[1]: http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/26/technology/business/amazon-e...
My, how the world was improved by ruthless optimization and margin squeezing, centralization of commerce and retail, concentration of wealth, buying of legislators, invasions of privacy, etc.
It's a good idea - people will act selfishly instinctively, so if you can align that to make it good, then everything works.
Of course, we know raw capitalism doesn't work (e.g: monopolies break it). So our systems have all sorts of hacks to try and fix it. The problem is that so many of the richest people just focus on breaking those fixes and finding gaps to exploit to avoid creating value for society.
Currently, a lot of the groups in power across the world are actively trying to make more of those gaps they can slip through, and remove the layers of fixes we have put in to support the people that are not helped by that simple system.
Yes, it's good for people to want to make money in a capitalist system, assuming the system is perfect and that there is no way to break it is to ignore reality.
No, it's not; that's an after-the-fact rationalization.
I mean, we were a few centuries into the feudalism-capitalism transition before anyone started even talking about property rights in those terms in general, at least another century before capitalism as a system was even described (and by it's critics, not it's supporters), and I think several decades later till this excuse was cited specifically as a justification for capitalism as such.
Capitalism was created, incrementally over time, because rich merchants decided to use their wealth to force feudal overlords to cede progrrssively more power and influence to the rich merchants. Not as a manner to harness greed for the public good. Just as a matter of greed, pure and simple.
My point was that, while that may be the aim of the system, it's not inherent to it - you are backing up my point by saying that it was not always used that way.
No that's completely false. Capitalism is the replacement (and logical continuation) of feudalism, after its collapse, as a system of social stratification. Saying that is trying to validate your thinking and ignoring the history of the matter.
My point was that, while that may be the aim of the system, it's not inherent to it - you are backing up my point by saying that it was not always used that way. (You may argue it still doesn't, although I'd say it does at least to some extent).
With a bit of help from the taxpayers: http://www.dispatch.com/news/20180105/amazon-makes-list-of-l...
So, 0.14% of their workforce.
"Amazon likely has about 700 workers [in Ohio alone] receiving food stamps, more than 10 percent of its Ohio workforce"
I don't think your assumption is true.
"Oh, Father. You're so wrong. Let me explain.
[Puts and empty water glass on his desk]
Life, which you so nobly serve, comes from destruction, disorder and chaos. Now take this empty glass. Here it is: peaceful, serene, boring. But if it is destroyed
[Pushes the glass off the table. It shatters on the floor, and several small machines come out to clean it up]
Look at all these little things! So busy now! Notice how each one is useful. A lovely ballet ensues, so full of form and color. Now, think about all those people that created them. Technicians, engineers, hundreds of people, who will be able to feed their children tonight, so those children can grow up big and strong and have little teeny children of their own, and so on and so forth. Thus, adding to the great chain of life. You see, father, by causing a little destruction, I am in fact encouraging life. In reality, you and I are in the same business.
The GP was talking about essentially scamming people.