How are these corporations organized? The same relationship: owners/employers (in this case the major shareholders, board of directors, and executives) hire workers/employees. The workers generate profits. What happens to those profits? Where do they go? They go to, essentially, the "owners" -- the board of directors, who decide what to do with the money. Since the board directors are chosen by major shareholders, they usually do the bidding of the major shareholders -- and we see that demonstrated today with stock buybacks and dividends, which accounts for 90+% of profit distribution (please see the links I provided earlier, or google it yourself, as this should be a stunning statement). — Xtrix

Ok, so these more-or-less correspond to commanding heights of the economy.. i.e. utilities, raw materials, construction, large technology companies, etc. How about the medium to small businesses? Would you be good with doing away with private ownership of capital heights (the really big corporate guys) and but keeping it for smaller industries (which still make up a significant amount of the economy)? Why or why not? These smaller guys tend to be owned by a single person, a partnership, a family, etc. The company is usually managed directly or through several manager in various regions and/or departments.

means of production — StreetlightX

I can't win. I mentioned private ownership of capital the first time.. But yes, Xtrix already covered what I think you were going to mention. So I pose the same question.. Would you be for getting rid of the "capital heights of the economy" (large corporate entities run by boards, shareholders, etc.) but still keep the medium and small businesses run by single proprietors that started them? It seems that much of the anger is directed towards the really big, multinational corporate Wall Street guys more than the smaller businesses. But you did mention that there is less scrutiny so often more chances for exploitation, which I can concur does make sense in small business. But, the small businesses, are the incubators for creating the bigger ones which then become almost like public goods by being so ingrained in the lives of everyone. Take for example, air conditioners. I think that was started by the Carrier company.. Before that people didn't realize what they were missing.. they just had fans and other cooling techniques...Then air conditioning became essential in hot climates. The same goes for any of these utilities.. Edison and electrical grids.. didn't know we needed them until we needed them.

But, the small businesses, are the incubators for creating the bigger ones which then become almost like public goods by being so ingrained in the lives of everyone. — schopenhauer1

Lol

But, the small businesses, are the incubators for creating the bigger ones which then become almost like public goods by being so ingrained in the lives of everyone. — schopenhauer1

You must be thinking about the era of entrepreneurship -- which has been replaced now by VC and other sources of funding. The incubator outlook is long gone.

Independent sources of capital were always a part of it. It’s still in the early phases before someone gets a return. People need the capital infusion and rarely have their own to grow the business unless already wealthy which is where an unfair advantage does enter into it.

Independent sources of capital were always a part of it. — schopenhauer1

You misunderstand. We're not talking about just any independent sources of capital here.

People need the capital infusion and rarely have their own to grow the business unless already wealthy which is where an unfair advantage does enter into it. — schopenhauer1

You are preaching to the choir.
The nature of funding these days has changed. You're still in the old school of entrepreneurship.

@Maw @Xtrix
Right, but what about these type of things? Not real? : https://www.fundera.com/blog/business-success-stories

The story of electricity is complicated, but a large part of its distribution came from Edison (with Tesla and Westinghouse continuing and improving it). https://www.nps.gov/edis/learn/historyculture/edison-biography.htm

There is the cheap automobile with Ford.. who as a person I really dislike, but he did start with little:

The company was a success from the beginning, but just five weeks after its incorporation the Association of Licensed Automobile Manufacturers threatened to put it out of business because Ford was not a licensed manufacturer. He had been denied a license by this group, which aimed at reserving for its members the profits of what was fast becoming a major industry. The basis of their power was control of a patent granted in 1895 to George Baldwin Selden, a patent lawyer of Rochester, New York. The association claimed that the patent applied to all gasoline-powered automobiles. Along with many rural Midwesterners of his generation, Ford hated industrial combinations and Eastern financial power. Moreover, Ford thought the Selden patent preposterous. All invention was a matter of evolution, he said, yet Selden claimed genesis. He was glad to fight, even though the fight pitted the puny Ford Motor Company against an industry worth millions of dollars. The gathering of evidence and actual court hearings took six years. Ford lost the original case in 1909; he appealed and won in 1911. His victory had wide implications for the industry, and the fight made Ford a popular hero.

