losing money. are you talking a system where money does not exist as a means of trade?
nice straw man im just gonna ignore that.
turns out that the ultra wealthy losing 99% of their money is actually not going to hurt them nearly as much as you or i losing even 25% of our savings.
calling that “risk” is like saying i took a “risk” walking outside without an umbrella today, and using the fact that i got wet as an excuse to firehose like 800 other people.
moving further into nuance, i do believe that investment should be rewarded when successful under capitalism. we probably agree on this point.
however, “rewards” in the form of long term fuck-you-money profit hundreds to thousands of times the magnitude of the non-owning laborer at the expense of those who built the business with their lives, is unacceptable and outright theft.
you know at first I thought you were way wack but I did reread and you did say corporations and I was looking it at more generally. ie. owning a business. that being said what I was arguing really was your last line about profit being theft which as a generality is wrong but yeah large corporations making obscene profit is wrong.
bruh okay 🗿 🤝 i guess
yeah, while there is crossover, profit is not the same thing as meet and appropriate compensation for investment. profit is strictly defined as revenue minus costs. businesses that pocket huge sums of profit in the form of executive compensation or stock buybacks are evidence that costs are far too low, that there is theft of cash that should rightfully be reinvested to the creators of that revenue value, that is, the laborers.
you have some other weird definitions of what being a corporation means going on, but it’s not altogether important to my point so i’ll leave us at this weird fortunate agreement lol.
You’ll never win, they will never get what risk is in this context.
Oh I get it, don’t underestimate me.
In the context of capital owners, financial “risk” only refers to the potential loss of excess capital beyond what’s necessary for survival. Meanwhile, for laborers, it can mean risking everything, including basic needs like shelter, food, and healthcare, in case of financial setbacks. There is incredible disparity in consequences between the two groups when facing financial challenges, both in raw value and in the number of lives at stake.
Guess why I find one to be more of a problem than the other. 🙄
For some business owners it can mean financial ruin, even when tools like an LLC are used.
Yes, and I believe in the rights of those ruined business owners to a liveable wage when their business fails.
The solution to financially ruined people is not to redistribute wealth away from them for the sake of the only ones who are doing fine.
What risk? That a Capitalist may become a Worker like everyone else?
no the risk of losing money. are you talking a system where money does not exist as a means of trade?
If a Capitalist loses money, they risk becoming a Worker like everyone else.
if a worker loses money they risk becoming a poorer worker. is the worked paid? do they have money? what level of money makes one a capitalist? in your world. I had someone else come along with similar concerns but they seemed to just be talking about corporations which I kinda get then but commerce happens on all levels.
Workers work for wages, Capitalists recieve profits off of ownership. This isn’t “my” world, this is the world.
so workers do not own anything they make profit off of? Like a car they use to do uber rides? in this world. that is what you think? you think that is reality?
Uber drivers are gig workers, and firmly in the Proletariat. They ultimately use and depend on Uber’s infrastructure and Capital. Owning a car for personal use and also using it for your job you work for a wage for does not mean you profit off of ownership in the manner a Capitalist profits off the work of others.
This is, in fact, reality.
Ill accept it for the arguments sake. How about a homeowner that rents out a room and they only advertised with a sign in the window they bought themselves. They also have a job keep in mind. The rent from the room does not exactly pay all their needs it just offsets the mortgage. Are they workers?