Part of the profits go into taxes. — god must be atheist

What Is Profit?

Profit describes the financial benefit realized when revenue generated from a business activity exceeds the expenses, costs, and taxes involved in sustaining the activity in question.

Any profits earned funnel back to business owners, who choose to either pocket the cash, distribute it to shareholders as dividends, or reinvest it back into the business.

Do you get tired of being embarrassingly silly?

Try thinking before you write.

(For others: If it still isn’t clear: we’re talking about net earnings — i.e., what’s left after cost/expenses, including taxes. But even if taxes aren’t included, workers have no say where their taxes go except in the very indirect sense of being able to vote for a congressman. When it comes to net earnings in their company, unless they’re a major shareholder they have even less say than this — which is the point of the thread.)

Imagine using this way on macro business as Zara or Microsoft with thousands and thousands of employees. — javi2541997

Microsoft has consulted with Mondragon, in fact.

What does the number of employees have to do with it? I think Wall Mart workers do just fine without the input of the Walton family.

The markets and property don't exist in Cuba. — javi2541997

Both markets and private property exist in Cuba. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

I still waiting for an example of a successful socialist economy. — javi2541997

I’m still waiting for an example of a successful capitalist economy.

That you continue to miss the point isn’t my problem. I’ve been fairly explicit.

If you consider "meaningless" the huge development of Japan and South Korea is your problem not mine. — javi2541997

I haven’t once denied the development of either. Nor of China.

country as the USA. If you don't like capitalism, you can try another life in Cuba, Bolivia, Angola, etc... — javi2541997

The US isn’t capitalist.



Oh you mean like this:



Yeah, Cuba is pretty bad.

Oh wait, that’s the US.

Arguments about capitalism always reminds me of the quarterback for the NFL team that wins the game and gives God the credit. No mention of God when they lose. George Carlin talked about this years ago.

God is undefeated, according to them.

Same is true of the apologists for capitalism: successful economy? Capitalism! Simple principle.

Take a look at Chile under Pinochet’s “reforms.” I guess the disaster must be attributed to something else. Can’t be capitalism, because capitalism always wins.

Give one example of a successful capitalist economy.
— Xtrix

Japan and South Korea. — javi2541997

Neither are capitalist. Not even close.

But then, again, you might as well attribute it to God.
— Xtrix

I don't understand this argument... — javi2541997

The point is that the word capitalism is as meaningless as the word God.

You don't like corporate interests but the only way to avoid it is with expropriation or the limitation of the market and the pure control of the state on every economic reform. — javi2541997

The “only way”?

No. Corporations are the creations of states. Their interests can be avoided in multiple ways. One of the better ways is to make them co-ops, like the Mondragon Corporation in your country. That’s a good example: let the workers own the company. That’s one example of an alternative.

But it is a fact that they increased their economy thanks to the transition to a market economy. — javi2541997

First, that’s far from a “fact.” That you’ve read it from the opening paragraph of one article doesn’t make it factual.

Second, markets exist in any society. If the existence of markets and private property is the criteria for defining capitalism, then Cuba is capitalist too. (But it’s “failing,” so I guess it can’t be.)

For the umpteenth time: “capitalism” and “socialism” are so amorphous as to be meaningless.

Attributing China’s state-directed economy’s successes to “capitalism” is just childish and stupid. The only thing it shows is that the person making such a claim doesn’t have a clue about what capitalism is, and has defined it into oblivion. I’d suggest reading the sources I’ve mentioned.

Why not just make it easier: any successful economy is a capitalist economy. Any failed economy is a socialist or communist economy. Heads I win, tails you lose. Brilliant.

Looks like a runoff. Never underestimate misinformation and irrationality.

No, they’re not capitalist. They’re not pseudo-capitalist either. Attributing their successes to capitalism is meaningless.
— Xtrix

Meaningless? Are you serious about such claim? — javi2541997

Yes. Might as well attribute the success to God.

