Fair enough. I only know Friedman. Hayek and Von Mises are probably worth reading as well. But who has the time for bullshit.

Just playing devils advocate, as difficult as it is. I agree with you.

Embedded liberalism was supported by Marxists and socialists. If it had continued to evolve, the US would be more leftist right now. Those who targeted it for destruction claimed that it was collectivism at it's worst and was bound to lead to some kind of slavery in America. The characterization of it as socialist isn't unacceptable. — frank

Ok. Failing to see the relevance to the thread, but fine.

Fine by me. :wink: — Tom Storm

But this infringes on the rights of private citizens. In the private enterprise system the role of the corporation is solely to maximize profits within the bounds of the law, because that's what the shareholders (owners) want. Anything beyond this is -- any social responsibility -- is socialism; i.e., infringement on private property rights and the freedom of individuals to pursue their self interests.

It's in line with embedded liberalism. The main practical argument for it is that it should protect a capitalist economy from breakdowns like the Great Depression. — frank

But in terms of the idea that corporations have social responsibilities, it's socialism. The argument being that the corporation is owned by the shareholders, and the shareholders want to maximize profits. That should be its sole responsibility, within the bounds of the law.

Corporations are part of our community and should be responsible to that community for how they conduct business and what they produce. — Tom Storm

But corporations are not owned by the community. While they’re in communities, what they do in the privacy of their own buildings isn’t the business of the community. Those from the community who wish to work there indirectly agree that the owners run the company.

To argue corporations should conduct their business and decide what to produce based on community needs is socialism through and through.

I sound like a broken record, but any time one wants to discuss science one should at least define what one means by science.

Who looks silly now?You, of course. — god must be atheist

:kiss:

I was hoping that you would connect the dots yourself as any good philosopher should do. — Deus

There are no dots to connect — which is why you can’t explain what they are.

Next time, don’t just copy and paste from a Website and claim that it answers something if you don’t know yourself.

What was the “question” which those quotes are supposed to answer, anyway? Can you even explain that?

The version of him that’s given today is just ridiculous. But I didn’t have to any research to find this out. All you have to do is read. If you’re literate, you’ll find it out.

(Chomsky)

Don’t know much about this Chomsky guy but looking at the quotes you’ve provided he seems like the typical academical scholar divorced from reality. — Deus

Yeah, sorry, but a comment like this is embarrassing. Considering Chomsky has actually read Smith, unlike you — apart from the fact that he’s an internationally respected scholar.

Also, nothing in your copy-and-paste job has the slightest relevance to the OP. If you want to try to draw the connection, do so. Otherwise you’re just quoting incoherently.

I recommend *reading* Adam Smith instead of pasting random passages from a Website. It’s transparently obvious you haven’t yet done so, and I’m not interested in posturing.

Gotta agree with Chomsky here regarding Smith:

Just read it. He’s pre-capitalist, a figure of the Enlightenment. What we would call capitalism he despised. People read snippets of Adam Smith, the few phrases they teach in school. Everybody reads the first paragraph of The Wealth of Nations where he talks about how wonderful the division of labor is. But not many people get to the point hundreds of pages later, where he says that division of labor will destroy human beings and turn people into creatures as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human being to be. And therefore in any civilized society the government is going to have to take some measures to prevent division of labor from proceeding to its limits.

He also made remarks which ought to be truisms about the way states work. He pointed out that its totally senseless to talk about a nation and what we would nowadays call “national interests.” He simply observed in passing, because it’s so obvious, that in England, which is what he’s discussing — and it was the most democratic society of the day — the principal architects of policy are the “merchants and manufacturers,” and they make certain that their own interests are, in his words, “most peculiarly attended to,” no matter what the effect on others, including the people of England who, he argued, suffered from their policies. He didn’t have the data to prove it at the time, but he was probably right.

I’m very familiar with Smith. I don’t consider this a summary of his “overall thought,” nor do I see much connection with the OP or what we were discussing.

That’s a well known quote. But have you actually read Adam Smith? Was this what you meant by “covered it well”?

What you describe seems to be what he described as the “vile maxim”:

All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.

He says of “merchants and manufacturers” that they’re….

an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the publick, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the publick, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.

He was writing before the rise of corporations, of course.

Elsewhere:

The interest of the dealer, in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respect different from, and even opposite to, that of the publick. To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the publick; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can only serve to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they would normally be, to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens.

He goes on and on.

I would try to resist the influence of mainstream libertarian portrayals of Smith.

Adam Smith covered this concept pretty well. — Deus

Yeah? Please point me to the relevant passages you have in mind.

