Does the government keep capitalist interests on the top ?

Submitted ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩ by ⁨jungekatz@lemm.ee⁩ to ⁨[deleted]⁩

Lately since covid has begun, there has been a high job insecurity in multiple fields , while the logical thing to do would have been improving job security laws, at least our govt( the name does not matter really) has brought laws , that gives power to the capitalists to abuse labour laws , or to fire employees more easily! I dont understand how does it even help the state or people , except the capitalists ?

source

Comments

Sort:hotnew top

CaptObvious@literature.cafe ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
I think in the US, national laws require corporations to maximize shareholder profits at all costs. It’s disgusting, but Friedman economists still have the ear of Congress, so there’s not much to be done about it.

source
- jeffw@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  Most business ethics stuff I’ve seen from the past 10-20 years directly rebukes stakeholder theory and the Friedman purist view of “profits are all that businesses should care about”.
  
  Although… how many CEOs have read books on corporate ethics?
  
  source
  - CaptObvious@literature.cafe ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Business is not my specialty, but I do have the sense that the ethical viewpoint is shifting away from Friedman. Unfortunately, the law is not. Shareholder supremacy is still mandated in the US, by my understanding, and ethics be damned.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    There’s business, and there’s ethics.
    
    Pick one.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- Nonameuser678@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  Neo classical economics is a cult and this is a hill I’m willing to die on.
  
  source
  - CaptObvious@literature.cafe ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Right there with you. I’d even go further and say that it’s the application of lessons the rich learned from the failures of their ancestors in the Guilded Age. This time, they intend to keep workers in their place by any means necessary.
    
    source
  - Arxir@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Can you elaborate? I’m interested to understand this better, both what neoclassical economics exactly is what characteristics make it a cult.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- vegai@suppo.fi ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  I think a declaration that corporations should br making money primarily is a good one. But it must be coupled with legislation that gives them guardrails and promotes competition. Without theae things the economy doesn’t function as it should.
  
  Unfortunately, that latter part is full of disagreements.
  
  source
- jungekatz@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  I can see blatant disregard of the anti trust laws and big corps going monopolistic without any actual caps , idk when will it stop !
  
  source
SwingingKoala@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Didn’t you hear? What benefits the corporations benefits the people! It’s trickle down prosperity.

source
- jungekatz@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  Read a report two days ago , that trickle down does not seem to work ! Ik ur sarcastic !
  
  source
  - bobs_monkey@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    It’s been 40 years since that crap was spouted and the readout has determined that was a lie.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
OttoVonNoob@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Depends which country and ruling party. In, most western countries capitalists do have alot of sway.

source
Adeptfuckup@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Yes. A rich persons assets are protected by law. Whilst your life is considered secondary at best. Laws are primarily written to protect assets of the rich. It’s always been that way. From the Roman senate to the US senate. They are/were all rich land owners. Land which they stole from the natives, and enslaved them. There is nothing strange about this. This is just how we do things as a species. So a better question would be. How do we break this destructive cycle that has plagued our (human) civilization since its inception?

source
- jungekatz@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  The rich are allowed to borrow billions from banks just on a letter of understanding and no actual proof , they may later be rescued by govts as well if they fail , while the othet than 1% , are scutinised for a few hundred thousand dollar loan too !
  
  source
frankPodmore@slrpnk.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
There are a couple of different ways of looking at this but I think either way the answer is yes.

Firstly, capitalism as an economic system requires a government of some sort to maintain it. If we accept this (and outside of a small minority of extreme right wing libertarians and anarchocapitalists, most of us do), then there’s a fairly simple answer to your question: without a supportive government, there is no capitalism and therefore no capitalist interest. So, yes.

But I think the question you’re asking is perhaps more like, ‘Does the government make a deliberate effort to keep capitalists, i.e., shareholders, in control of the economy, as opposed to some other group?’

I think the answer to this rephrased question is slightly more complex, although it does also boil down to ‘Yes’. Businesses are required by law to prioritise shareholder returns. Insofar as the government could change the law, but doesn’t, the answer to your question again must be ‘Yes’.

But, while that law does exist, it’s not the only law. All governments do, in practice, constrain what businesses can and can’t do, and therefore do effectively restrict the theoretical profits a shareholder can make. Many governments also protect the existence and activities of groups like trade unions, which are often seen as running counter to the interests of shareholders. In this case, while I still think that basically the answer to your question is ‘Yes’, we can safely add a ‘but’, as in, ‘… but that’s not ALL that governments do’.

There’s another angle here, which is that many or even most people in the developed world are at least partially or indirectly shareholders and, therefore, capitalists. If you have a savings account or a pension, you own shares through your bank/pension provider. So, some might argue that keeping capitalists/shareholders ‘on top’ actually benefits nearly everyone. I don’t quite buy this, but it’s worth considering.

I think I could probably add further points and caveats here (e.g., tax policy might benefit ‘the rich’ who tend largely to also be ‘the capitalists/shareholders’) but I think I’ve said as much as I can without repeating myself.

source
Stinkywinks@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Of course. That’s who the government works for. That’s who pays them, lobbies them. Gives them sweet luxury vacations. Laws are written by the ultra wealthy.

source
danwardvs@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
“the government” can be referring to many groups unless you believe in a secret world order.

source
- jungekatz@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  Well yes , the govt means govt of respective country / states , although they are so similar that I dont want to name specific country !
  
  source
Today@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Can you share some examples of the laws?

source
- jungekatz@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  For example , increase in the percentage of the employees companies can hire and fire , without serving a notice or any amount paid to them , increased the work week hours here close to 50, made policies so that companies can save money at expense of employee health etc !
  
  source
Nonameuser678@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Hahahaha umm yeah it does. This is kind of why a lot of people have some issues with the whole capitalism thing. It’s not good for anyone but capitalists.

source
xc2215x@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Mostly so.

source