• Another Catgirl
    link
    fedilink
    101 year ago

    I disagree that the free market is democratic because hedge funds and the richest people in our society control all of the “votes” in a free market, even after taxes. This can probably be blamed on capitalism, stock markets, and money-driven lobbying.

    • First of all lobbying and any other intrusion into fair competition is incompatible with free market.

      As for the “rich” — without government enforced monopolies, their wealth is a representation of how much value they provide to society. Which roughly translates into their support by society. A bit like representative democracy, but more decentralized.

      • @rektdeckard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        By that logic, thieves are virtuous and valued by society. In reality, the wealthy are creating value for themselves and their peers, and we operate on a system more like $1 = 1 vote, rather than 1 person = 1 vote. This system is usually called a plutocracy.

        • By that logic, thieves are virtuous and valued by society.

          Thieves are forced to return what they stole, they don’t (usually) accumulate capital

          In reality, the wealthy are creating value for themselves and their peers

          Could you please provide an example? Even something like Apple products (luxuries) are used by people that can’t be called rich. So it’s hard for me to understand how wealthy could create their separate economy

          • @Belgdore@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            21 year ago

            thieves are force to repay…

            Depends on your definition of theft. I define theft to include the net profits that are not shared with the workers.

            how would you describe their separate economy…

            Most of us don’t get to participate in IPOs and hedge funds. The capital needed for that has been stolen from us by people who refuse to share with us the fruits of our labor.

            “But you work for a wage that you agreed to take”

            Because the other option is to starve to death.

            • @SneakyThunder@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              01 year ago

              Because the other option is to starve to death.

              That’s pessimistic… Food can be grown…

              theft includes the net profits that are not shared with the workers

              How businesses would innovate without accumulating capital? What happens if they suffer a loss? What would they pay their workers?

              IMO it’s not theft, it’s just a price you’re paying for someone else to deal with risc possible losses while providing you stable income.

              Not talking about reserch, marketing and realization of goods/services, that someone without capital can’t do on their own.

              • @Belgdore@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                11 year ago

                If I don’t work for the system then I starve. I’m not talking’s about a Malthusian disaster. I can’t grow food because I don’t own land.

                I specifically said net profits should be given to the works. They can then invest in new ventures and become decision makers. That would maintain innovation. By only having those at the top make decisions you actually limit the things getting innovated because you only have a few minds working on it. There is nothing that would prevent a company from having a research fund like they currently do. I said net profit for a reason. The issue is money exiting via exorbitant corporate salaries and dividends and investments in unrelated things that do not benefit the workers.

                When was the last time a billionaire went broke they aren’t assuming any risk. The workers who you say aren’t assuming a risk go homeless and starve when the company fails and they can’t find a job.

    • Exactly it’s not democratic. So what is wrong here would be the way we force our elected leaders to campaign, by having to accept donations you imediatly bring money into the table.

      If all candidates had the same air time/publicity and couldn’t do more outside of that budget the gov gave them. I believe it could improve, you could denounced oponets who are moved by money, and wouldn’t be forced to accept non