“I will build a motor car for the great multitude,” Ford proclaimed in announcing the birth of the Model T in October 1908. In the 19 years of the Model T’s existence, he sold 15,500,000 of the cars in the United States, almost 1,000,000 more in Canada, and 250,000 in Great Britain, a production total amounting to half the auto output of the world. The motor age arrived owing mostly to Ford’s vision of the car as the ordinary man’s utility rather than as the rich man’s luxury. Once only the rich had travelled freely around the country; now millions could go wherever they pleased. The Model T was the chief instrument of one of the greatest and most rapid changes in the lives of the common people in history, and it effected this change in less than two decades. Farmers were no longer isolated on remote farms. The horse disappeared so rapidly that the transfer of acreage from hay to other crops caused an agricultural revolution. The automobile became the main prop of the American economy and a stimulant to urbanization—cities spread outward, creating suburbs and housing developments—and to the building of the finest highway system in the world. — https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12347/a-ceo-deserves-his-rewards-if-workers-can-survive-off-his-salary/latest/comment

The airplane started from humble entrepreneur origins..

In 1909, when the Wright Company was incorporated with a capitalization of $1,000,000, the Wright brothers received $100,000, 40 percent of the stock, and a 10 percent royalty on every plane sold. The company developed extensive financial interests in aviation during those early years but, counter to the recommendations of its financiers, did not establish a tight monopoly.

By 1911, pilots were flying in competitive races over long distances between European cities, and this provided enormous incentives for companies to produce faster and more reliable aircraft. In 1911–12 the Wright Company earned more than $1,000,000, mostly in exhibition fees and prizes rather than in sales. French aircraft emerged as the most advanced and for a time were superior to those of competing countries. All planes built in this early period were similar in construction—wings and fuselage frames were made of wood (usually spruce or fir) and covered with a coated fabric. — https://www.britannica.com/technology/aerospace-industry/History

So that represents the incubator period.. Orville Wright made a lot of money.. But then other companies made their own and created conglomoaretes.. There's your big business height of industry phase...

The Boeing Company was started in 1916, when American lumber industrialist William E. Boeing founded Aero Products Company in Seattle, Washington. Shortly before doing so, he and Conrad Westervelt created the "B&W" seaplane.[14][15] In 1917, the organization was renamed Boeing Airplane Company, with William Boeing forming Boeing Airplane & Transport Corporation in 1928.[14] In 1929, the company was renamed United Aircraft and Transport Corporation, followed by the acquisition of several aircraft makers such as Avion, Chance Vought, Sikorsky Aviation, Stearman Aircraft, Pratt & Whitney, and Hamilton Metalplane.[2]

In 1931, the group merged its four smaller airlines into United Airlines. In 1934, the manufacture of aircraft was required to be separate from air transportation.[16] Therefore, Boeing Airplane Company became one of three major groups to arise from dissolution of United Aircraft and Transport; the other two entities were United Aircraft (later United Technologies) and United Airlines.[2][16] — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing

So Boeing came about from William making money on the timber industry? How did he do that? His dad worked in timber and was able to buy small acres and make a bit of money that way.. William took that idea and expanded it by buying even more lucrative land out in the state of Washington.. Once he had that money he didn't even have to live on premise at Washington but in Michigan. From there he could do side businesses on hobby interests of his, like flight.. those hobby interests turned into profits when he bought small airplane companies and started bringing them under one corporation. But you see, it took him doing all of this.. It didn't just "come about".

Marx was a good writer, but a hypocrite of the highest order. Wherever his doctrines have been employed there has been nothing but moral and systematic failure on a grand scale. — NOS4A2

Here you confess you know little about Marx.

His vision has never been "employed," only corrupted. The now-meaningless word "communism" - that is to say, state capitalism - the Soviet Union, China, etc - is wholly divorced from Marx's vision - in the same way the loons at the Westboro Baptist Church are wholly divorced from the beatific vision.

Marx was betrayed.

