I put red 40 and asbestos in my lemonade for that authentic americano flavor.
introducing freedom micheladas 🇺🇸
thank you mexico for your contribution we’ll take it from here
I feel this image is more “how it starts and how it becomes, when left unregulated”. Many people that brought products to the market did so with good intentions and sought to be competitive. When companies start getting bigger and are then allowed to buy up their direct competitors, that is when the model falls apart. As the focus shifts from what’s best for the customer into what will help the company maintain its spot on top. In many cases by making it near impossible for newer companies to enter the market. From raising the legal barriers of entry in their industry to dropping the products prices to unprofitable levels until any new competition can’t afford to stay open to compete. Monopolies should be broken up.
Modified and regulated capitalism is the only ethical capitalism imo. By that I mean there needs to be room for fair competition and there needs be something like a Universal Basic Income in place. As capitalism itself doesn’t help people get their basic needs met. People need to be able to afford things within the system to keep it going. Small businesses would benefit a lot from their customers and employees both benefiting from a basic income, as customers would have money disposable income and employees would not have to rely so much on their employers pay to meet their basic needs.
note however that capital naturally seeks deregulation.
some might theorize that an initially perfectly regulated capitalistic economy would still become deregulated so long as laborers are separated from the output of their labor—a defining characteristic of everything labeled capitalism.
(again: theory. just expressing the devil’s advocate here don’t come at me no harm meant 😊)
I mean that pretty much is what happened in the US at least. The corporate tax rate was substantially higher and so individual take rate on the richest Americans post-WW2 and pre-Regan. Public works were well funded and having a government job meant you had a stable and well paying salary. Private business owners pushed congress to ease up on the tax rate ‘to spur private business growth and create jobs’, especially since original justification of funding the war effort disappeared.
While private business did grow more from the eased up taxes, what happened more was that the owners of these companies started raking in more and more in net profits. Suddenly the pay differential between the workers and the factory owners started to balloon to a much greater level.
By the time Regan came in, this process then started to snowball even more to what we see today since Regan cut corporate tax rate even more than Republicans did previously post-WW2.
To think, we could have had well funded public programs for decades. Standard jobs could have been paying a living wage still, like it was expected for them to do back then.
Tbh, I think you need protections that are hard to remove by greedy individuals and politicians. If regulations required a 2/3 majority of the votes in both chambers to lower that could prevent a lot of shenanigans. I don’t think everything necessarily should have that high of a barrier, but regulations and protections are usually prime targets for those seeking to make a quick buck.
I personally think workers could have proportional share of ownership in a company. At least then they directly benefit when the company benefits, much like the owners currently do. Maybe something like the 30% ownership by the CEO, 50% ownership by the employees, and 20% ownership split between the local community/county/state/federal government. If the public has partial ownership their needs become more of the forefront, and it can help bring resources back into the local communities. If not public ownership, then steeper corporate tax rates of larger corporations, potentially even having corporate tax brackets like exist for private citizens.
I personally think workers could have proportional share of ownership in a company. At least then they directly benefit when the company benefits, much like the owners currently do. Maybe something like…
Yes. And to add some concreteness: The workers get an equal say in how that share is distributed. It’s normal of course for businesses to have specialized versus mid range versus probationary wages and things will absolutely vary from business to business and field to field. It’s more equitable that workers get an equal say than it is that they get equal pay.
(Just came up with that rhyme myself I feel clever lol.)
Yeah it’s usually a huge shift when a company goes public, and then their sole and highest priority is quarterly increase in profits to increase shareholder value, which generally means enshittification of everything to make a few more cents on the dollar.
So to add to your regulations, I think a “slow burn” version of the stock market needs to exist. Rather than hyper quant AI hedge fund trading by the second, stock purchases should be a required hold for a period of time, like a bond. If you truly believe in the company, you believe in its more long term growth than tomorrow’s trade show or that one tweet that Elon made.
It shouldn’t be legal for the interest of shareholders to outweigh the interest of stakeholders. Companies need to be beholden to stakeholders only; while shareholders are a part of the stakeholders in a company, their interests should be equal to each of the other stakeholders.
I agree, stocks don’t need to be short term investments that people can day trade to game.
Also, the millionaires and billionaires that own stock should be forced to sell their shares instead of being allowed to use their stock as collateral. These people can evade paying taxes on their money for their whole lives while still gaining the effects of actually using that money since the stock doesn’t need to be sold to be useable.
Hey, got any grapes?
Just Wrath
bum bum bum
It actually works both ways. They try to produce the most attractive (not best!) product at the lowest cost.
you’re overcomplicating it. it’s about profit, period. and different market categories will eke out that profit in different ways.
for example, medical fields force profits not by attractivity, but by hiding cost behind opaque “insurance” structures.
You’re not wrong; highly regulated markets like medicine can be extremely dysfunctional. But lemonade is not medicine, so I feel like you’re moving the goalposts a bit here.
using a metaphor to analyze its subject is actually pretty common but whatever
Thats not working both ways, you just admited they arent trying to make the best product.
In terms of business, it’s better if it sells better, not if it’s made better. The best product is the one that sells. A perfect product that doesn’t sell isn’t the best, it’s the worst.
The best product for a business is the one that the customer has no choice but buying from only them.
The claim is that marketing will inform the consumer what qualities are better, but the reality is all lies.
If there were more transparency, if the customer could reliably tell the difference, then the best product is more likely to win. However modern capitalism works with marketing to fool the customer for highest profit
Well no, that is just one option.
The actual (sole) goal is to profit the most.
Oh you sweet summer child
