What is the goal of capitalism?

[Dirk the Daring]

If you serve yesterday's "leftovers", you'll have a crap product that may make people sick to their stomachs. So it's not in your financial interest to sell crap. If yesterday's leftovers, tasted great and the danger of making people sick wasn't present, and people didn't mind, then yeah, it behooves you to sell yesterday's leftovers. Of course, it must also be legal to sell yesterday's leftovers, for you to do it, but if it's legal, and the leftovers taste great and can't make anyone sick and people don't care, then you should do it because that will increase your profits.

Capitalism is all about private capital accumulation. Making money.

This is great. Says multiple times 'there's no such thing as the invisible hand,' then literally describes the 'invisible hand.'

 

[dblack]

This is great. Says multiple times 'there's no such thing as the invisible hand,' then literally describes the 'invisible hand.'

This kind of thing happens a lot with socialists.

 

[Red Front]

This is great. Says multiple times 'there's no such thing as the invisible hand,' then literally describes the 'invisible hand.'

Unfortunately there's no invisible hand, because people aren't that rational. Some crazy bastards will sell yesterday's leftovers, taking the risk, and hurting the public. Hence the legal element has to be there. What's that legal element? Government. The infrastructure that allows you to have the meat, ingredients, all of the materials to conduct your business, requires public infrastructure, which involves the government.

Who serves your customers? Only you, or members of your family who you have a special relationship with? No, most likely, your workforce isn't comprised of close family members, but others, and they have rights. So all of that requires government regulation, and can't be left to your imaginary "invisible hand".

Markets don't regulate themselves, because they're blind and irrational. The government needs to step in:

1. Criminal Charges:
   
   • Manslaughter or Negligent Homicide: If it's proven that the contaminated food led to deaths, and the business owner was aware of the risk but chose to ignore it, they could be charged with manslaughter or negligent homicide. This charge applies when a death occurs due to someone's negligence or recklessness.
   • Criminal Negligence: This charge applies when someone fails to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that their action or inaction will cause harm. Selling contaminated food, knowing the risks involved, falls under this category.
   • Assault or Battery: In some jurisdictions, knowingly causing someone else to ingest harmful substances can be considered assault or battery.
   • Fraud: If the business owner misrepresented the safety of the food, charges of fraud might also apply.
   • Public Endangerment: This charge applies when someone's actions knowingly put the public at risk of injury or death.
   • Violations of Health and Safety Codes: These are specific charges related to failing to meet legal standards for food safety, which can include fines and may escalate to criminal charges if the violation leads to serious harm.
2. Civil Charges:
   
   • Wrongful Death: If someone dies as a result of eating the contaminated food, their family might sue the business owner for wrongful death, seeking compensation for their loss.
   • Personal Injury: Individuals who became sick from the food can file personal injury lawsuits against the business owner to seek damages for their medical expenses, pain, suffering, and any long-term health issues.
   • Breach of Warranty: Selling food that is unfit for consumption can be seen as a breach of the implied warranty that the food is safe to eat.
3. Regulatory Actions:
   
   • Health departments and other regulatory bodies might also take action, such as revoking licenses, imposing fines, or shutting down establishments that fail to comply with food safety regulations.

All of the above requires a government. You don't leave the public in the invisible hands of a chaotic market, you need a regulatory framework. There's no "free market", markets require supervision from governments and plenty of government-developed and maintained infrastructure.

 

[Red Front]

Instead of 'being paid a living wage,' what would you say to the premise that everyone's costs were cut in half, over night. Groceries, rent, entertainment, etc, all cut in half. Would the amount of the 'wage' still be an issue in that scenario?

If the cost of living was cut in half, maybe not. It depends if cutting the cost of living in half, allows workers to meet their needs without a raise. The issue is getting paid enough to meet one's basic needs and live a decent life. No one is demanding to get paid enough to live in luxury or like a millionaire, but enough to live with dignity and have your needs and a few of your wants met. Go out to eat every once in a while, rent a movie. Working-class people tend not to be complicated, they're content living a simple life.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Unfortunately there's no invisible hand, because people aren't that rational. Some crazy bastards will sell yesterday's leftovers, taking the risk, and hurting the public. Hence the legal element has to be there. What's that legal element? Government. The infrastructure that allows you to have the meat, ingredients, all of the materials to conduct your business, requires public infrastructure, which is of course involves the government.

Who serves your customers? Only you, or members of your family who you have a special relationship with? No, most likely, your workforce isn't comprised of close family members, but others, and they have rights. So all of that requires government regulation, and can't be left to your imaginary "invisible hand".

Markets don't regulate themselves, because they're blind and irrational. The government needs to step in:

1. Criminal Charges:
   
   • Manslaughter or Negligent Homicide: If it's proven that the contaminated food led to deaths, and the business owner was aware of the risk but chose to ignore it, they could be charged with manslaughter or negligent homicide. This charge applies when a death occurs due to someone's negligence or recklessness.
   • Criminal Negligence: This charge applies when someone fails to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that their action or inaction will cause harm. Selling contaminated food, knowing the risks involved, falls under this category.
   • Assault or Battery: In some jurisdictions, knowingly causing someone else to ingest harmful substances can be considered assault or battery.
   • Fraud: If the business owner misrepresented the safety of the food, charges of fraud might also apply.
   • Public Endangerment: This charge applies when someone's actions knowingly put the public at risk of injury or death.
   • Violations of Health and Safety Codes: These are specific charges related to failing to meet legal standards for food safety, which can include fines and may escalate to criminal charges if the violation leads to serious harm.
2. Civil Charges:
   
   • Wrongful Death: If someone dies as a result of eating the contaminated food, their family might sue the business owner for wrongful death, seeking compensation for their loss.
   • Personal Injury: Individuals who became sick from the food can file personal injury lawsuits against the business owner to seek damages for their medical expenses, pain, suffering, and any long-term health issues.
   • Breach of Warranty: Selling food that is unfit for consumption can be seen as a breach of the implied warranty that the food is safe to eat.
3. Regulatory Actions:
   
   • Health departments and other regulatory bodies might also take action, such as revoking licenses, imposing fines, or shutting down establishments that fail to comply with food safety regulations.

All of the above requires a government. You don't leave the public in the invisible hands of a chaotic market, you need a regulatory framework. There's no "free market", markets require supervision from governments and plenty of government-developed and maintained infrastructure.

Unfortunately there's no invisible hand, because people aren't that rational. Some crazy bastards will sell yesterday's leftovers, taking the risk, and hurting the public.

Customers don't like to buy substandard food that makes them sick. No repeat business.
That stuff only works under communism, where all food comes from the government.

 

[Red Front]

Unfortunately there's no invisible hand, because people aren't that rational. Some crazy bastards will sell yesterday's leftovers, taking the risk, and hurting the public.

Customers don't like to buy substandard food that makes them sick. No repeat business.
That stuff only works under communism, where all food comes from the government.

Sure, no repeat business but more people will get sick and die under your "invisible hand". Under a regulated market, there are safeguards in place to reduce the likelihood of people getting sick and even dying from contaminated food. Markets need government supervision and services. Free-markets with rational, "Invisible hands" don't exist. Markets are chaotic.

As far as your tripe about communism. In communism, you can own a plot of land for your personal use and grow your own food, you can share food with your neighbors. And yes the government, a social apparatus and institution created by the people is employed to plan and manage the mass production of goods and services, using the latest technology. That's the case at least until the individual consumer has access to the technology to produce all goods and services themselves, at home or in a production center in their community or neighborhood. Nanotechnology and artificial intelligence will eventually allow consumers to plan, manage, and produce everything themselves without a government central planning department.