This thread started from a tangent on an earlier one between me and StreetlightX. That part of the thread is here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10310/solutions-for-overpopulation/latest/comment

So this thread is continuing that discussion.. The last couple of posts went something like this:

CEOs/business owners provide incomes, healthcare, and even vacations for their employees. They can move to a new CEO/business owner's domain (business) if they want. What is wrong with this arrangement? Things to consider:

1) The business owner (if a smaller business) gambled his own time, resources, and money (or debt) to generate the capital to start his/her business.

2) The workers are getting market-value salaries that sustain their survival and entertainment, rents/mortgages, food, clothes, HVAC, water, healthcare, car payments, disposable income for goods/services of all kinds.

3) The basis for technology is businesses interacting with other businesses to gather the goods/services to create products that sell and sustain their workers.

What is wrong with this arrangement? To see this in more detail, please read these posts:

schopenhauer1: The CEO of a small tech company gets paid $2 million. The head developer gets paid $300,000. A mid-level developer and R&D personnel $150,000. The tech support gets paid $60-75,000. The sales people range from $70-$200,000. The people in the manufacturing get a range from $45-$85,000 depending on their position. Customer service and related personnel get $50,000. They all get increases every year 5% for inflation. Everyone likes their little hierarchy. In larger companies, the numbers may be more and more room for ladder-climbing. Third world nations that are chiefly exporting and living subsistence want this little hierarchy too. You are trying to take that away with themes of "no property". Rather, the CEO gambled, and put in that effort 30 years ago and deserves the reward of profit-maker and figure head. The developers and mid level people are getting paid enough to live comfortably and do those things mentioned earlier (BBQs, TVs, etc.).. The third world see this and want it exported to their country. So these people would ask you what is your problem? Is it the big guys? The international corporations? The ones that pay the "real bucks" and you can climb much further up the hierarchy? Why would they hate "that"? Hey, you might even get healthcare too! (Bestowed from government or business/fiefdom).

The workers think, "Why should we own the capital.. The owner put that initial gamble and work into the company. It is his profits. He is gracious enough to pay me enough to live. I get to go on vacation soon!".

The only response you will give is some cliched notion of starving Africans who are not a part of this system right? But that is itself a different problem than taking away property. You are confusing development issues and issues surrounding fundamentals of property... But I'll be charitable and assume you are NOT going down that cliched road of third world vs. first world in this justification for no property (in the first world). So if that's the case, what is the need for taking away the capital from those who gambled to create the growth of business (and bestowment of jobs) created from that initial capital? So we will go back to global, mega corporations right? Because they are employing low wage workers in third world companies? So we go back to that... So really it is back to large corporations.. and so you fall into simply "liberal" who wants get rid of multnational corporations that exploit third world countries. That is right in line with "liberal" versions of standard capitalism. Get in line.

What would you say to the people in that small business scenario who are content (enough) with their pay, vacations, and healthcare? To them, the hierarchy sustains. The capitalist class CEO has provided for them. — schopenhauer1

If I was to play the devils advocate, I could argue that a dictator or a leader of a criminal syndicate (or anyone like them) has just as much right to their ill gotten gains as the CEO you are talking about. Just like a CEO the leader of a dictatorship or criminal enterprise has to make sure those underneath them are take care of as well deal with anything or anyone who threatens; and sometimes with violence if necessary which is something that CEOs themselves almost never have to deal with.

Because there are so many parallels between those who run countries, criminal organizations, and those who run corporations, in my humble opinion one could declare there really isn't that much difference at all. In fact, one could argue that the difference the philosophy of corporate capitalism (which is really crony capitalism/plutocracy not real capitalism) and something like pure unfiltered Machiavellianism, is that "capitalism" is merely a form of Machiavellianism where the rich and powerful are supposed to wear kid gloves when resolving issues and not have to resort to violence in order determine who gets to be at the top of the heap.

And if some or most of the workers realizes that the wealthy and powerful are really just using Machiavellian tactics in order to make THEM seem all that important (awhile degrading the value of their workers and the work they produce) then it is up to those workers to work together, organize, and take measure in order for the owners of the companies they work for don't exploit them.