Ok let's check the facts and statistics about Chinese GDP and economy in both Mao's China and Aperture China in the 1990s. — javi2541997

Why? No one is claiming there hasn't been a change in GDP. We're talking about what we're attributing it to. That's a complicated question, and one you haven't looked into much. Waving our hands and saying "It's because of capitalism" is, as I said before, meaningless.

Unless we want to attribute any economic success to the amorphous term "capitalism." But then, again, you might as well attribute it to God.

Give one example of successful Marxist economy. — javi2541997

Give one example of a successful capitalist economy.

Meaningless.

By providing healthcare, education, infrastructure, public transportation, and housing for people. Plenty of work to be done. This creates jobs and growth too.
— Xtrix

You would need wealthy companies and entrepreneurs to do so. A sick poor state cannot promote all what you are asking about. — javi2541997

That's like saying you need guys like Bill Gates and Microsoft to have the Internet. Complete nonsense.

Who said anything about a "poor, sick state"? What I had in mind was the United States. A pretty wealthy country, all things considered. What's the excuse there?

The problem is greed and plutocracy.
— Xtrix

So, according to you, the state always wins and acts ethically. — javi2541997

"Wins" what? States don't act -- people act. What people, who comprise a government, do is influenced by the wealthy and powerful in any country -- some more than others. In the US, it's a joke. Both parties are essentially beholden to corporate interests. The republican party is unapologetically corporatist; they make the democrats look reasonable, even though the last 40 years they've abandoned the working class.

But no -- I'm not saying anything like that.

Final poll: Lula 45%, Bolsonaro 37%.

In the other hand, from a economical point of view, they act as a pseudo capitalist country. — javi2541997

No, they’re not capitalist. They’re not pseudo-capitalist either. Attributing their successes to capitalism is meaningless. It’s a state-directed economy with extensive state intervention in the economy at every level. To call that “capitalist” is absurd. The only reason for doing so is the irrational belief that capitalism (whatever it means) is a universal good.

China rejected neoliberal policies. The reforms in the 70s and 80s may be said to be neoliberal in part, because of reliance on foreign investments and markets, but that has nothing to do with neoliberalism.

So again, if not neoliberal — then how is it capitalist? It’s a state-directed economy. The state is a communist one. Yet somehow communism doesn’t get credited with pulling millions out of poverty and achieving growth rates that blow the US out of the water? Odd…

It doesn't make sense to be a "Marxist economy" while your GDP increases each year thanks to the principles of world trade and international market.
Cuba (for example) is another Marxist country. They are poor as hell and their economy has no future. Exactly for doing old communist acts as expropriation and removing the private property. This is a real communist country, not like China. — javi2541997

So an economy is only Marxist if it’s failed, poor, and has no future. Otherwise it can’t be Marxist— it’s gotta be something else…it’s gotta be capitalist, at least economically.

Is this really an argument?

Sorry, but you really don’t really know what you’re talking about. There’s a lot of literature to read on this if you’re interested. Ha-Joon Chang, Alice Amsden, Robert Wade, etc.

It would do you well to broaden your perspective. You’ve been brainwashed if you truly can’t see how silly this is.

Yeah, so in your world what’s needed is for everyone else to tighten their belts, lose their pensions, and live even shittier and more precarious lives.
— Xtrix

According to your own criteria, how can we live "good?" — javi2541997

By providing healthcare, education, infrastructure, public transportation, and housing for people. Plenty of work to be done. This creates jobs and growth too.

Or we can decide to allow the wealthiest people to continue to collect 90% of business profits and accumulate more wealth than the bottom 50% of the world population. Ignoring this is ignoring the problem— and so far you’ve ignored it and instead talk about spending cuts, which is more trickle-down economic / neoliberal talking points.

I am just sceptical on the way a state is wasting resources and increasing the taxes on the middle-class workers. — javi2541997

I haven’t once mentioned taxes for middle class workers. I’m talking about taxing the wealthy, and I’ve defined what I mean by “wealthy.”

The state does indeed waste resources — because the state is run by corporations and the wealthy. Which is why passing wealth taxes is so hard. That too needs to change. As does the propaganda that says that the state is the problem— it isn’t. The problem is greed and plutocracy.