From January 2020, before the pandemic, William Lazonick:

Even as the United States continues to experience its longest economic expansion since World War II, concern is growing that soaring corporate debt will make the economy susceptible to a contraction that could get out of control. The root cause of this concern is the trillions of dollars that major U.S. corporations have spent on open-market repurchases — aka “stock buybacks” — since the financial crisis a decade ago. In 2018 alone, with corporate profits bolstered by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, companies in the S&P 500 Index did a combined $806 billion in buybacks, about $200 billion more than the previous record set in 2007. The $370 billion in repurchases which these companies did in the first half of 2019 is on pace for total annual buybacks that are second only to 2018. When companies do these buybacks, they deprive themselves of the liquidity that might help them cope when sales and profits decline in an economic downturn.

Pretty spot-on. Three months later, COVID lockdowns would start and the debt picture wasn't pretty -- especially among the shadow banks. So another massive bailout was needed...again.

So much for free market capitalist fantasies.

Regarding the OP:

The investment in the knowledge base that makes a company competitive goes far beyond R&D expenditures. In fact, in 2018, only 43% of companies in the S&P 500 Index recorded any R&D expenses, with just 38 companies accounting for 75% of the R&D spending of all 500 companies. Whether or not a firm spends on R&D, all companies have to invest broadly and deeply in the productive capabilities of their employees in order to remain competitive in global markets.

Stock buybacks made as open-market repurchases make no contribution to the productive capabilities of the firm. Indeed, these distributions to shareholders, which generally come on top of dividends, disrupt the growth dynamic that links the productivity and pay of the labor force. The results are increased income inequity, employment instability, and anemic productivity.

Buybacks’ drain on corporate treasuries has been massive. The 465 companies in the S&P 500 Index in January 2019 that were publicly listed between 2009 and 2018 spent, over that decade, $4.3 trillion on buybacks, equal to 52% of net income, and another $3.3 trillion on dividends, an additional 39% of net income. In 2018 alone, even with after-tax profits at record levels because of the Republican tax cuts, buybacks by S&P 500 companies reached an astounding 68% of net income, with dividends absorbing another 41%.

Harvard Business Review

So why is this happening?

Why have U.S. companies done these massive buybacks? With the majority of their compensation coming from stock options and stock awards, senior corporate executives have used open-market repurchases to manipulate their companies’ stock prices to their own benefit and that of others who are in the business of timing the buying and selling of publicly listed shares. Buybacks enrich these opportunistic share sellers — investment bankers and hedge-fund managers as well as senior corporate executives — at the expense of employees, as well as continuing shareholders.

This answers the question of the thread: the profits are being shipped to shareholders at the rate of about 90%.

That's where the profits go. At the expense of everyone else.

We need some kind of electoral reform to do away with fist past the post voting systems that always result in a two-party system. — bert1

It is indeed strange that we’re one of only a few developed countries that don’t have a labor party or something similar. We have, as many others have pointed out, two factions of one party: the corporate party. I think destroying that is a good idea. Whether that means electoral reform, I don’t know.

The laffer curve. Lol. Do people still take that nonsense seriously?

Why the Laffer Curve Is Garbage

Not only have numerous studies and authors debunked these economic underpinnings, but the model itself is an unreliable predictor of economic outcomes.

There has never been a conclusive study that demonstrates a connection between lowered tax rates on the wealthy and GDP growth or increased tax receipts. During the 1940s and the 1970s, the top marginal tax rate was anywhere between 70 percent and 94 percent. In this same period, we experienced the largest GDP growth our country has ever seen, and we were able to invest in the future of our children, economy and environment.

After the 1980s, when the top marginal tax rate began its steady decline, we haven’t seen nearly the GDP gains that we saw during our post-World War II boom. Currently, our top marginal tax rate rests at 39.6 percent.

To understand why The Laffer Curve is garbage economics, we need to look past first order consequences. Rather, we need to try to determine the second and third level effects of the given cause.

Let’s say the top tax rate is a punishing 99 percent of income over $5 million, but all other aspects of the tax code are intact. These income earners are unlikely to take a dollar over that $5 million, but the excess money doesn’t simply evaporate – it came to them through profits the business.

There are two places where this money could go: back into the business or the hands of employees. Shareholders benefit either way, through increased capital reserve or infrastructure investment or happier, better-paid labor. That is one very important purpose of a strong progressive tax structure – it incentivizes those on the top to take less for themselves and invest in their business.

Adjusting income tax rates does not completely remediate the problem. Capital earners pay nearly half of what top income earners pay. It is these capital earners who most distort our economic and political systems. As a result of this tax schema, the share of the economic pie the wealthy command is metastasizing. We need to revisit how we tax capital, too.

Sure. And you could keep your Twitter-level posts out of conversations in which you’re not involved and have no interest in keeping up with. So I guess we can all improve ourselves! :wink:

For the record, at best one might say China is state-capitalist, like the US. But “socialist market economy” is probably the most accurate in the end. State intervention is rather extensive, I’d day.

Anyway- This thread is a good example of how important (and clearly unexamined) one’s self-serving definitions are. And how quickly capitalist apologists devolve into laughable incoherence.

Successful economy? That’s capitalism.
Failed economy? Socialism.

