12 Answers

  1. People from the “whole nation “who want profit become”parasites”.
    Fortunately, now it is legal and accessible to everyone.
    Well, those who do not want to-do not become.
    Everything is simple.

    PS Yes, I would also like to have good uncles and aunts who are strangers to me working for my good, and bring me money just because I am so good. Just like you are right now. But the economy doesn't work that way.

  2. No, it can't.�

    In general, the capitalist model of production itself is based on parasitism. What is its essence? Very simple. In any process of production under capitalism, there are two subjects: the owner and the worker. The owner owns the production, the worker-produces any type of goods (including services) on it. Next, we will analyze further events using an abstract example.

    For example, some production earned 1 million rubles. How did it earn this money? It's simple: selling goods produced by workers. Now it's time to distribute the created funds. It is here that the same parasitism occurs: the owner appropriates part of the revenue (created by the sale of goods produced by workers) in order to make a profit. This is parasitism.

  3. Is a person who has opened a small shop, a private kindergarten, a barber shop or a phone repair point really a parasite? That is, if I work alone and for myself, then this is good. And if I have so many orders that I can no longer cope and take the person I pay my salary to help, then I become a parasite? After all, the person I invited to help may not have all my knowledge, but perform a simpler job. And then why should he receive a commensurate income? Who prevents him from doing the same thing on his own and getting more?

    In fact, it all comes down to the level of responsibility. Most of the population does not like to make any decisions and is responsible for them with their ruble, reputation, standard of living and status. And managers do it every day. Therefore, your estimates of the same problem are completely different. The maximum that threatens you for a wrong action is dismissal. For the owner of the company, this is the collapse of a part of his life.

    So no, you should not share the profit with all the people. No one will agree. There is no motivation for the company's productivity.

    PS The Ministry of Labor proposed to introduce criminal liability for the dismissal of people of pre-retirement age, in connection with its increase. In other words, he directly informed employers that people should be dismissed before the age of 55. Otherwise, then he can do nothing, drink, skip school… But you can't fire them. Criminal record. I'm exaggerating, of course, but you get the point. Do you need to share your profits with them?

  4. The main feature of capitalism is the existence of a labor market.

    This market can be completely wild or seriously regulated.

    But the market always has a certain pattern: the dependence of prices on the balance of supply and demand. If your specialty and qualification in the labor market is “overstocked”, then the price for it will be close to the cost price, i.e. to the subsistence minimum recognized in this case. If there is a shortage in the market, then the price is limited only by the buyer's ability to pay.

    All attempts to balance the market yield insignificant results. Therefore, the stratification of even employees by income level is inevitable.

  5. Capitalism has never raised the standard of living of people on its own, its increase has always been either a side feature of the industrial revolution that capitalism enjoyed (since it began to develop even before it), and this is only when compared with what was before capitalism, or it was caused by the intervention of the state, which either squeezed the interests of capital holders (the socialist state), or concluded agreements with them (Western democracies), or entered into a symbiosis or even merged with them (nationalist regimes in eastern Europe (primarily Poland, Finland, Bulgaria and Romania at the beginning of the XX century, Ukraine now), fascist (Italy, Germany) and pro-fascist regimes (Hungary, Japan in the XX century, Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Belarus and, as an exception, democracy in the USA now), military juntas in Latin America and Africa). In the first case, capital is completely withdrawn in favor of the state and society, in the second case, capitalists make concessions to the state in exchange for something, in the third case, the state subordinates society to capital and directs all efforts to military forces and external expansion (or to internal enemies).
    There is no other capitalism in nature, so there is no profit for the whole people (at least in this system).

  6. If the capitalists agree, it is possible. Only the number of such people will be limited and will not spread to the entire planet. At the expense of someone, the capital still needs to make a profit. If you share it with someone, then someone will have to rob more.

