I would say yes.
It sounds like you're trying to work to some sort of point or conclusion. What is it?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is Capitalism?
- Thread starter an anarchist
- Start date
It sounds like you're trying to work to some sort of point or conclusion. What is it?
Running a business doesn't make someone a capitalist in and of itself.
There are plenty of small business people who are simply engaging in labour; they just happen to be self-employed.
IMO, to be a capitalist, someone needs to be using their wealth, as opposed to their labour (whether physical or mental), as their main method of gaining new wealth.
Jeff Bezos becoming the (formerly) richest person in the world wasn't just a matter of him owning his share of Amazon; it was a matter of that along with a whole boatload of unethical practices.
It's the unethical practices that are the issue.
So you don't have a problem with rich people; so long as they are fair?
Capitalism works when you pay someone to do something of value. To simply dig a hole, to refill is of no value.
Thank-you.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, but there is not just one version of fair, yet yes, I don't have problem with rich people as such.
Does it also include raising the price of your products so customers have to pay more for the same product?
I’m trying to find out where you draw the line between the evil capitalist vs the guy who’s just running a business.
So when Sam Walton who is known to work 15 hours per day yet was one of the richest men in the world, he was not a capitalist because working 15 hours per day is laboring, even if the labor is mental; do you agree?
So your problem with Jeff Bezos is that he was a crooked business man; if he was not crooked yet just as rich, you would have no problem with him, is that correct?
Yes I understand fairness is completely subjective; but it sounds like you and I probably agree more than we disagree concerning this issue. The person I was debating with before you entered the discussion appears to have such a problem and when you entered the discussion I assumed you shared his views.
You think "capitalist" necessarily implies "evil"?
No, I don't agree. He may have worked a lot (for argument's sake, I'll take your word for it - I don't know his work habits), but his labour was not the main source of his wealth.
I'm not sure it's possible to become as rich as Jeff Bezos without acting unethically.
That being said, I do have an issue with people keeping vast amounts of wealth and not using it to address immediate, basic human needs... though this probably gets into what's morally praiseworthy than what's morally obligatory.
I don’t, but when you entered the conversation, I was discussing with someone who apparently does. So when you appeared to defend his position, I guess I sorta assumed you shared his views. If you don’t, thanks for pointing that out for me.
How do you figure? Walmart was the source of his labor, and his wealth was tied up in Walmart; so how can you say that which is the fruits of his labor is not the main source of his wealth?
Wow! Do you not see the bigotry in your words?
Well it’s not like he has $200 billion sitting in a vault somewhere, he probably has less than a million dollars. He is WORTH billions; he doesn’t actually have it. His wealth is tied up in Amazon stock and if he were to attempt to cash it in, it would cause the share price to crash, and would probably destroy the company. So his wealth is tied up in the company being used to keep the company running successfully. Why do you have a problem with that?
I didn't defend any position. I defined a term.
Walmart is mostly the product of the labour of its employees, not Sam Walton.
No, I don't. Explain it to me.
Better yet, show me a billionaire who became one entirely ethically.
Bezos has apparently sold more than 60 million shares of Amazon over the last 20 years. He's been fine with pulling wealth out of the company; the question is more about how he chose to spend it.
Not just the employees, but the customers, the suppliers, those who supply the suppliers, the banks that loaned him the money, shareholders, there are a million people behind the scenes that are responsible for the success of Walmart, or any business; but because Sam started it and put it all together, he gets the credit. Just like if I built a house with my bare hands; did I grow the trees, cut the down and cut them into boards for my house? Did I extract iron ore from the ground, turn it into steel and make that steel nails in order to nail the wood together? Does that mean the people who did those things should get most of the credit for building my house? No; because I put it all together I get the credit.
A bigot is someone who has unreasonable harsh views of someone based on the group they are a part of.
Warren Buffet. Now show me a poor person who is poor due to no fault of his own.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Me, I am poor and it is not my fault.
I knew that was the core of your belief system, when it came to it. We don't agree.
Your analogy sucks. Sam Walton literally hired staff to do the work that generated Wal-Mart's profit.
FFS. I meant explain to me why you think what I said is bigoted.
I'm familiar with one of Buffett's unethical acts because of how it affected my area: union-busting.
After Berkshire Hathaway acquired Kraft Heinz, they closed the unionized Heinz plant in Leamington, Ontario, putting hundreds of people out of work. A few months later, the plant was purchased by Highbury Canco and reopened, still supplying Heinz. (Edit: only with a fresh CBA, lower wages, fewer benefits, and more precarious employment)
From the media coverage at the time, I understand that these tactics are par for the course for Buffett.
Yes! But he paid for their labor; just like he paid for the products neither he nor his employers made. Why do you have a problem with this?
Because like a bigot, you expressed unreasonable harsh views on people based on the group they are a part of, rather than what they did as individuals.
I wasn't actually looking for an answer to the question, the question was to show an example of bigotry.
Please be careful moving your goalposts so quickly; you might throw your back out.
No, my views are based on what they did as individuals.
How did I move goalposts?
You said you don't think it is possible to become a billionaire without being unethical. How is that any less bigoted than saying all poor people did something wrong or foolish?
The question at hand was whether your analogy was good. You jumped from this to asking why I thought an accurate analogy implies Sam Walton did something wrong.
I've noticed that you have a habit of jumping to conclusions about other people's positions; assuming that they mean things they didn't say. You're rapidly using up my benefit of the doubt that you're interested in a good-faith discussion, so if you want this discussion to continue, you'll cut it out.
- Every billionaire, no matter how they got their money, is doing something ethically dubious: hoarding a billion dollars.
- When we examine how billionaires became billionaires, we generally find one of two things: either they did unethical things themselves to build the wealth, or they inherited the money that their relative built by doing unethical things.