A forum for discussing and organizing recreational softball and baseball games and leagues in the greater Halifax area.
Corporations shouldn't be allowed to make a profit.
-
Yeah it is really funny how an entity that controls dozens of people's lives only benefits the "king" at the top. I was raised to think we were above having kings and slave masters in the modern era.You said "Corporations shouldn’t be allowed to make a profit." Even in my wildest liberal dreams, I can't invent a sentence so brazenly unrealistic. If you don't want corporations to make a profit, you basically don't want corporations at all. It's pointless to even frame things in the context of capitalism at that point. Capitalism is an evil and shitty system. Just say that, instead of trying to redefine what capitalism is.
-
> It would be unusual, at least in the US, for an owner/CEO to be funding company projects out of their own pocket ??? Bruh what. Of course many owners have to fund projects themselves. You're thinking only of huge stock traded corpos, but there's a lot more businesses than those lmao. > The company’s money comes from the employees’ efforts. Yes, and the employee receives a monthly monetary compensation that was previously agreed on. The employee has 0 risk involved - if the company goes bankrupt, the employee just looks for a new job. The owner of said company might face life-long debt. I'm gladly willing to criticize CEO pay and the stock market in general because those things are fucked up, but this tankie clowning "MIMIMI MEANS OF PRODUCTION" is so fucking cringe. Businesses are more than that, and pretending otherwise is stupid at best and dishonest at worst.Even with small businesses, the owner's personal funds and the company's funds are supposed to be separate. You can get in big trouble for treating them as interchangeable. If the "company" is just you, it's probably fine, but once you're big enough to be employing other people, it's a bad practice. I've seen friends face legal trouble because of it. And I don't see anything tankie about acknowledging that, once you start employing other people, those people are part of the company. The value and utility of the company come from them as much as from the owner--or more, in many cases. That's literally why a company would want to employ multiple people.
-
You said "Corporations shouldn’t be allowed to make a profit." Even in my wildest liberal dreams, I can't invent a sentence so brazenly unrealistic. If you don't want corporations to make a profit, you basically don't want corporations at all. It's pointless to even frame things in the context of capitalism at that point. Capitalism is an evil and shitty system. Just say that, instead of trying to redefine what capitalism is.Corporations had their profits taxed at 90% and had to convince the city council to let them open each location of their businesses requiring that they would actually provide a needed service to the community. This was less than 100 years ago. I'm sorry that propaganda is so effective on you.
-
I don't understand why you can't set up your own business if you want to take the risk yourself.
-
Even with small businesses, the owner's personal funds and the company's funds are supposed to be separate. You can get in big trouble for treating them as interchangeable. If the "company" is just you, it's probably fine, but once you're big enough to be employing other people, it's a bad practice. I've seen friends face legal trouble because of it. And I don't see anything tankie about acknowledging that, once you start employing other people, those people are part of the company. The value and utility of the company come from them as much as from the owner--or more, in many cases. That's literally why a company would want to employ multiple people.> the owner’s personal funds and the company’s funds are supposed to be separate True for larger companies, not true for smaller start-ups without large funding backing them - at least not in most european countries I've been to. And even for larger private companies - it's still the owners money. He can take money from the company at any time or just outright liquidate it. > The value and utility of the company come from them as much as from the owner–or more, in many cases. That’s literally why a company would want to employ multiple people. True, but the actual question is, could the individual employee produce the same output without the companies resources? For most people, this would be a no, because if they could, they'd all be freelancers and make three times the money they make as employee - that's what happens in IT. A dude operating a machine for 8 hours a day is not entitled to the profit he makes since he could not do said work without the machine.
