Do you REALLY think it's fair that some big companies are allowed to make large profits?

Le veritable wrote:

Unrestrained Capitalism is also hugely capable of leading to corruption, anyone who know the slightest thing about the world knows that.

Nope. It is Socialist governments creation of regulations where corruption thrives. Corruption can not persist will unrestrained capitalism.

Blah Blah Blah Blah wrote:

Le veritable wrote:

Unrestrained Capitalism is also hugely capable of leading to corruption, anyone who know the slightest thing about the world knows that.

Nope. It is Socialist governments creation of regulations where corruption thrives. Corruption can not persist will unrestrained capitalism.

Enron, Tesco, Nissan, LIBOR rigging, FX rigging, Trafigura dumping chemicals in West Africa. Just a few corruption scandals enabled by a lack of government regulation

You made the point that a business's sole goal should be profit maximisation, to which I responded that instances of a business model which takes into account the impact of business practices on all of its stakeholders has led to quantifiable better results for both the busines, and those who are affected by it.

So, yes, a business should be allowed. Make a profit, but it should be making a profit for all of its stakeholders, not just shareholders.

Your response was to accuse me of communism and to tell me to leave the country, which has some pretty worrying implications for democracy if you can't accept any criticism of shareholder capitalism.

liberal mania wrote:

Do you REALLY think it's fair that some big companies are allowed to make large profits?

trolling everyone - 0/10

Le veritable wrote:

You made the point that a business's sole goal should be profit maximisation, to which I responded that instances of a business model which takes into account the impact of business practices on all of its stakeholders has led to quantifiable better results for both the busines, and those who are affected by it.

So, yes, a business should be allowed. Make a profit, but it should be making a profit for all of its stakeholders, not just shareholders.

Your response was to accuse me of communism and to tell me to leave the country, which has some pretty worrying implications for democracy if you can't accept any criticism of shareholder capitalism.

I didn't tell you to do anything..............your choice. if you decide that you can't tolerate this capitalist society anymore, go somewhere else if you'd like. Makes not a whit of difference to me. I also never said that the profit motive gave a corporation carte blanche to get there anyway they can. Those that do it ethically will prosper and while those that do not may also, however they likely won't long term. BUT its not the governments job to determine whether a corporation can make a profit, or how much.

Liberal consistency wrote:

liberal mania wrote:Do you REALLY think it's fair that some big companies are allowed to make large profits?

Depends on the company. The most profitable:

WalMart: you have to ask? Razor thin profit margin, but so much volume that they are actually making money, which bad because those smelly lower middle class people shop there. And they're not even union. WalMart: eww!

Read some crap about Walmart before you post this drivel. They treat employee's like dirt, Sam Walton used to work along side employee's to prove he was just like they were. Now his family is the wealthiest in the entire world, you don't get that way by sharing your huge profits. This company is the king of corporate welfare, they extort more subsidies from the local and state governments then all the "poor people" taking handouts combined. Walmart also teaches it's employee's how to get public assistance, something a company that shared it's wealth with it's employee's would never even consider.

"Wal-mart The High Cost of the Low Price", watch it and it's all ready fact check, for slimey conservative's who don't believe the facts..

If companies played by the rules they could make as money as possible, but they don't, they help make the rules and if they don't like the rules they lobby hard to change them. people without as much power as the corporations can't do that. it's not a level playing field and it never was.

read some books from Michael Lewis, The Big short or Flash boys or Liars Poker

Buy some of their stock.

So your problem with Walmart is the welfare state (government), corporate handouts (government), big business favoritism (government again). So if government would stop meddling in business, then you wouldn't have any complaints about Walmart.

We agree! Big companies only get dangerous when they have enough clout to buy government influence. Therefore the solution is to make sure our government can not be influenced by big companies.

Asu guy wrote:

Read some crap about Walmart before you post this drivel. They treat employee's like dirt, Sam Walton used to work along side employee's to prove he was just like they were. ...Walmart also teaches it's employee's how to get public assistance, something a company that shared it's wealth with it's employee's would never even consider.

"Wal-mart The High Cost of the Low Price", watch it and it's all ready fact check, for slimey conservative's who don't believe the facts..

employee's what? conservative's what?

Their pets? Their friends?

"Fair is not always equal, and equal is not always fair." Dave Ramsey

I probably put in more mileage than the avg letsrunner. (65 mpw) and am a 31 y/o male. However my 5k pr is only 17:48. Thats not fair. I am not lazy, I work hard, but how can I support my racing without livable time? Because I work so hard I think that each race director should give me a 75 second headstart to better reflect how hard I train.

You appear to be laboring under the illusion that there is only one form of capitalism, to that the only alternative to shareholder ownership is state ownership.

Again, if other model's of business ownership can be more successful, then rejecting them just because they don't fit your ideology, or your picture of capitalism, is ridiculous.

The risk with our model is that it leaves the primary goal being to appease one set of stakeholders, behaving "ethically" is driven by choice, which always leaves open the possibility of behaving badly for a short term gain.

DiscoGary wrote:

We agree! Big companies only get dangerous when they have enough clout to buy government influence. Therefore the solution is to make sure our government can not be influenced by big companies.

So you support campaign finance reform?

DiscoGary wrote:

So your problem with Walmart is the welfare state (government), corporate handouts (government), big business favoritism (government again). So if government would stop meddling in business, then you wouldn't have any complaints about Walmart.

We agree! Big companies only get dangerous when they have enough clout to buy government influence. Therefore the solution is to make sure our government can not be influenced by big companies.

Exactly!!!

But as we've seen time and time again, the liberal solution is... MOAR GOVERNMENT!!!

Dora the Agoraphobiac wrote:

DiscoGary wrote:

We agree! Big companies only get dangerous when they have enough clout to buy government influence. Therefore the solution is to make sure our government can not be influenced by big companies.

So you support campaign finance reform?

No. I support restricting the Federal government to it's Constitutionally limited duties. Only when the Federal government is stripped of it's power to hand out goodies or regulate businesses into oblivion will we be able to stop companies from influencing the government.

The problem is not business, it's government corruption.

Only if they did it fairly.

Some companies succeed only by getting handouts from the state, or by sponsoring legislation, or more simply breaking the law, giving them a de-facto monopoly.

I think they should pay 0 in taxes if they hire Americans.

I don't subscribe to a one size fits all model. There are many permutations of capitalism, whatever works is fine. Its up to the owners of the business to decide how to run it.

liberal mania wrote:

Do you REALLY think it's fair that some big companies are allowed to make large profits?

YES!!!!!

I know this is troll bait, but my students are taking a final so...

Companies make large profits and that means they pay stockholders who are regular folks. That means the workers have a job and can buy stuff thus keeping others employed.

Also, no one is forcing you to buy products. Yes advertising encourages buying, but a lot of purchasing is your (in the general sense) wanting to keep up with your friends, co-workers and neighbors.

Lastly, who gets to determine what a "reasonable" profit is?