Recently I've read The Man Who Broke Capitalism by David Gelles. Picked it mostly because I started to wonder about the best possible system - both economical and political we can have. Is it greed that destroys everything? If author is speaking truth, GE under Reginald H. Jones was actually a decent companywho cared about workers and society wellbeing in general. Is the transition towards greedy modern capitalism causing many people turn towards socialism/communism ideologies? If you know something about the subject, I would be grateful for your contribution. Cheers anons.
Good topic, I only know about Ford Motor Company vs. Shareholder Primacy (Dodge v. Ford Motor Co.), where the Ford Motor Company sided with the workers but lost to turbo judaized capitalism.
>>18492877>greedcapitalism was mogged mostly by feminine greed ie. social capital, being sidelined by money and vengefully enslaving capital. Lolberts are on to something in this regard
>>18492903Yeah because company purpose is generating profits for stockholders obviously. The number must go up or it will be la heckin communism or something. That case pisses me off too.
>>18493105I think the judge Brandeis was talking about how in the future industrial society capital will have to be spread more even within a company or something.
>>18492877>capitalismworks fine if you presuppose certain legal limits:1) all income over five times the median is taxed at 100%2) licenses for corporations can only be received on a temporary basis with limited scope after demonstrating public utility 3) homogeneous white population with moral framework that reinforces greed is wrong4) probably something to keep land prices low and incentivize the nuclear family
>>18492877You are talking about this like its something which can be preserved.Ofc the prime of capitalism, is one of the best times to live in, but it is not going to last no matter what.So yes it is, but its like pointing at some previously rich kid now drug addict childhood and saying how thats good but knowing how its going to end
>>18492877The problem with the economic theory behind capitalism starting with Adam Smith, is that Adam Smith presupposed that the system would be ran by individuals who were rational and benevolent to society around them. Obviously in hindsight from his time during the enlightenment that irrationally and greed have become the dominant characteristics of a capitalist.You'll never find a "perfect" system as they always presuppose that humans will actually deal properly with other humans.
>>18492877Real capitalism has never been tried. The hundreds of millions of deaths in capitalist countries was mostly due to warts, famine, disease in proto-capitalist, dictatorships. That does not say anything about capitalism's worthiness as an economic system. Once we establish full capitalism the world over, we'll all be rich.
>>18492877What do you mean by Golden era capitalism? I wouldn't really consider the middle half of the twentieth century to be the golden era of capitalism. It was really an artificial detente because of decades of labor struggle and the threat of communism. It wasn't going to last.Regardless, paternalistic capitalism isn't all that it's presented to be. Sure the corporation guarantees employment for you and whatever, but in exchange they get to work you like a dog and can revoke those protections at any moment. Plus, that model risks that the propietor might just decide to micro-manage you like some sort of over-involved feudal lord.It wasn't too common, but it happened.
>>18492877>>18492877Well, its very difficult to actually know what the rich are thinking or to what extent they're coordinating. Its not like poor people where you can look at protest numbers and unionisation. I would definitely say there is big shake up conming. The Mandate of Heaven that the rich used to rely on, cheap oil, will soon be gone. And there's nothing that can *really* replace it. So I would say the constituency of ultra-rich lawyers and financiers that dominated the late 90s to 2020s, the Epstein class, is over. But what will emerge next will be different, adapting to a new world.
>>18492877>golden era capitalismIf you're meaning post world USA, it's not something that cant be replicated. The majority of the developed world had it's infrastructure bombed to a ruin, wasnt really much competition for 20 years or something. The funniest thing about post world war capitalism, especially in the US was that it was way more socialized than any republican would care to admit.
>>18492877>Is golden era capitalism the best system?No. Its stable state is always game theory, monopoly and capturing the government. Not everyone was a king in feudalism. Not everyone can be a capitalist in capitalism.
The golden era of any system is the best system
No society with a s*tck market an thrive on the longtermThe stockmarket is a parasite that makes the economy fake and gay. They can turn losing money into making money, they can make actively choosing not to produce anything the option that gives out the most cash, it makes everything fake and gay and makes society worse of.I wish there was a word for "Capitalism but solely with private companies"
>>18493269Yeah we have a fallen nature.
>>18492877"golden era" capitalism only existed because governments put heavy restrictions on capitalismif your government is strong enough to perpetually maintain that level of control, its strong enough to just get rid of the capitalists
>>18492877IIRC back in the 19th century the concept of treating your workers well was completely foreign to most industrialists. They firmly believed that treating workers well and giving them better wages makes them lazy, unmotivated and decadent. So the most beneficial and moral thing to do was to keep them in absolute poverty and treat them like slaves. They eventually realized that treating workers a bit better makes them more productive and that paying them more makes them able to consoom more, so working conditions would probably somewhat improve even without the labour movement. But I don't think that unregulated capitalism would be better or even possible.
>>18493269>Adam Smith presupposed that the system would be ran by individuals who were rational and benevolent to society around themThat's actually pretty much the opposite of what he thought. He argued for self-interest.
>>18493876Barely anyone actually had enough income to be taxed at those rates.
>>18495422You have to read his Theory of Moral Sentiments and not just Wealth of Nations. Yes he says self-interest is the primary driver, but when the self-interest is checked by rationality and and social sentiments then this self-interest can benefit others in the long run.
>>18495425And there were actually a bunch of loopholes that allowed people who actually had an income that high to never pay those rates, which is why tax revenue didn't actually change that much when Kennedy and later Reagan lowered the maximum tax rates.