They know: they’re communist.
— Xtrix

No. — javi2541997

Yes. They’re communist.

They are not communist since the 1990s. — javi2541997

Yes, they are.

The Chinese economic reform or reform and opening-up is the program of economic reforms termed "Socialism (?) with Chinese characteristics" led by Deng Xiaoping, often credited as the "General Architect". In 2010, China overtook Japan as the world's second-largest economy by nominal GDP and in 2017 overtook the United States by becoming the world's largest economy by GDP. Only a capitalist country can reach such improvements in just two decades. — javi2541997

You don’t know what you’re talking about. Citing a Wikipedia entry doesn’t do much to change that.

First: China is a communist country, ruled by a communist government. I wouldn’t call it truly communist myself, but that’s what they claim. Whatever we call it, however, it’s not democratic or republican form of government.

Second: there’s been massive state intervention in the economy on all levels. Almost all business is state owned and run. But because you’re apparently a capitalist fundamentalist, because there’s been success in China it must somehow be due to “capitalism.”

A nice story to tell yourself. Anything bad = Socialism. Anything good = capitalism. Simple, easy, and complete bullshit. See Ha-Joon Chang to educate yourself, if of course you’re willing to break out of neoliberal delusions.

Lastly, the US is a mixed economy— like nearly all countries. Many economists describe it as a bailout economy, with heavy socialism for the wealthy. Hardly a role model.

It is not a good start and here is another solution I put on the table: spending cuts — javi2541997

Right, more neoliberal nonsense that’s been tried for 40 years and has been a complete disaster. Because “cuts” always means social programs.

But yeah, sure, let’s cut the military budget by 90%. That’ll more than pay for what we need. I won’t hold my breath for that suggestion.

For example: Highways and transport (instead of 5 buses, we only let 3 buses per hour). — javi2541997

Terrible idea. We need the opposite: more and better public transportation. Good for the environment, and what people want.

it is necessary to freeze pension payments. — javi2541997

There it is. In predictable fashion.

What a shocker there was no mention of military expenditure — the most bloated of all discretionary spending. I wonder why?

As you see there are a lot ways to reduce national debt. Raising taxes to stakeholders or businessmen is not the solution. — javi2541997

Yeah, so in your world what’s needed is for everyone else to tighten their belts, lose their pensions, and live even shittier and more precarious lives.

But let’s not dare tax billionaires.

By the way, you’re misusing “stakeholder.” Either you mean to say “shareholder,” or you’re not making sense. Stakeholders include employees and the community.

USA is an example that a country can works with private ownership and a few taxes because it is clearly a world leader towards industry and technology. Meanwhile, in Spain you would not get rich or wealthy. Our government is against private property and stakeholders. — javi2541997

Neither is true. The US has socialism for the wealthy— whether it’s a leader in anything anymore is questionable.

China has high GDP too. By your argument, that should count for something and perhaps we should model ourselves after them.

They do not even know what they really are. — javi2541997

It’s kind of ridiculous that on the one hand we’re supposed to accept that the US (and any other supposed “successful” country) is “capitalist,” but when China is mentioned things suddenly become very fuzzy. “Who knows what they are.” They know: they’re communist.

The US is far more socialist than China. The bailouts they’ve given to private tyrannies is second to none. There’s been a wealth transfer of 20+ trillion dollars over the last 40 years to the top .1%. That’s real socialism for you. If only we had given them a taste of “free market capitalism.”

Imagine the United States Secretary of the Treasury saying to Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Zuckerberg, Real State owners, etc... to pay 23 or 25 % of their revenue in taxes. — javi2541997

I don’t have to imagine. The corporate tax rate in the US has averaged about 32%, and at one point the income tax for individuals making $1.7 million or couples making $3.4 million (adjusted for todays dollars) was upwards of 94%. The top rate today is about 39%.

But the wealthy always find ways around these taxes.

When society is being destroyed so that a few people can have more money than the bottom 50% of the WORLD population, I’d say it’s time to do something. Higher taxes on wealth is a good start. I hear no alternative suggestions from you.