  7. No, it can't.
    I mostly agree with Artem Pechenka, but I should add the following.
    Capitalism in a single country is not possible at all.
    Because a capitalist agrees to work as a capitalist (that is, to organize production and finance the production of goods) only if he makes a profit.
    Without profit, the capitalist cannot work. It wasn't Marx who came up with the idea that at 10 percent of the profit, capitalism barely moves, and at 300 percent of the profit, it is ready to commit any crimes, it was Marx who quoted an earlier researcher. And both are right.
    But where does profit come from under capitalism?
    So the capitalists organized production, hired workers, bought materials and components, produced goods and threw them on the market.
    In order not only to recoup costs, but also to make a profit, capitalists must receive revenue from the sale of goods that exceeds their costs of producing these goods.
    In other words, they must pay workers less in total than the total value of the goods they produce.
    And who should buy these products on the market?
    but here are the very workers who, working for all the capitalists in the country, received less money in total than the total value of the goods produced.
    That is, the goods cannot be sold out, there is no profit, the crisis, the impoverishment of the masses, the revolution, the end of capitalism.
    Capitalism in a single country does not work at all. Point.
    In some countries, however, capitalism is alive and well.
    Basically, these are a few Western countries that even before capitalism acquired colonies, from which under feudalism they almost siphoned off resources for free, and under capitalism they were also used as sales markets.
    As I hope you now understand, these Western countries use unequal exchanges with other “developing” countries to make a profit.
    And this position of their, these camps of the West, settles, and is supported by all means, both financial, media and other civil and military.
    That's the whole theory and practice of capitalism, “welfare society”, so to speak. )))

  8. To implement the project, an entrepreneur makes a business plan that takes into account all costs, the payback period, the level of profitability and, accordingly, the minimum differentiated level of mark-up for goods.

    Then the entrepreneur takes a loan for 5-10 years, the payback period of such projects is from 7 to 10 years, makes repairs, buys equipment and goods, the cost price includes the payroll fund, depreciation fund, innovation and modernization fund, loan payment, housing and utilities, rent, purchase of goods. Then, depending on the level of profitability, a mark-up is made for the product and income and profit are formed from it.

    You may ask: what is an entrepreneur's profit and how does he get it?

    The entrepreneur's profit is a reward for risk and before the project pays off within 7-10 years, he usually does not receive any remuneration, if the entrepreneur distributes the profit to himself for dividends, he will increase costs and thereby increase the payback period, which will make him less competitive.

    Basically, an entrepreneur receives remuneration in several ways, this is the sale of a business, since the initial project costs can be many times less than the cost of selling a profitable business with a reputation, corporatization and partial sale to an investor, entering the stock exchange and selling shares, or a synergistic effect with an increase in the number of stores, the purchase price from an increase in the volume of purchased goods can be reduced by interest or fractions of interest and distributed to dividends, etc.

    Now that you have an idea of how an entrepreneur's profit and reward are created.

    What is an entrepreneur's risk? The risk is borne by the entrepreneur who is responsible for everything in the enterprise: for loans, for salaries, for contracts, for the product or service that he creates. The hired employee is not responsible for the obligations of the enterprise in any way and nothing at all.

    Profit is received only by the person who creates the enterprise bears costs and is responsible for losses.

  9. This is exactly what real modern libertarian capitalism, based on democracy, the rule of law, and competition, implies. The most important thing is to let the most talented people go ahead, which can only be determined by free competition under the control of the law. And when the most talented people earn billions, then everyone has a good life through tax redistribution. And this is also the reason that various criminal pigsties and abscesses like Putin's Russia or the former Soviet Union have always lagged behind developed countries. In the USSR, there was no point in standing out because of the prevailing egalitarianism and supervision by brainless chekists. Everyone remembers typical expressions in the USSR : “What are you the smartest?” or “What do you need most? or “Lousy intellectual”. Well, under Putin's openly bandit chekism, it became completely unwise to show their abilities, because the chekists will squeeze out business, embezzle discoveries, and steal the taxes paid with dexterity and joy through long-established schemes. And why would a smart person “work for my uncle”?!

  10. The essence of capitalism is the accumulation of capital and its use by holders.

    What profit can there be for everyone if the goal of each capitalist is to increase his own capital? We can say confidently-no. On the other hand, we can see rich capitalist countries where people live very well… for example, Switzerland, Scandinavia, South Korea, etc. Why do some countries live better and others worse? This raises the question of the state, if the state effectively deals with the issue of the quality of life of the people-capitalism with capitalists is the engine of growth, if not-a parasite that purely makes money and takes capital away.

  11. Capitalism with profit for the whole people is very much possible. After all, it is the developed capitalist countries that are the leaders in terms of consumption and life expectancy. Capitalism is good for everyone. Even a beggar tramp under capitalism lives better than a homeless person under socialism. Any locksmith, driver, plumber, electrician under capitalism lives much better than their socialist colleagues. And even any official and military.

  12. Sure. This is exactly what the theory of building capitalism was created for. Calling people “parasites” is the ultimate disrespect. It's very sad that you think so…

Leave a Reply