It isn't a matter about the owners being the "good guys" and unionized workers being the "bad guys" or vice versa, it is merely a fact that for companies the bottom line is that they need to do everything they can to make a profit so they can grow, pay dividends to their shareholders, and have some surplus cash to either pay off loans or save for a rainy day; and the easiest way to do this is pay their workers as little as possible while yet trying to squeeze as much blood, sweat, and tears out of them as they possibly can while they are at work. And of course, it is often in the best interest of any worker for the to be measures in place (such as minimum wage, OSHA, the Department of Labor) to make sure if any organization is not in compliance with doing enough for their workers, there will be actions taken against said company.

And I believe it also should be said that in the developed world today, more effort and resources are being expended but corporations, the rich, and the powerful to undermine workers and their rights then to be used to make sure people that work for any company are being treated well and get the compensation they deserve for doing the work they do.

In a way it is kind of silly to talk about the "intrinsic values" that the CEO, those that finance the company, and it's workers give or provide to a company while either creating a product or service for their customers. These values are as real as the values that either a dictator provides for his people or a Mafia boss provides for his henchmen and 'clients'. When a farmer or butcher kills a cow they are not the ones that produced the meat from the cow, it was the cow that created the meat that one gets from it's body. However it is a given that an animal can not be compensated (or that one who killed it would want to do that) for the meat that one gets from it's body after it is killed, nor would it likely want to. While one could argue that the cow and other animals are "compensated" by the fact that we take care of them before they are butchered for meat or other products we produce from them, one would find that such conditions if used on humans would be considered something like slave labor or perhaps even worse.

The same could be said about many other things to exploit either animals, plants, or the environment around us in order to take something from someone (if you can think of an animal as someone) or something in the environment (which is kind of not that different from either stealing from or exploiting someone) and claim that such actions magically "produce" something out of nothing other than the human actions that it to to procure such resource is really a foolish notion. However this cartoon that is taught by those that favor our current form of capitalism and corporate American is believed by almost most Americans.

The people that created the system that is used to exploit the world around us (much like your average consumer might obtains a twinkie, open and eats it, and carelessly discards it's wrapper) merely want the people that live and work in said system to either not know or care to know about what is really going on. The reason for this is if they understand that they have a clear understanding of how the world around them is exploited merely in order to maximize a companies profit potential, they might stop for a moment and wonder "Gee if they are willing to ruthlessly exploit the world around me in order to just make a few bucks are they above using whatever measures available to them as a worker or a consumer to use me as well?" and the answer is more or less "no", those who run corporations as well as those in power are not above exploiting workers, customers, and other people as well in order for them to get what they want.

Again this is not about those that run corporations or those in power being more necessarily "evil" or "good" than the rest of us, it is just about that such people already have the resources and means to make sure their interests are being considered and protected while it is more or less a given that the rest of us don't have such a luxury since we don't have access to said resources and/or connections. In the end, the version capitalism we are taught about in school doesn't really exist, instead that is merely a façade to cover up the political machinery that has been used since the days of colonialism (and even before then) where those with wealth and power use those beneath them for their own ends, much in a way that a famer might use his cattle for his personal gain. The concepts of "human rights", "justice", "etc" only exist for those wealthy enough in the system to afford such luxuries and don't necessarily apply (or at least apply the same way) to those of us who can't afford the resources required to protect and provide for us the same way as those who live in a caste higher than us.

In a way, the system set up in the post-colonial western world is not that much different then the caste system that use to exist in in India, where you have things like priests and kings at the top and peasants, labors, as well as the "untouchables" at the very bottom. Again i could be wrong, but I see a parallel between the caste/class system that exist in the west and the caste system created and used in India. While someone like a spin doctor from a western country might be able to create an almost convincing argument where it sounds like CEOs and corporate owners are being "used" and "under appreciated " by liberal politicians, their cohorts, as well as those who have been brainwashed by the evil powers "socialism" propaganda, as a philosopher/someone who has been taught about critical thinking stop and ask yourself is the social system in the US (and some other countries) not that different then the caste system from India, and if you believe it is ask yourself who is more likely to be exploited in such a system. Do you think it is more likely that the kings and priests who are being used/ under appreciated/ exploited or do you think it is more likely peasants, labors, and/or "untouchables" who are being treated in such a way. Again I could be wrong about such parallels existing between the India and Western caste/class systems, but if you do agree that they do exist I think you can see the fallacies that arise when those on the top of a caste system try to argue that they are the one's being "exploited".

