Capitalism

[MarkB]

Come on Mark try and stay awake and read or watch some mainstream news. A carbon tax, a carbon levy, the little guy still pays the bill.

https://www.thestar.com/politics/fed...arbon-tax.html

Uhhmmm ... that's exactly what I'm saying ... cost of living goes up with these useless carbon taxes (and the little guy pays ... cost of living is about households, right?).

[Birdbuff]

I would figure that in a perfectly running capitalist world cost of living does not go up or down but remains steady. Of course this can only happen if wages follow the same curve. The class divisions widen the more these curves go askew.

[line052]

I didn’t want to hijack Joepa’s thread so I thought I’d start a new one. From reading the responses from the other thread i figure this thread could be a great discussion.

My thoughts on capitalism are simple. I don’t think it works on a long term scale. It is not a sustainable idea. Hear me out.

If each company’s goals are solely expansion and profitability then there’s the problem. As these companies continue to reach their goals they rely greatly on consumption of their product. The more consumption the more profit. When profit starts to slow, they reorganize. This usually includes layoffs, maybe outsourcing to cheaper markets. The downward spiral of consumption continues, but for how long? The only real losers are the employees.

To answer a few questions from the other thread;

While I’m not a believer in a universal basic income, I do believe that wages have not kept up with the cost of living. No I’m not talking about minimum wage.

Side note on minimum wage. I understand for mom/pop shops it’s not easy if the minimum keeps going up. But, how many millions does timmys, McDonald’s, etc make in profit? It’s a vicious circle if wages go up, then costs of product goes up. This cost gets passed on to the consumer. The profits must be maintained and continuously grown. The downward spiral of consumption.

If you are educated and work hard there is a place for you in the workforce but as others eluded to, companies don’t owe you anything and you are always replaceable. Maybe not so far into the future most of us will be replaced by automation. Profits must be maintained.

“[COLOR=#000000]Capitalism rewards those that work and think and innovate.”

I agree with this statement and would add that it rewards the few not the many. The Canadian dream/American dream idea is dimming. Maybe not dimming everywhere yet, but it’s getting there.

I think capitalism is due for an overhaul. We can’t continue on this path forever. The push for continuous profitability isn’t sustainable. The system needs amending and revamping for todays world and for the future.

These are my opinions, if you feel the need to roast me, go ahead, no love lost. If I’m not seeing it, give it a go and explain your rational. How do you see it?

Ok...if it doesn't work..then Cuba or Venezuela does? See that is problem, those countries keep people poor, at least under capitalism the free market breeds competition and innovation which drive growth.

There is zero growth without capitalism..ask soviet russa..money is created by growth, not stagnate, bloated ideas.

When a business fails to change through innovation or adjusts to market changes, they cease to be profitable.

Example: Blockbuster didn't go under because of bad business ideas - they went under because of bad late fees and return policies and a failure to innovate to the internet model. Another: Cab Companies, failed to adapt, got bogged down in red tape and had a monopoly - Uber killed that model because it was cheaper and easier to use with an App.

The free market will always win when you innovate. That's why Cuba still has 60 yr old cars.

[MarkB]

I would figure that in a perfectly running capitalist world cost of living does not go up or down but remains steady. Of course this can only happen if wages follow the same curve. The class divisions widen the more these curves go askew.

Well, it depends on whether the skills are in demand or not ... if a company cannot compete ... and those skills aren't specialized ... it doesn't end well.
If the skills are in demand ... normally the individual does well.

I do think though, a simple rule like a % of every company needs to be employee owned ... and distributed to at least say 30% of the employees, would go a long way.
The employee-owned model does a lot to fix the challenges associated with wages not keeping up ... and I think it also helps with employee retention, quality, long term
client relationships, and inovation.

[MikePal]

That's why employee stock ownership plans (ESOP) have been around since the 50's....

Allow employees to have a vested interest, see the bigger picture before they negotiate for more salary...brilliant !! .HaHa..

[MarkB]

That's why employee stock ownership plans (ESOP) have been around since the 50's....

Allow employees to have a vested interest, see the bigger picture before they negotiate for more salary...brilliant !! .HaHa..

Yes, for sure, even our own company started the concept in the late 60's. Unfortunately, too much greed by owners today blind them
to the advantage of employee ownership ... and so few then adopt it.

With the profit sharing that comes from shares (via share growth and dividends), it's hard for anyone else to compete in terms of income,
so staff retention is way better, which means skills/knowledge is retained and that helps quality/efficiency ... and also just the drive to make
profit not for short term gain, but long term (because you don't just care about what your share does next year, but in 10 years from now, when
you retire ... so all decisions have a long term sustainability intrinsically built in) ... that also drives efficiency and quality ... to bolster repeat
business.

So many good things about the model, but not used enough!