Replies

"The nature of capitalism is productivity, not philanthropy."

I was never arguing the nature of capitalism. Neither do I rail against it. There's a distinction to be made between capitalism and corporatism. Capitalism is an individual activity; corporatism is a form of collectivism.

The outcomes of individual capitalism are generally philanthropic, and beneficial to the welfare of societies that engage in it. The outcome of collectivist global corporatism is not. The purpose, and result, of incorporation is to produce an entity with greater influence than the sum of its' constituent shareholders.

That entity serves only itself, and it will over time become predatory and or/parasitic in nature as a corporate entitiy is incapable of human conscience. Shareholders bear no legal liability to society beyond their financial holdings in the company, so personal responsibility is removed also. The corporate entity becomes perfectly sociopathic, in that it lacks conscience to prevent wrong-doings, and feels no responsibility for retribution.

Of course. So what? Actors in a capitalistic system need have no conscience and may be predatory as much as they wish. They (whether they are individuals or legal fictions) must still satisfy a buyer's need in order to make a profit. The bounds of acceptable actions are defined by law, not by conscience. The invisible hand orders goods and services irrespective of whether the economic actors are people, horses, or giant corporations. In fact, said hand is blind, and that is why the system works.

Your paragraph betrays a PROFOUND failure to grasp the economics of capitalism 101.

You are also destroying a perfectly good political term ("collectivist") by misusing it like an impressionist uses mauve paint. Something big and comprised of many parts is not, by that, a collectivist entity.

The corporate entity becomes perfectly sociopathic, in that it lacks conscience to prevent wrong-doings, and feels no responsibility for retribution.

Did you study economics at Berkeley? This is the kind of leftists nonsense I'd expect to hear from a left wing professor, with no real world experience, at a leftist university.

Milton Friedman had this to say:

"There is but one and only one social responsibility of business - to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud."

There is no differences between corporatism and capitalism. Yours is a feeble attempt to fool us by making a distinction without a difference.

What you're really condemning here is the profit motive. You call it greed but we really know what you're referring to. Whenever the profit incentive is missing, the probability that people's wants can be safely ignored is the greatest. In a free economy, the pursuit of profits and serving the people are one in the same.

What a crock. Trying the socialist ploy of changing terms, and drawing distinctions that do not exist.