I see it as impossible. Every factory or company needs a hierarchical structure. — javi2541997

Yeah but that’s mostly nonsense. You don’t need a plutocracy. You need organization and structure, sure. Perhaps even a hierarchy of responsibilities and roles — but one that’s set with worker input. Mondragon is a good example. Co ops generally are a good model.

So not only possible, but already done.

The GDP of your country is 24 points bigger than mine.

Do you still think a country ruled by socialism is a good idea? — javi2541997

What does GDP have to do with anything? China has a bigger GDP too— so what? Should we be ruled by authoritarianism?

“Socialism” has become rather meaningless. The US has PLENTY of socialism— for the wealthy.

Others see him as a Marxist criminal. — javi2541997

But he’s not a Marxist criminal. Lots of people believe the earth is 6000 years old, too. Who cares?

Why bring up people who are factually wrong?

But who do you consider as "rich"? — javi2541997

“Two-year wealth tax that would apply to those who own more than €3 million in assets. The scheme would see around 23,000 people paying on a scale of between 1.7% and 3.5% of their riches in extraordinary taxes, according to the plan.”

I consider them rich. And they should be taxed much more.

Better yet, let the workers run the factories and companies themselves.

It’s no surprise that those who favor plutocracy— and who are anti-democratic through and through — find ways to condemn anything that benefits the majority of the country, or the world.

Now it’s “political correctness.” Come on.

Not sure, but I'm way more scared by corporations than by democratic governments — bert1

Yes. Unfortunately, they essentially own the government. So in practice they run the state. They need a strong state to survive.

It’s a brilliant move, too, because anything wrong with society can be blamed on the government. The private sector gets a free pass. People began to take notice around 2009, when the private sector needed a huge bailout from the state.

Taxing the rich more is common sense, yes.

They should be paying even more. Or production should be nationalized— better than what we have now. My own aim is to have the workers take over production.

Political correctness has nothing to do with it.

Syād — Agent Smith

You’re overusing this. FYI.

Spain does the common sense thing. Good for them.

Oh, and:

Taxation isn’t theft.

The problem is plutocracy. All the rest is window dressing.

We can be agree here that he was put in prison because of corrupt judges. Nevertheless, it still be a negative mark in his political career. — javi2541997

I don’t see it as negative at all. In fact I think overcoming being falsely imprisoned is a merit.

“I’m feeling relatively optimistic that resilient democracy comes through,” says Zimmerman. “But it’s been a really difficult time for the country and I expect the remaining days, and weeks depending on what happens on Sunday, to be tumultuous.”

— Time magazine



Bolsonaro doesn’t give a damn about the environment. He’s yet another climate change denier who, like most right wingers, wants to actively make it worse.

What a shocker that the Fed's raising interest rates and sucking up money from the economy is having almost no effect on inflation. It's certainly affecting stocks, bonds, and the housing market.

It's almost as if there were other factors involved beyond monetary policy. :chin:

I have a feeling there is a punchline to this OP? — I like sushi

It does. I kind of threw it in there without much fanfare, but it's here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/742619

90% of profits go back to shareholders in the form of dividends and stock buybacks. That's really the answer.

The rest is reinvested in the company through increased wages, new equipment, new research/development, etc. A sorry state of affairs. In the 50s and 60s and most of the 70s, this wasn't the case.

A major change was 1982, when the SEC created rule 10(b)-18, which provides a "safe harbor" for share repurchases -- meaning that it won't be investigated as manipulation. This was overseen by John Shad, himself a product of Wall Street.

Which is the greatest advantage to control?
Brute force, money, or opinion.
Opinion. — Yohan

Yes. It's what Hume talks about in the opening of his "First Principles of Government":

NOTHING appears more surprizing to those, who consider human affairs with a philosophical eye, than the easiness with which the many are governed by the few; and the implicit submission, with which men resign their own sentiments and passions to those of their rulers. When we enquire by what means this wonder is effected, we shall find, that, as Force is always on the side of the governed, the governors have nothing to support them but opinion. It is therefore, on opinion only that government is founded; and this maxim extends to the most despotic and most military governments, as well as to the most free and most popular.

