I'm not daft at all , if anything your claim was arguably way more simplistic. Honestly you didn't even present any arguments , you just threw the "capitalism is bad" card. Seen that countless times and it has no effect at all.
I'm afraid not, I threw the "
predatory capitalism is bad" card. Quite a difference. I don't really mind regulated, well-policed capitalism with strong checks and balances - it's a reasonably effective system, even if there are significantly better alternatives.
That's what you imply. What's the alternative to that ? Give some stuff for free but not all ? Not that ? Then what is it ?
Again: if that's what you think I'm implying, your imagination is severely lacking. If the only alternative you can see to "maximize profits" is "give everything/some things away for free", that is indeed a lack of imagination. Also, you quote me giving you quite a few examples in the next piece ...
You know what , be the hero of this situation , I am not going to contradict you. I invite you to start a multi billion dollar corporation and then suddenly change tracks and start making the world a better place , whatever that means. Or better yet , reach those billions in revenue while doing that from the very begin.
Lead by example , right ? You've all seen enough of these theoretical economists proposing miraculous alternatives to being a "capitalist scum".
I'm not at all looking to "be a hero" (how would that even happen?), I'm simply trying to put forth the (obviously utterly radical and mind-boggling) idea that there are other ways of doing business besides "profit above all".
Is there a tendency that a****le companies grow huge? Absolutely. Assuming that's because they're the "best" companies is hopelessly naive, however. They grow large because they game the system, use any and all tricks available to them, and are constantly looking for growth opportunities (including driving competitors to bankruptcy through illegal or semi-illegal business practices). Companies with idealistic or non-profit goals are less expansionist, more focused on whatever problem they seek to solve, and as such don't expand in the same way. It's a fundamental, ideological difference, which is why we don't see massive non-profit companies. I don't see the need for idealist companies to adopt more predatory capitalist trappings to grow larger, but there's definitely a need for predatory capitalists to adopt more ideals across the board.
Also, where did I use the term "capitalist scum"? I said "
predatory capitalist swine". That's a pretty clear distinction.
Still, as you seemingly need to be spoon-fed this, here's a list of possible things large multinational corporations could do to not be predatory capitalist swine:
-stop dodging taxes; stop using tax havens; stop demanding tax breaks to relocate or open new sites
-accept whatever negative consequences (environmental, social, economical, so on) your activity might have and do what you can to alleviate this in all stages of your product's lifetime
-if you have tons of money left over - don't hoard it. Money hoards are objectively bad for local and international economies. Give them to charities, give your employees (no, not executives) bonuses, invest in start-ups, give to charity - the list of possibilities here are pretty much endless, and all of them would have more of a positive effect than hoarding money.
-promote and live by transparency as an ideal
-stop thinking that "MOAR MONEY === BETTAR". See above.
All of the above apply just as much to investors, really. Sure, they have more reason to keep heaps of money lying around. But ultimately, if their goal is only to increase the size of that heap, not only is it a hopelessly shallow and empty goal, but one that does absolutely nothing to make the world a better place for anyone except yourself. If something like that happens, it's purely a happy coincidence.
