Home   |   Browse       NEW: (hypothetically starring) VIC REEVES as LUKE SKYWALKER .. in "Waiting for Godot, the hollywood version".

All you 'proud capitalists' who praise our current failed-capitalist status quo, let's focus on how stupid you are being.   Share:  
Thrust of argument: Corporations must deduct from their income the cost of -

repairing environmental damage they do, including to human bodies of workforce (thus proper income is also vital - outsourcing to factory slaves is an act of capitalist-failure)

anything else which is caused by their actions when producing what they sell us.
Direction of resistance / implied resistance: Instead, things like environmental damage and even low pay are left to society to make up for, we have to pay their bills.

 

I WOULD TRADE NOW ON:
bae (at half strength)
AT APPROX 552.50 capita (at half strength)
AT APPROX 465.90 centrica AT APPROX 144.80 g4s AT APPROX 252.60 gkn AT APPROX 300.80 glencore AT APPROX 349.00 m&s AT APPROX 310.60 morrison AT APPROX 211.80 rollsroyce (at half strength)
AT APPROX 832.50 rsa (at half strength)
AT APPROX 597.00

THIS IS NOT TRADING ADVICE. CLICK HERE FOR MORE DETAILS.

 

Enter your DOMAIN NAME to
collect this point:

 

Removal of resistance: For example frackers in the USA go to a place and frack it until it can be fracked no more and leave. The local government ends up having to pay the cost of dealing with most of the environmental damage done by the frackers. Fracking is alleged to be 'profitable' to some extent, some of the time, because considerable cost is just not covered.

If processed food makers cause cancer in society, the cost of those cancers must also be deducted from their income.

It is the case in every situation of a similar nature: those who do stuff to make money must pay for ALL the costs of the stuff they do including those which are knock-on costs.
Unification: So when you pretend that you support profit making you're lying to yourselves. What you're saying really is that if an armed robbery planner only spends about 100 pounds on the petrol and a few 100 on the weapons, that's good business, intelligent work and a clear profit - rather than a criminal way to just take money without earning it which technically anyone could do in a lawless society - and the corporate world's lack of regulation, particularly the financial sector, is certainly at a level of lawlessness which is comparable to armed robbery or the British empire or something like those things. Hitler's invasions. That sort of thing.
Rebut this point   Support this point   Edit this point

(TVhobo's estimated size of readership since 2013, mainly in the UK and USA, with Germany in third place:
over 200,000 readers across approximately 200 cities/towns

 

Copy/paste point into your work:

Type: Open statement

Supported by points:

1.342.1

2 versions:

1. Server time: 21:29:5 on 8/7/2017
2. Server time: 21:31:2 on 8/7/2017

Related points:

References:

 

 

previous point on the grid   |   next point on the grid

 

Click here to read about Shams Pirani, the editor and chief author on this grid - note, if you can actually prove anything written above wrong, I would gladly, if the proof is sufficient, correct what I've written and what I think - if I could, however, prove your attempted proof wrong, then I would accordingly say so and maintain whatever point of view is completely based on fact and proof.