Do you think it is more likely that the kings and priests who are being used/ under appreciated/ exploited or do you think it is more likely peasants, labors, and/or "untouchables" who are being treated in such a way. Again I could be wrong about such parallels existing between the India and Western caste/class systems, but if you do agree that they do exist I think you can see the fallacies that arise when those on the top of a caste system try to argue that they are the one's being "exploited". — dclements

So my whole argument here is a sort of devil's advocate. I started another thread perhaps truer to my own philosophy.. that the fact that we don't understand the technology we use is a sort of alienation on various fronts that allows for exploitation of the keepers of the knowledge.. I am sort of mocking the system whereby people must crawl to another fiefdom of technology-hoarders to dispense little pockets of productive activities for the workers, so that they can consume and make other technology-hoarders (uh, producers), money and so on..

So my whole argument here is a sort of devil's advocate. I started another thread perhaps truer to my own philosophy.. that the fact that we don't understand the technology we use is a sort of alienation on various fronts that allows for exploitation of the keepers of the knowledge.. I am sort of mocking the system whereby people must crawl to another fiefdom of technology-hoarders to dispense little pockets of productive activities for the workers, so that they can consume and make other technology-hoarders (uh, producers), money and so on.. — schopenhauer1

I hear you, I kind of thought you might be trying to make the argument you made even though you really didn't think that way. However in this post cold war world we live it where it is believed that capitalism is the only economic system that can work and where a lot of people think Ayn Rand was a great philosopher/thinker, it is hard to know for sure if you where really being serious with what you said or if you were just playing devil's advocate as you said.

On the old philosophy forum there use to be a member there that was really pro-capitalism there ( I believe his moniker was "Fried Egg" or something like that) and he use to make arguments not that different then the one you tried to make in the opening post, however he was really serious about what he was saying. I think that perhaps the difference between what he argued and what you I believe is that he tried to argue from some kind of scientific/economic theory model and basically didn't think about and/or care about the social issues brought by because of the differences between the have's and those who are disenfranchised because they are unable to be part of that group. I haven't seen him in this forum and I guess I'm only mentioning him to point out that that I have at least seen people try to make somewhat similar pro-capitalism arguments even if they kind of cherry-pick the aspects of the argument they wish to address, so don't blame me too much for thinking that what you said in your OP might be what you believe.

In many ways it is worse that what I argued and you said, the system has always been a bit lopsided toward the rich but it is getting more so each year. Corporations no longer pay the lion share of the taxes through profits (instead it comes from wages), and it seems like the power people have through voting and/or other means hardly makes a difference anymore. i don't have the time right now, but in the next day or so I will research and look through some of my old stuff to find various links and YouTube videos might shed a little more light on this issue then I can by myself.

In many ways it is worse that what I argued and you said, the system has always been a bit lopsided toward the rich but it is getting more so each year. Corporations no longer pay the lion share of the taxes through profits (instead it comes from wages), and it seems like the power people have through voting and/or other means hardly makes a difference anymore. i don't have the time right now, but in the next day or so I will research and look through some of my old stuff to find various links and YouTube videos might shed a little more light on this issue then I can by myself. — dclements

So I am in alignment with what you are saying, but I guess I am looking at it from a different angle than traditional left politics. So I notice that you mention wealth and taxes and profits. Well, much of these are held up in stocks and such.. so spreading around the wealth would mean a lot of times, spreading around the stocks, which just means more people holding stocks in corporations, etc. However, I am trying to get at it not just as an inequality of wealth (the traditional model), but an inequality of information. So this definitely is more in line with Marx' idea of controlling means of production, but it emphasizes not just some sort of public "ownership" but public knowledge of how things work. In other words, we are alienated from the technologies that make our stuff, and we are rendered helpless consumers because of this. We are literally doled out only the portion of knowledge necessary to keep the corporate/business owner interests going. We can read up on stuff sure, but we will never actually have any technological efficacy because we lack access to the actual technology. We can maybe make do with hobby projects like using a Raspberry Pi or something like that, but this is not the same.. It is a simulation of that technology and makes little impact on how people live in the world. I am not sure if this is making sense.