I think that's exactly right.

Philosophy rules them all, obviously, and adjudicates between them, and in the darkness binds them. — unenlightened

This had me laughing. Nice Lord of the Rings reference.

In seriousness though, I think it's true. I let "church" be the representative for religion, and religion (in my view) asks similar universal human questions that philosophy does. Religion also pre-dates philosophy -- at least the type of philosophical questions we're used to.

Most people in power are sincere individuals who believe they’re doing good in the world. That’s what I see. I don’t begrudge anyone their power, status, or wealth. I take issue with their actions, decisions, and judgment.

I think of the categories provided, the church is the most powerful. Everyone — in whatever class, in whatever position of power, and whether a politician or king or CEO, has a religion. This serves as a basis out of which their attitudes and actions flow.

It means it’s a sign from the universe to read something more interesting.

Added a poll. In reviewing some of my older posts, I think this is worth revisiting and I'd like to see -- if forced to choose -- what forum members think about power.

How would you see the differences? — Tom Storm

The rise of the corporation and technology, mostly.

The corporation is a legal fiction created by states, and has become the vehicle of plutocracy. Its “owners” are also major employers. It’s talked about as if it’s a person— which legally it is. A nice scenario for those who own lots of shares.

The start of the industrial revolution, where people went from mostly working in their homes, on their property, or in a small business to working in factories / mills was brought about by a change in technology.

Of course so do relationships between workers and owners - in feudalism, say. — Tom Storm

Not employer and employee, however.

How do we decide what matters? — TiredThinker

It's a matter of values and the prioritizing of those values. What do you care about? What do you like or love about life?

I think actions speak much louder than words (or thoughts...or professed beliefs), so looking at how we spend our time is, in my view, important. Not the time that we experience, per se, but the time we've standardized through the agreed upon duration of a "second" and a "day" -- so we can be a little more objective about it. How many non-sleeping hours are we spending on x, y, and z? That will tell you a lot about where your priorities are -- i.e., what "really matters" to you.

So we better try our best to align our time with our values. If we spend excess amount of time (A) alone, drifting, watching TV (or screens), overeating, being sedentary, or working a job we hate rather than (B) spending time with family and friends, or generally being sociable, or working in the community, or spending time getting healthier by being active and eating well, or doing creative, productive work voluntarily -- than we're likely in real trouble, because in this case B > A in terms of what matters, but A > B in terms of what we actually do.

To reverse a lot of this requires real reflection, an awareness that there's a problem, a desire to want to change, and the wherewithal to formulate a plan and stick with it. It means overcoming unhealthy habits of mind and body that we've developed, and which says something about our society as well.

Not an easy task. But an important question.

Good thread. It's a great question.

Like many things in political science, sociology, and economics, it's one of those words that is used a lot but is very rarely defined -- I think of something along the lines of "God", although that's admittedly an extreme example.

Capitalism is a socioeconomic system. Like other socioeconomic systems -- e.g., feudalism -- it has some unique features which differentiate it from others. What is the unique feature?

Many say it's markets -- but those have been around since time immemorial.

Some say it's the profit motive -- but profit has been around a long time indeed.

Others say it involves ownership, particularly the ownership of the "means of production." The idea of ownership and the control over production seem to pre-date "capitalism," though.

Perhaps it's a combination -- one which seems to have arisen after the middle ages and especially with the industrial revolution.

Personally, I like Richard Wolff's tentative definition: capitalism is defined by the relationship between the employer and employee. Like the Lord and vassal/serf, or the master and slave, a unique relationship is the defining feature.

I’ll continue to dismiss ridiculous claims with no evidence, with zero apologies.

The issue is evidence, not sophomoric ideas about what “science” is.

Maybe we’re wrong about the teapot orbiting Mars, or about goblins. I suppose “dismissing” these things is also being “unscientific.” Give me a break.

More silly justifications for belief in magic and general nonsense. I hear it from creationists, astrologers, psychics, and flat earthers all the time. Same arguments.

I suggest growing up. A good antidote to childish beliefs.

