ziogio998 OP t1_ivi1dbk wrote on November 8, 2022 at 2:48 AM

Reply to comment by hickhelperinhackney in Top 100 Most Valuable Brands as Illustrated by Visual Capitalist by ziogio998

I believe free market capitalism is still much better than other alternatives we've tried. It's the only one that actually uplifted billions out of poverty. In the case of these big corporations, I'd say the problem lies in the jurisdiction they're in, and the globalization of tax policies, rather than the shareholders' profits.

If these companies paid their fair share of taxes and retributed their employees fairly, there would be no reason to hate on them. So, it seems like the problem is not the company or the product, but the legal structure around them. Individuals are much better than governments at generating profits for themselves but, of course, need to be held accountable and contribute to the economy.

hickhelperinhackney t1_ivi1hvp wrote on November 8, 2022 at 2:49 AM

Great response

[deleted] t1_ivk4gzb wrote on November 8, 2022 at 3:42 PM

[deleted]

ziogio998 OP t1_ivlcd7v wrote on November 8, 2022 at 8:23 PM

Obviously, the biggest benefits were given to those who were the most malnourished. The EU was pretty good 50 years ago, while China def wasn't. Also, what you just said it's a perfect proof of free markets working too - China became rich af moving from communism to state capitalism.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.LMIC.GP?end=2021&start=1967&view=chart

All indicators from reputable sources show poverty declining steadily starting when free markets made their appearance. This DOES NOT mean unregulated free markets are good, because they have an expiration date, like US capitalism that is now inverting the curve and increasing their poverty rates, rather than decreasing it.

However, fair business practices and strong jurisdiction can profit from free markets (and not simply "capitalism", it's not all about the capital in free markets) nearly forever, as it's the case in Norway, Netherlands, Denmark, and Sweden. As long as the gov can take money out of the free markets and invest it properly for the common good of its people, and it's able to enforce the rules on corporations doing business there, it seems like this is the model that worked best overall.

It will obviously need to change, as there won't be enough jobs in the future. AI is replacing most of them, and robots like the Tesla robot will replace even more. We need a new economy, but it must start from the great benefits we achieved so far. Remember that everyone complaining about free markets consider "poor" things people living in planned economies deem as "rich".

Example: a guy sleeping in his car in the US is a homeless, poor person. A guy sleeping in a car in Kenya could be the richest in his neighborhood.

SaamsamaNabazzuu t1_ivq2ui8 wrote on November 9, 2022 at 7:58 PM

> If these companies paid their fair share of taxes and retributed their employees fairly, there would be no reason to hate on them. So, it seems like the problem is not the company or the product, but the legal structure around them. Individuals are much better than governments at generating profits for themselves but, of course, need to be held accountable and contribute to the economy.

I agree with this and would recommend people read David Dayen's "Monopolized". The only caveat with your statement would be that this chart displays a global mix of organizations. What you've said is applicable everywhere yet more so in the US where corporate money counts more than individual votes which makes it very difficult for the legal and financial structure to change to benefit the general populace.