How about the medium to small businesses? Would you be good with doing away with private ownership of capital heights (the really big corporate guys) and but keeping it for smaller industries (which still make up a significant amount of the economy)? Why or why not? — schopenhauer1

There's two separate points I'm making.

#1. Capitalism itself, based on the definition I prefer and explained, should be dismantled. I don't think the system is legitimate.

#2. Given that we're most likely a long way out from dismantling this system, something should be done in the meantime. This means dismantling neoliberalism and, perhaps, returning to the era of "regimented capitalism" -- strong unions, high growth, more egalitarian distribution of wealth, etc. The kind we saw in the 50s and 60s. This seems more within reach and a good stepping stone to phasing out capitalism altogether in the long run.

So to answer your question: I'm not against business. Many businesses are small, yes. But just because they aren't multinational corporations doesn't negate the fundamentally exploitative relationship at the heart of them, if indeed they are capitalist -- meaning they (owners, employers) pay their workers a wage for their labor. Again, this would be as inconsistent as arguing that because there were very kind slaveowners, who treated their slaves well, that we should overlook the illegitimate nature of the system of chattel slavery.

But that's not the only way businesses can organize. You can still have profits and markets. What you can do is make it democratic -- i.e., organize the workplace democratically. I mentioned worker co-ops as model. This would mean that the workers decide how to run the business -- what to produce, how to produce it, what to do with the profits, how everyone gets paid, etc. Mondragon is often used as an example -- a very successful, large corporation. Happens to a be a cooperative.

When you say "private ownership," it's not so simple. I'm not against private ownership in the case of the co-op, where the workers own the business. I'm against a handful of people (or even one person) owning the business and making all the decisions, while hundreds, thousands, or millions of workers -- who are the majority of the company and who generate the profits -- are completely shut out of all decision making. In other words, I'm against totalitarianism and tyranny.

Modern capitalist corporations are private tyrannies. Those who want to rail against government, which is at least partly democratic, while ignoring the corporation, where there is no democracy, have simply fallen prey to the sophisticated (and not so sophisticated) capitalist apologetics that have been bought from so-called intellectuals through the decades. All under the guise of "freedom" -- free enterprise, free markets, free trade, etc. All complete nonsense.

So I am in alignment with what you are saying, but I guess I am looking at it from a different angle than traditional left politics. So I notice that you mention wealth and taxes and profits. Well, much of these are held up in stocks and such.. so spreading around the wealth would mean a lot of times, spreading around the stocks, which just means more people holding stocks in corporations, etc. However, I am trying to get at it not just as an inequality of wealth (the traditional model), but an inequality of information. So this definitely is more in line with Marx' idea of controlling means of production, but it emphasizes not just some sort of public "ownership" but public knowledge of how things work. In other words, we are alienated from the technologies that make our stuff, and we are rendered helpless consumers because of this. We are literally doled out only the portion of knowledge necessary to keep the corporate/business owner interests going. We can read up on stuff sure, but we will never actually have any technological efficacy because we lack access to the actual technology. We can maybe make do with hobby projects like using a Raspberry Pi or something like that, but this is not the same.. It is a simulation of that technology and makes little impact on how people live in the world. I am not sure if this is making sense. — schopenhauer1

One thing I guess I should point out is that I don't really believe that "socialism" is good and capitalism is "bad", but more along the lines that a mixture of both might be better than a system that is too reliant on one or the other. To be honest I'm not sure exactly what that would look like other than the fact that before the cold war ended it seemed that the US was more willing to do things like have strong unions, more social programs for the poor, etc. then what currently exist. Today in many circles it ludicrous to even suggest that anything even close to socialism might be a good idea or work such as universal minimal income or more and/or stronger unions. Also I believe that the people running the government decades ago were more watchful and/or of those who run huge corporations in order that their power couldn't overwhelm either the market or the government itself, however I think that is no longer the case since it is more or less a given that the richest families in America (such as the Koch brothers) control it and it is very difficult or next to impossible for the powers that be to keep such groups in check.