A "return" to Thatcher and tired neoliberal policies. What a pity. But the Tories might as well go all-in while they can, before they're booted out a la 1997. Hopefully you don't end up with another Tony Blair. Starmer seems like a joke, but anything is an improvement over Truss.

I like that -- thanks.

There's no easy way to convert the system from manufacture for profit to manufacture for need. — Bitter Crank

Agreed.

And yet you are not willing to consider me to be sincere when I have made such claims. — dclements

On the contrary, I think you're very sincere. I'm sure you think you've seen ghosts and ouija boards move, etc.

attacking straw men (with your arguments arguing against goblins and zombies which I have said nothing about) that you don't even know what I'm saying. — dclements

I know you haven't mentioned them. There's as much evidence for goblins and zombies as there is for ghosts.

All I said was I was at a cemetery on night (the actual cemetery happened to be Union in CT which has a history of things happening), one of the people I was with decided to walk further in than the rest of us, and when I shined a flashlight on him for a brief second I could see what appeared to be a combination of white and black shadows surrounding him and then they where gone. To me it would have been nothing more than a "trick of the light" (other than perhaps the sensation that there was a crowd surrounding the guy in the cemetery), except the person that brought us there said "Yes" when I asked him if he saw what I saw and he was visibly shaken from the experience. — dclements

And you conclude from this what exactly?

Do you know how many physical phenomena there are where something is able to move do to physical forces we can not see? For instances there is magnetism that allow objects to be either drawn together or apart by "invisible forces that can not be seen by the naked eye". — dclements

Sure. Gravity is a force -- pulls objects towards the earth all the time. I can't "see" gravity itself. True enough.

And it's also true that ouija boards don't move on their own.

It isn't heresy for someone to merely comment on the things they have seen in heard in their lifetime. — dclements

Stop with the victim act. I never said I considered it heresy — in fact I’ve said I think many people who make such claims are sincere.

And yet: there are no zombies. There are no ghosts. There are no goblins.

Since I have already stated that Ouija boards don't use magic, — dclements

So they can move “on their own”, but that’s not magic?

Again: ouija boards don’t move on their own. There’s no evidence for this, and it contradicts everything we know about the world and physics.

On the other hand, maybe trying to be a little more open-minded about certain things may not be something that a person such as yourself is ready for and/or might help you in your life. — dclements

True, I’m not very open minded when it comes to childish nonsense.

But you have every right to go on believing in fairytales. That’s your business.

I’d recommend everyone read about stock buybacks. A huge amount of profits go to these. Between buybacks and dividends, roughly 90% of profits go back to shareholders.

Who owns the shares? No surprise: the top 10%, 1%, 0.1%.

The profits should be distributed better — and that means giving workers a place in decision making. The current system is undemocratic and unjust.

The simplest way to change the undemocratic, plutocratic system is to take their property away from them without compensation. — Bitter Crank

Why is this simpler than having workers have a few board seats? I think that’s at least less extreme.

What if we were a species who found working for another individual (or small group) anathema? — Real Gone Cat

I think we already are that species— it’s just been beaten out of our heads in many countries.

An employee is not an owner, so should have no input in this. — noAxioms

They should have input, considering without them there is no company and no profits.

Unless of course we’re in favor of tyranny and slavery. But I’m in favor of democracy — whether in government or in a company.

But it belongs to the company, which in turn belongs to the owners of the company. — noAxioms

Says who?

But my point, I guess, is that much of our thinking amounts to nothing actually occurring. There’s nothing wrong with that, but the assumption that ‘thinking is doing’ is false, and can lead us to this addiction to thinking, a distortion that prioritises thinking over feeling and acting. — Possibility

Any thinking is an occurrence. It’s a happening. We can observe it, we can be aware of it. When I’m imagining something or talking to myself, something is happening. When I’m sitting and planning out something, I’m doing something. It’s a non-physical activity.

It’s just a way to talk about thought. I wouldn’t get hung up on that.

As for the rest of your response— there’s too many problems I have with it to go on about, as it’ll derail this thread. But I agree with almost none of it.