I’m not going to agree with you either. While difficult to maintain and impossible to make a consistent system due to the nature of some humans, ethical capitalism can and does exist. I would prefer a universal egalitarian society with no money and labor for the sake of labor, not survival, but that is not realistic either.
There should be fair pay. The gap between executive pay and laborer pay should be under 10x, in my opinion at least. There should also be fair pricing. But there does need to be some functional level of income above expenses for labor and materials. That is where responsible growth lives. That is where being able to hire on more people that you still pay fairly lives. If you are paying a minimum of 75k, you need at least 75k over your outlay before you can give another person a job. If businesses operated how you described, always existing at break even, then the job marker would quickly stagnate and the only positions that would be available to entry level people would be ones that were vacated by termination or death, because promotions would also not be possible. You described an equilibrium state which prevents growth of any kind.
The problem with ethical capitalism is that, in the long run, it is an utopia.
I say that because any ethical capitalism will under perform against unethical (or even criminal) capitalism. By that, I mean that ethical capitalism earns less profit margins compared with unethical capitalism.
At some point, the ethical company will either be bought by an (richer) unethical one or will be pushed out of the market.
Anyways, I do agree with you that an ethical capitalism would be better and, maybe even an first step towards socialism?
If you pay your workers their fair share, you wouldn’t have any profits.
And if your product was ‘priced’ at its real cost you wouldn’t be stealing any from customers either.
I’m not going to agree with you either. While difficult to maintain and impossible to make a consistent system due to the nature of some humans, ethical capitalism can and does exist. I would prefer a universal egalitarian society with no money and labor for the sake of labor, not survival, but that is not realistic either.
There should be fair pay. The gap between executive pay and laborer pay should be under 10x, in my opinion at least. There should also be fair pricing. But there does need to be some functional level of income above expenses for labor and materials. That is where responsible growth lives. That is where being able to hire on more people that you still pay fairly lives. If you are paying a minimum of 75k, you need at least 75k over your outlay before you can give another person a job. If businesses operated how you described, always existing at break even, then the job marker would quickly stagnate and the only positions that would be available to entry level people would be ones that were vacated by termination or death, because promotions would also not be possible. You described an equilibrium state which prevents growth of any kind.
The problem with ethical capitalism is that, in the long run, it is an utopia.
I say that because any ethical capitalism will under perform against unethical (or even criminal) capitalism. By that, I mean that ethical capitalism earns less profit margins compared with unethical capitalism.
At some point, the ethical company will either be bought by an (richer) unethical one or will be pushed out of the market.
Anyways, I do agree with you that an ethical capitalism would be better and, maybe even an first step towards socialism?