I'm not exactly sure if this inequality of access to information is as much a problem as you say it is unless you are talking about the difference between those that live in the developed world and those that do not or perhaps those that have access to the internet. I guess this is a debatable subject and would likely require a thread all by itself, but for me it seems like those of us who barely survive by living hand to mouth (which is more or less true of your humble narrator) who are still able to access the internet and most of the information that other people do are more overwhelmed by their lack of access to other resources (such as food, a car to get around in, proper medicine, etc.) than their lack of not knowing what is going on in the world. I guess one could argue that there is a large gap between those that struggle to survive because they have less time and energy to invest in knowing what is going on around them and the fact that those with money and power have the ability to do things like push out propaganda that suits their needs, donate/bribe politicians, and buy media outlets to control access to what the masses are able to know; however all of this has been going on since around the beginning of the industrial age so I believe it is more of an underlining or ongoing problem that something "new".

Below are a few videos and links that talk about some of the issues I have been trying to address in either the post in this thread or perhaps posts on similar issues in other threads. In reality such information is merely scratching the surface of the problem but I believe if either you (and/or anyone else reading this post) watch the videos and read the articles in the links than you will have a better understanding of what I'm talking about.






It’s the Inequality, Stupid - Eleven charts that explain what’s wrong with America.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph/

America’s Wealth Gap Is Much More Obscene Than You Had Imagined - And it’s a problem for everyone.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/04/americas-wealth-gap-is-much-more-obscene-than-you-had-imagined/

Rich people more unethical, likely to cheat and steal, study finds
https://theworld.org/stories/2012-02-28/rich-people-more-unethical-likely-cheat-and-steal-study-finds

CNN - Are rich people more unethical?
https://www.cnn.com/2012/02/27/health/rich-more-unethical/index.html

.) than their lack of not knowing what is going on in the world. I guess one could argue that there is a large gap between those that struggle to survive because they have less time and energy to invest in knowing what is going on around them and the fact that those with money and power have the ability to do things like push out propaganda that suits their needs, donate/bribe politicians, and buy media outlets to control access to what the masses are able to know; however all of this has been going on since around the beginning of the industrial age so I believe it is more of an underlining or ongoing problem that something "new". — dclements

So, I'm not talking about access to political information or even general knowledge on how technology works. But literally be able to make and produce items. Can you design and produce a transmission, for example? Nope, that would rely on the expertise of other people who know far more and are probably paid quite handsomely for it.. You would need to be involved in a whole litany of supply chain networks that you have no access to. It is to be distributed and doled out to the consumer and to their workers by the gods of car distribution (aka boards and owners of car companies).

So, I'm not talking about access to political information or even general knowledge on how technology works. But literally be able to make and produce items. Can you design and produce a transmission, for example? Nope, that would rely on the expertise of other people who know far more and are probably paid quite handsomely for it.. You would need to be involved in a whole litany of supply chain networks that you have no access to. It is to be distributed and doled out to the consumer and to their workers by the gods of car distribution (aka boards and owners of car companies). — schopenhauer1

I could be wrong but that really isn't about access to information but more about one's access to resources and/or people that manage such a thing. If one has enough money (or knows the right people) one could start a company or corporation that designs transmissions without hardly any knowledge on how a transmission works.

Two examples of this are Stanley Tools and the Edison Electric company. In the case of Stanley tools in the early years of American construction there where many handymen that invented tools that made their work easier but after inventing such a tool they would either not make any money on it or would go bankrupt trying to make and sell it. The founder of Stanley likely didn't really have the knowledge to invent such things but instead would go around and buy the patents from those that did invent such things. And since he had enough money to buy the patents, create an assembly line, and create the logistics to move such products to the market he was much more successful making and selling such items where the inventors of such items where not. One of the things one should know about the process of designing/inventing new products is that when it comes to making new products where there is little to market already for them is that more often than not is that even if one has access to the resources to create, build, and distribute such items (or any item for that matter) more often than not they will NOT make profit off any given product but instead will make a profit if they come up with several new products and one of those products IS successful and off the profits off that one item they will make up for the failures of the ones that produce no profits and/or those that cause a lose when they try and sell them.

