Universal Healthcare in their view is bad because it retracts capitalism for insurance “providers”. Free college to them is bad because it retracts capitalism from banks who are able to create loans that follow someone their entire life through multiple bankruptcies. Taxing the rich is bad from their perspective because they think a higher tax burden retracts from the goal of capitalism, which is to be a slumlord or whatever.
They don’t allow those problems to be put* aside for the enormous benefits and freer economy when people aren’t living paycheck to paycheck scared of what the next emergency is going to be with their body.
Both healthcare and education should be public goods. The encroachment of the private sector into those spheres is Marx’s “expropriation of the commons.” According to Marx, capitalism has two ways to expand: organic growth, and seizing public goods.
I’m not someone who thinks Marx was right about everything, but that observation seems correct to me.
You can tell they don’t understand capitalism very well, by their support of capitalism
There’s a joke I’m riffing off, that Christians read the bible to reinforce their belief in God. What do atheists read to reinforce their lack of belief? The same.
I agree, but put another way, it’s much harder to show actions that result in profits for their big donors if the method of those profits being bigger is filtered through regular people and increasing their ability to afford the products of said donor. By keeping us out of the loop they can take more credit when their 6 or 2 year review comes up.
Even when giving us that ability to afford things may in many cases lead to capital interests becoming very rich maybe even more rich than if they had put their effort torwards deregulation or corporate socialism/subsidies instead, especially in markets where the products are expensive but desirable to most people.
It doesn’t have to, similar to how an all powerful ruler doesn’t necessarily have to be totalitarian, it could be better… it just chooses not to, and ironically our economy chose for it not to. There’s something very sick to me about investing in a company doing good things for the world and then being told by new management of that company that stock holders aren’t getting the returns they should and so their fiduciary responsibility would be to cut “unneeded jobs” slim process waste, expensive eco friendly packaging, and otherwise veer towards efficiency and maximum return instead of world impact.
It seems like the moment a company goes public they become the same as everyone else. I think the laws around public ownership have gotten the wrong idea from people who directly trade stocks, who are traditionally far worse people than those would would look at a list and choose that one for mitigation of harm. By design? Or just the natural result of an expanding work week with a million things competing for our attention?
Universal Healthcare in their view is bad because it retracts capitalism for insurance “providers”. Free college to them is bad because it retracts capitalism from banks who are able to create loans that follow someone their entire life through multiple bankruptcies. Taxing the rich is bad from their perspective because they think a higher tax burden retracts from the goal of capitalism, which is to be a slumlord or whatever.
They don’t allow those problems to be put* aside for the enormous benefits and freer economy when people aren’t living paycheck to paycheck scared of what the next emergency is going to be with their body.
Edit: put*, not out
Both healthcare and education should be public goods. The encroachment of the private sector into those spheres is Marx’s “expropriation of the commons.” According to Marx, capitalism has two ways to expand: organic growth, and seizing public goods.
I’m not someone who thinks Marx was right about everything, but that observation seems correct to me.
Then they don’t understand capitalism very well.
You can tell they don’t understand capitalism very well, by their support of capitalism
There’s a joke I’m riffing off, that Christians read the bible to reinforce their belief in God. What do atheists read to reinforce their lack of belief? The same.
I agree, but put another way, it’s much harder to show actions that result in profits for their big donors if the method of those profits being bigger is filtered through regular people and increasing their ability to afford the products of said donor. By keeping us out of the loop they can take more credit when their 6 or 2 year review comes up.
Even when giving us that ability to afford things may in many cases lead to capital interests becoming very rich maybe even more rich than if they had put their effort torwards deregulation or corporate socialism/subsidies instead, especially in markets where the products are expensive but desirable to most people.
You are totally right, and I hate that our politicians are so nearsighted and greedy. Bleck.
It seems like you’re the one who doesn’t understand capitalism very well. This is exactly what it’s meant to do.
It doesn’t have to, similar to how an all powerful ruler doesn’t necessarily have to be totalitarian, it could be better… it just chooses not to, and ironically our economy chose for it not to. There’s something very sick to me about investing in a company doing good things for the world and then being told by new management of that company that stock holders aren’t getting the returns they should and so their fiduciary responsibility would be to cut “unneeded jobs” slim process waste, expensive eco friendly packaging, and otherwise veer towards efficiency and maximum return instead of world impact.
It seems like the moment a company goes public they become the same as everyone else. I think the laws around public ownership have gotten the wrong idea from people who directly trade stocks, who are traditionally far worse people than those would would look at a list and choose that one for mitigation of harm. By design? Or just the natural result of an expanding work week with a million things competing for our attention?