Easy. Simple.

This is the level of thinking among supposed adults on a philosophy forum. ::shrug::

So they’re mixed economies
— Xtrix

Sure. Japan and S. Korea are capitalist countries. — frank

Sure. Japan and South Korea are socialist countries.

It just means industry is privately owned and profit driven as opposed to a centrally planned. — frank

Massive state intervention on every level is…capitalism. Got it.

China's prosperity is a direct result of the adoption of capitalism. — frank

:lol:

China isn’t capitalist either.

But you’re welcome to your fantasies.

Average argument of a socialist. — javi2541997

your brainwashed claims! — javi2541997

fake news or Marxist liars who want to spread their fundamentalism. — javi2541997

you enjoy poverty and you see formidable the struggle of a country which suffers from dictatorship. — javi2541997

Cuba? Because you seem obsessed with this country. — javi2541997

:ok:

“Or feel free to continue spouting nonsense. Your call.”

So you went with this option. Oh well!

You probably have to define profits here. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Net earnings. The “bottom line.”

Payments out to owners, either dividends if stock has been issued, or profit sharing for partnerships. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Or buybacks, which are gargantuan. Together with dividends they account for 90% of where the profits go. Wasn’t always that way, but in the neoliberal era it is. We see the results.

But obviously the rationale for owner control gets less and less compelling as the company gets larger and the owners less involved in operations. At a certain size, labor should have a say in profit use. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I would argue they should have a say at any size. But yes, I’m mostly talking about multinational corporations — S&P 500, etc. Not small businesses.

Beat me to it, but looking at bailouts — especially in 2009 — shows that the wealthy really have no risks— they’re fine no matter what. They’re too big to fail.

A nice non sequitur. Feel free to read what was said and try again:

Japan too developed as a state-directed economy, with a huge shot in the arm from the Korean and Vietnam wars.

There’s plenty of literature on the true history of development: Ha-Joon Chang, Alice Amsden, Robert Wade, many others. The fact that from England, to the US, to Europe and Japan and the recent Asian “tigers,” large-scale state intervention and radical interference with markets has been a leading factor in economic development. In the US it’s so extreme that it’s laughable.

So they’re mixed economies— like the rest of the world. — Xtrix

Possibly helpful:

Two mental giants. One thinks Cuba has no markets or private property, the other thinks the existence of a corporation proves the economy is “capitalist.” :lol:

According to your own economical criteria what the hell are they? Because they are so far for being communist. — javi2541997

I never said they were communist.

Japan too developed as a state-directed economy, with a huge shot in the arm from the Korean and Vietnam wars.

There’s plenty of literature on the true history of development: Ha-Joon Chang, Alice Amsden, Robert Wade, many others. The fact that from England, to the US, to Europe and Japan and the recent Asian “tigers,” large-scale state intervention and radical interference with markets has been a leading factor in economic development. In the US it’s so extreme that it’s laughable.

So they’re mixed economies— like the rest of the world.

What is the main issue of Cuban poverty then? — javi2541997

The United States.

Because Cuba does have markets and private property.
— Xtrix

No, they haven't. — javi2541997

Cuba has both markets and private property. That’s a fact. You can do a simple Google search to educate yourself.

Or continue embarrassing yourself. Your choice.

Only if you leave of your comfort democratic capitalist zone and go to Cuba to prove how good they are living there :yum: — javi2541997

I’ve been to Cuba. I liked it a lot, actually. I like Jamaica as well. I noticed a lot more poverty in Jamaica, but both were nice.

So let me know when you’ve done the bare minimum of homework on issues you have no clue about.

Or feel free to continue spouting nonsense. Your call.

So now you want to compare pictures? Are you 15?

Simple google search of Cuba:





Looks good to me. I guess that proves something…

What next? Should we measure penis sizes?

:roll:

Try growing up and educating yourself before embarrassing yourself online repeatedly. Deal?

already pointed out Japan and South Korea as a good examples of developed nations but you consider them as "meaningless". — javi2541997

Japan and South Korea are not meaningless.
They are not capitalist.

I think the one who is missing the point is you because you think that a country like Cuba has markets and private property. — javi2541997

Because Cuba does have markets and private property.

Come on... they don't even have medical supplies. — javi2541997

They have medical supplies as well.

So are you just going to talk nonsense now? If so, I’m not interested.

What is "meaningless" according to you then? — javi2541997

Try reading what I wrote again.

But if that’s too hard, I’ll repeat it yet again: the terms “capitalism” and “socialism” are so amorphous as to be meaningless.

Yes both countries are so similar... come on man. — javi2541997

I didn’t say they were similar, I was just highlighting how stupid it is to point to pictures of poverty as if it means anything. The reason for Cuba’s poverty isn’t socialism or communism.

The statistics you give are estimates, but there’s a lot of poverty in Cuba, no doubt. The United States has helped create that poverty, in fact. For decades. You can read about this, of course.

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.