Rshermr
VIP Member
The basic assumption here is that if corporation goes well, when its employees benefit too. And if the whole economy consists of well-being corporations, the society lives in prosperity. That works if there is place for all kind of companies and the place for people who can't make money...yeah, i thought about that. The capitalism - is the system when the smartest wins. The wealthiest, the healthiest and so on. It is a point to think about, where is fairness... Maybe the system is ok, but people, who has this freedom are not doing right anf do not help poor enough.to make people wealthy. Or, better, to eliminate poverty
Interesting. The United States is ranked 34th worst of the 35 most advanced nations in the world by Unicef. So our economy, whatever you would like to call it, is not doing well at all for the poor. But great for the wealthy. No surprise to economists.
Map: How 35 countries compare on child poverty (the U.S. is ranked 34th)
Lots of goods and bads to do with corporations. I would like my car made by a corporation, but want my roads and parks managed by the gov. Just the way I see things.
I am old as dirt. Not bragging, more like complaining I guess. But for a number of years I was an officer of a company going public. IPO. And the problems I got my nose rubbed in was that corporations are mostly run based on Financials, and stock valuation. Problem with that is that both are a good deal away from RUNNING the company. So what I saw was a lot of concern about the sales and profit over the next few quarters. No interest at all in the people, and little understanding of what needed to happen to make the company work well over the next few years.
If you look at capitalism as it was envisioned, and as it has evolved, they are two greatly different things. To me, the most uncontrollable problem that people have with Capitalism is Monopoly Power. Even in the early understanding of Capitalism, say by Adam Smith, it was true that monopoly power was thought to be likely but unusual. The belief was that monopoly power was highly detrimental to the "system" of capitalism. That is, it would be situational or unusual in nature, and would need to be managed by government or capitalism would not be workable.
So, the belief was, there would be cases where monopoly was natural and required - in the modern world, where you did not want 10 sets of wires strung to allow many companies to supply power. So you have one per area, each a regulated monopoly, as in todays power companies. Each is a regional monopoly, not national or greater in geographic reach. Nothing new about that concept.
Then, you had monopolies that would result from wealth and mergers and acquisitions. Look at companies like Boeing. Used to be a dozen major airplane manufacturers. Now there are 3. That type of monopoly was a concern, from very early on. Consider the Boston Tea Party, an event of protest against the East India Company and the British Government that was controlled to a large extent by that company. Early on, the colonists and most of our founding fathers were justifiably concerned with corporations, corporate power, and the influence of corporations on our government. And on the economics of the time. So, monopoly power controls, artificially, supply and demand of product and labor. And by so doing, prices and the distribution of income and wealth. And, as corporations and the corporatists get wealthier and wealthier, they tend to control our government and the laws of the country.
So excuse my verbose post. But I have been trying to understand economics since I got a degree in the subject 50 years ago. So much for my rant on Capitalism. I have not attacked communism, nor extended my rant on capitalism to the next step - Libertarianism (which I put in a large pot that includes communism, as economic systems that have never worked in a successful country), but the alternatives are out there, and they all are (in my mind) mixed economies.