I agree with what you mean, but I don't like that wording.
When a part of an institution (like Capitalism) has been subverted to the point of working against itself, can you even use the same word to describe both parts anymore? I just can't keep calling the 'wolves in sheep's clothing' sheep.
You aren't wrong, but this is basically the same cope as true-communism-has-never-been-tried.
Markets require a governing entity to set & enforce rules of the market. That used to be US government. But now it's WEF/FederalReserve/NGOs. (USG exists but is owned and controlled by financial shadow government)
Existence of governing entity is inevitable. Can have a virtuous one that operates openly, or an evil one that operates in the shadows.
The issue is that there's no such thing as a free market. Markets must have rules, otherwise the market will create conditions that destroy its own "freedom."
For example, slavery is bad for the free market, but without restraint any economic actor has huge incentive to use slavery, or do other immoral things that can provide huge competitive advantages. That's exactly what we see in all kinds of black markets.
Malicious behavior is potentially economically beneficial, so we must have "law" to restrain it. But all "law" distorts the market in various ways. The question is all about which laws we think are acceptable and which ones aren't. There is no easy way to define this, even if everyone agreed on common principles (which we don't, in reality), there's just too many grey areas.
I've always found this definition to be insufficient. That is how we end up with centrally planned capitalism and free market communism and then pretend everything is well.
What do you mean? It's the accurate definition. If you want to start referring to centralized state power as 'capitalist', then you are misusing the term.
It would be like if people started to consider science a religion, and I said, "no, science is the application of objective standards to remove bias from an experiment", and then you told me that was insufficient since people can have faith in science lol.
But if capitalism is just a private ownership of property, then a system where government decided what citizens do with their privately owned property would be some kind of capitalistic system.
Important to point out that the most powerful investment groups Blackrock & Vanguard, get freshly minted dollar bills from the Federal Reserve. So when the Fed prints money and give it to their buddies, it's directly supporting these political goals.
This is why fiat is immoral and alternative, non-centrally controlled currency is essential.
You would never be a publicly traded company, and you would probably never receive investment money from a good number of investors either. You'd need to rely completely on your own profits.
Keep in mind that for most of Amazon's existence it never turned an actual profit. Same for YouTube, etc.
Also a lot of this ESG stuff already is or will become law. You can't exclude women or nonWhites because the law straight up requires you to have them (once 25/50+ employees) or they will destroy your business with lawsuits. You will face regulations on what types of fuel/transportation/energy you can use and where it's sourced from. etc etc etc.
Yeah, it's certainly a messy situation. Some of those laws need to go, but it seems like a tall order right now.
So, while "vote with your wallet" is not working as intended, it can at least act as a vital support for any business that's managing to steer away from this ESG thing.
Now, if there were some simple method for the public to view whether a business is receiving this ESG funding, maybe some kind of campaign for awareness or activism could arise.
ESG is essentially warping capitalist methods to break the culture so that the revolution can occur by destabilizing business as usual.
Where China is Marxist core with Capitalism coating it, ESG is a way to take a Captialist core and apply a layer of Marxism.
To paraphrase a purple Josh Brolin, using Capitalism to destroy Capitalism, if I'm understanding this correctly?
I agree with what you mean, but I don't like that wording.
When a part of an institution (like Capitalism) has been subverted to the point of working against itself, can you even use the same word to describe both parts anymore? I just can't keep calling the 'wolves in sheep's clothing' sheep.
You aren't wrong, but this is basically the same cope as true-communism-has-never-been-tried.
Markets require a governing entity to set & enforce rules of the market. That used to be US government. But now it's WEF/FederalReserve/NGOs. (USG exists but is owned and controlled by financial shadow government)
Existence of governing entity is inevitable. Can have a virtuous one that operates openly, or an evil one that operates in the shadows.
The issue is that there's no such thing as a free market. Markets must have rules, otherwise the market will create conditions that destroy its own "freedom."
For example, slavery is bad for the free market, but without restraint any economic actor has huge incentive to use slavery, or do other immoral things that can provide huge competitive advantages. That's exactly what we see in all kinds of black markets.
Malicious behavior is potentially economically beneficial, so we must have "law" to restrain it. But all "law" distorts the market in various ways. The question is all about which laws we think are acceptable and which ones aren't. There is no easy way to define this, even if everyone agreed on common principles (which we don't, in reality), there's just too many grey areas.
The moment you combine "why does America pay poor people to come here" with "we shouldn't let corporations rule our lives", you're basically Hitler.
Capitalism is just private ownership of property. It has nothing to do with the problems we are talking about here.
I've always found this definition to be insufficient. That is how we end up with centrally planned capitalism and free market communism and then pretend everything is well.
What do you mean? It's the accurate definition. If you want to start referring to centralized state power as 'capitalist', then you are misusing the term.
It would be like if people started to consider science a religion, and I said, "no, science is the application of objective standards to remove bias from an experiment", and then you told me that was insufficient since people can have faith in science lol.
But if capitalism is just a private ownership of property, then a system where government decided what citizens do with their privately owned property would be some kind of capitalistic system.
It's not privately owned if the government decides what you do with it.
That is the original link if you want to dig more.
You will find shit like this.
Misread as epic games store, but fuck these extremist hedge funds.
Important to point out that the most powerful investment groups Blackrock & Vanguard, get freshly minted dollar bills from the Federal Reserve. So when the Fed prints money and give it to their buddies, it's directly supporting these political goals.
This is why fiat is immoral and alternative, non-centrally controlled currency is essential.
ESG is quite awful, but I'm unclear on how a company could avoid playing ball. Would it be sufficient to never become a publicly traded company?
You would never be a publicly traded company, and you would probably never receive investment money from a good number of investors either. You'd need to rely completely on your own profits.
Keep in mind that for most of Amazon's existence it never turned an actual profit. Same for YouTube, etc.
Also a lot of this ESG stuff already is or will become law. You can't exclude women or nonWhites because the law straight up requires you to have them (once 25/50+ employees) or they will destroy your business with lawsuits. You will face regulations on what types of fuel/transportation/energy you can use and where it's sourced from. etc etc etc.
Yeah, it's certainly a messy situation. Some of those laws need to go, but it seems like a tall order right now.
So, while "vote with your wallet" is not working as intended, it can at least act as a vital support for any business that's managing to steer away from this ESG thing.
Now, if there were some simple method for the public to view whether a business is receiving this ESG funding, maybe some kind of campaign for awareness or activism could arise.