So tell me why capitalism is bad please. Pic not related

So tell me why capitalism is bad please. Pic not related.

Attached: chad-MMAP-md.png (1030x727, 69.51K)

Because capitalism baf

Because you should be entitled to the fruits of your own labor.

We have a reading list for a reason

i hope this has served to right your discourse a little

Attached: productivity vs wages.png (680x486 12.26 KB, 100.86K)

It's a fundamentally unstable system that subjects people to periodic crises while exploitation is built into the system. Due to said exploitation, it also has a tendency to concentrate wealth into the hands of few and undermine the democracy people claim to idolize.

Also due to an insatiable need for constant expansion, capitalism likes to exploit resources until extinction or environmental catastrophe.

It isn't "bad" per se, since its creation was a historical inevitability. But it needs to be overcome, surpassed and obsoleted like all systems before it. Most likely by force, as that's what it has always taken. Before it irreversibly turns into a cyberpunk dystopia or wrecks the environment beyond our ability to live in it. If you need more personal reasons, see pic. Labor is entitled to its creation. But brainless anger, while completely justified, is also highly ineffectual, so read tons of theory to understand how to channel your fury productively.

Attached: 364c78cbe2d425f0d96c2b49e2d55de8adbb8a8b.jpg (431x634, 129.36K)

Because people literally starve to death or die from lack of healthcare. Even every successful "capitalist" country has to use some socialist policies so their people don't die

Also, the simple fact that capitalism persisting requires democracy not exist inside the workplace

Attached: richard-d-wolff.jpg (900x900, 248.05K)


Attached: cuba vs usa health stats.png (480x516 27.91 KB, 429.92K)

That's not how workplace democracy works

Attached: fire-your-boss.png (474x612, 215.93K)

The workplace should absolutely not be run like a democracy. There are few people who actually know how to run a business, and many who don't know the first thing about it. Their views shouldn't be treated as equal.

Explain to me why democratically voting on referenda and electing full-time politicians to execute popular mandates has produced nations that completely outperform authoritarian regimes in every metric of governments for the past two centuries, but this same system is somehow unsuited to the realm of business.

Attached: the_boss_needs_you__you_don__t_need_him__by_poasterchild-d5qhyz1.png.jpeg (752x1063, 144.84K)

Because we vote for politicians based on their perceived experience and expertise to know what they're doing, and understand legal jargon and management better than your average person with zero management experience, and zero understanding of law. We don't vote on what they do or how they do it.
This is also how you end up with elections between two people like Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

So what's your objection against doing this with business, making executives most accountable to the people with the biggest personal interest in its survival and success (workers) rather than those more interested in stripmining it for quick riches (stockholders)?

Attached: mitt-romney-vulture-capitalist-what-now-391.jpg (684x551, 177.26K)

Actually that would be the owner himself, because it's his business. If he decided to go public, then they're accountable to their majority shareholders, who have the most to lose on their investment.
The "workers", as you put it, have the least to lose. If the company tanks, you just update your resume and find a new job.

I presume you mean founder
Both of whom have strong incentives to "flip" the company for a buyout and shutdown to a competitor, as opposed to…
Who have the strongest incentive to keep a potentially competitive business running as long as it has a viable market

No, I mean owner. The original founder may still own it, may be dead, or may have sold it off; but in the last two cases it's none of his concern anymore.
That's nowhere near the common case. It's obvious you don't own stocks, because you don't buy stocks in a business you think is going to fail. You buy them in businesses you think are going to be successful, so that you see a return on your share. I'm not saying that never happens, but you're making a ridiculous assumption by saying "that's what a shareholder is and does".
They have AN incentive, because finding work is always a pain in the ass as opposed for showing up to work, but they hardly have the most incentive, for the reason you chose to entirely ignore for some reason.

"Investors", pfft. Sorry, stockholders aren't interested in whether or not a business is going to fail, whether or not it's profitable, its revenues, or anything else about the fortunes of the business, its employees, or its customers. Stockholders are solely interested in the trend of share prices, which (aside from the typically unimportant influence of issuance and buybacks) are solely a product of what the stock market is doing. This tends to manifest in the following pattern:

Missed one.

I might add that its 'bad' for the proletariat, which is why it is going to eventually be replaced by a new system

perhaps if you study the origins and material realities of what are commonly called 'communist countries' you might find some answers - in case this answer seems unsatisfactory, do you think that if a country in the Anglosphere like USA, Britain or Australia would have had a workers' revolution, the new state would have turned out exactly like the USSR or Maoist China?

user, it might be a beneficial practice for you to become a low-level "Porky" by trading penny stocks, or something. Nothing you wrote is even tangentially related to reality. I think this might offer you a radically new perspective as to how "investments" actually work.

A "90%" shareholder such as myself has no input on board selection or corporate governance, even via proxy. Those decisions are instead made exclusively by porkies at the top of the food chain, who command majorities so large as to be utterly unassailable. Plus, even the above chart is optimistic, as many corporations like Google and Facebook have special classes with more than one vote per share, invariably held by board members.

The games I described are something you can only instigate if you control a significant (or especially majority) bloc of votes on the board. For someone like me or you, all we can do is try to predict the machinations of those porkies, and plan our investment around such patterns.

Attached: distribution-of-stock-ownership.jpg (460x313, 16.14K)

…but is an accurate history of a lot of corporate takeovers.

I see what you did there. Also checked.