With Thomas Edison although we are often told in history lessons he was a very successful inventor/businessman, the truth is that he probably couldn't invent anything even if his life depended on it and instead hired an small army of scientists and engineers who instead did about 99.9% of the leg work required in inventing and creating any of the products that his company made. Edison merely had access to the money (as well those that were willing to fund him) and the business savvy to produce and sell to his consumers and clients. I also believe that he was so ruthless that he gave little credit for those who came up with the inventions for his company nor really would compensate them for their hard work so much like the Stanley Tools story, the actual inventors of various products sold by the company really didn't see much profit for their hard work.

In the real world of businesses and corporations, one's about to know how something works and the ability to invent a product often isn't a real profitable one unless one is able to come up with a product that is relatively inexpensive to make and ship, can be sold for an amount that is a lot more than whatever cost it is to make and ship (or whatever costs it takes to get to a consumer), and that there is a large enough demand for them to keep on making and selling it to the consumer year in and year out. In the end it is really about who has the money, resources, and the knowledge to support such operations and not about who has the knowledge on how to invent and create such products since if a company that invents such a product is successful they can either be bought out or simply crushed by a bigger company such as Netscape was crushed by Microsoft when Microsoft started including Internet Explorer for free with their Windows operating system, when at the time one would have to pay in order to use the Netscape browser (and it was Netscape who really first came up with the idea of the commercial browser that people use today).

In a way, what it really boils down to is a saying I was often told when I worked at the casino, "In the end, it is almost always a given that it is the BIG money that wins". What that basically means is for gamblers is if all other things are equal (such as skill, etc.), the player at the table with the most money will win in the end will be able to keep on playing while the other players who have less money will have to at some point walk away because they will no longer be able to keep on playing and will have to walk away from the game.

I don't know if you agree with all of this but I think my argument is a pretty sound one where it is more about how one knows how do things like run a business/corporation, logistics/operations, and either have lots of money and/or have access to it through banks or people to fund them then it has anything to do with one's ability to know how something works and invent a product in the first place. After all the world is full of corporations who rely on products that where invented by other people or companies, but in the end they merely created a similar product and were more successful in selling and making a profit from it. Since one's ability to invent things isn't really a ticket to becoming wealthy, I can't see it being a reason to argue as it being the major sticking point that you are suggesting it to be.

I don't know if you agree with all of this but I think my argument is a pretty sound one where it is more about how one knows how do things like run a business/corporation, logistics/operations, and either have lots of money and/or have access to it through banks or people to fund them then it has anything to do with one's ability to know how something works and invent a product in the first place. After all the world is full of corporations who rely on products that where invented by other people or companies, but in the end they merely created a similar product and were more successful in selling and making a profit from it. Since one's ability to invent things isn't really a ticket to becoming wealthy, I can't see it being a reason to argue as it being the major sticking point that you are suggesting it to be. — dclements

I could have quoted any of this, but this part summarized it well. Yeah, I think you make a good point. You have to have money to make money. This on top of sourcing connections.. You have to know the the people that start the manufacturing process. You need to know the people to source the capital resources to create the end product. This takes money and supply connections. That's how the capital overlords become the overlords in the first place. Usually they do indeed have a prototype or an idea, but that is usually for a first product line that quickly gets improved or scratched and remade with more expert input.. Now the overlord has the time to get the financing, sourcing, and accounting the materials. Then they simply become about big picture ideas: marketing strategies, acquisitions, stockholder information, etc.

I still think there is a point to be made that we are often the passive recipients of technology. Either way, I think there is tremendous amount of inertia to change this system you and I have written about.

I could have quoted any of this, but this part summarized it well. Yeah, I think you make a good point. You have to have money to make money. This on top of sourcing connections.. You have to know the the people that start the manufacturing process. You need to know the people to source the capital resources to create the end product. This takes money and supply connections. That's how the capital overlords become the overlords in the first place. Usually they do indeed have a prototype or an idea, but that is usually for a first product line that quickly gets improved or scratched and remade with more expert input.. Now the overlord has the time to get the financing, sourcing, and accounting the materials. Then they simply become about big picture ideas: marketing strategies, acquisitions, stockholder information, etc.

I still think there is a point to be made that we are often the passive recipients of technology. Either way, I think there is tremendous amount of inertia to change this system you and I have written about. — schopenhauer1

I think I more or less agree with everything you said in this post. :grin: