8
Asking CapitalistsJohn Stuart Mill Explains Profits As The Result Of The Exploitation Of Labor(self.CapitalismVSocialism)
submitted 1 week, 3 days ago* (edited 21 minutes after) by Accomplished-Cake131 to /r/CapitalismVSocialism (109.9k)
I find this passage based on guidance from Samuel Hollander:
"The cause of profit is, that labour ...
1 week, 2 days ago
—
1 week, 3 days ago24 of 24
Tip Reveddit Real-Time can notify you when your content is removed.
your account history
Tip Check if your account has any removed comments.
view my removed comments you are viewing a single comment's thread.
view all comments
If profit means owners are exploiting workers, does that mean losing money is when workers exploit owners?
Why use the word exploit when there is no reference to it in the post. You seem to miss the point of the post and the word exploit, to your own convenience. Why do you seem to feel that exploitation is necessary?
Can you read? What does the title say?
No the CEO or c-suite executive usually gets fired with a golden parachute and immediately hired at another company in a similar position, failing upward, to repeat the same process over again.
“Usually”? I'm going to need to see some data on that.
In poor performance terminations boards often claw back bonuses, withhold equity or give standard severance, not 9-figure rocket rides.
https://guides.lib.ua.edu/c.php?g=879087&p=9859425
https://www.lebow.drexel.edu/news/golden-parachutes-encourage-ceos-abandon-shareholder-interests-during-takeovers-new-study-finds
https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/Gordon%20Too%20Many%20Mergers%20NYU%20draft.%2009.29.23.pdf
There's incentive to screw over shareholders.
I do not support Marxism or the labor theory of value, but your argument is silly. If I stole your money and lost it in a casino, You did not exploited me.
What if you took my money in exchange for something you built, but when I tried to sell that thing no one wanted to buy it. Are you exploiting me because you sold me something that no one but me wants to buy?
You introduce real-world problems into the theory, and by doing so you undermine your own argument. Because even mainstream economics considers unequal exchange caused by a lack of information to be a form of exploitation.
So then you do think that employees can exploit owners.
If we include information asymmetry, it is physically possible. Yes, under information asymmetry a worker CAN exploit the owner, but it is difficult to find REAL examples. In most cases, information asymmetry HARMS THE WORKER.
At least this theory is consistently stupid.
It is a Neoclassical theory.
What is your source for this?
No.
Individualize the losses but socialize the profits, is a great mentality to make sure no one is going to dare to innovate
People innovate with or without risk. People innovated before capitalism even existed as tradesmen who owned their means of production. You really think that true innovators are only motivated by money and receiving a large return on their innovations? Think about all of the people in capitalist society that are natural inventors and creatives that are stuck working at a McDonalds all day just to survive, simply because they were not born into wealth and did not go into debt to go to college.
The people who innovated before capitalism still required money to do so. Innovators like Archimedes had rich people paying him to research, which was usually his king. But it was only the wealthy who could risk providing him all these funds in the hopes that something realistic would come out of it.
Since capitalism, getting the funds to innovate has become a lot easier. You can now just turn your idea into a company and then sell shares on the stock exchange to get the funds for your ideas. It's essentially crowd funding. And instead of convincing wealthy kings, you can do it with McDonalds employees who can buy a share for pennies.
Too much of a blanket statement. Not all innovations require excess money. Many innovations were done by master craftsmen who already owned their own tools already. Some innovations required no money at all. Most modern innovations are foot by society, such as the NASA program and the risk that was involved putting a man on the Moon.
Stocks are just a form of gambling done by those with excess money. One can buy stocks in a number of different things and its a gamble whether it goes up and down.
Even those master craftsmen would innovate in things that they assumed would pay off, and they would try to sell them.
NASA is also different because if NASA makes a loss, then all of society will pay for it, including the workers who worked there
I agree they would like to see things pay off, in some instances. But a lot of innovations are also done for a sense of personal satisfaction. I also think that a reward is good for innovation, but taking profits from people using that innovation for year-after-year is exploitative. A reward in another form, such as a large bonus by the government (or some other agency) makes sense, but I don't see how taking the profits from people doing all of the work is fair.
If I had all of the tools needed for people to do glass blowing, it would be highly unethical and exploitive for me to take in all of the profits from the glassware other workers made using my glassblowing shop, only because I was supplying them with the tools.
Heads workers win, tails owners lose.
What if owners worked? Then everybody wins or everybody loses.