So it IS supposed to be successful for those other than the shareholders? I thought you said it wasnt.....Originally Posted by Burney
So it IS supposed to be successful for those other than the shareholders? I thought you said it wasnt.....
I think it's more that the shareholders is everybody. Or, as the man said, everyone has a share.
"Plenty of strikers can score goals," he said, gesturing to the famous old stands casting shadows around us.
"But a lot have found it difficult wearing the number 9 shirt for The Arsenal."
Then we must all benefit, and we must all have a say.
Hence Corbyn is right.
Agreed.
No. Simply that what is good for business is good for everyone.
That is exactly what Corbyn is saying. It should be like that and he will make sure it is.
So you agree with him....
Business would appear to disagree, p.
Tough. What is good for everyone is good for business. If everyone else agrees this is good then business will just have to 'go whistle' wont it.
Incidentally, 'business' wanted to stay in the EU. So even you agree that some things are more important than what business 'wants'.....
Sometimes, but not always. A mass increase in demand for undertakers might not be good for everyone, and the success of one company might be at another's expense. Dogma, you see.
Don't get me wrong, I like business and wouldn't want to work in the public sector but I have no illusions about the limits of the market.
Sorry, a, but for all the short term damage it may entail, the success of one company at the expense of another still represents a net benefit because the consumer wins from keen competition, which drives up standards and forces down price.Sometimes, but not always. A mass increase in demand for undertakers might not be good for everyone, and the success of one company might be at another's expense. Dogma, you see.
Don't get me wrong, I like business and wouldn't want to work in the public sector but I have no illusions about the limits of the market.
And the undertaker example is silly because it posits an external factor as a critique of market forces: namely a spike in mortality. Even then the market works, though. A spike in deaths is not only good for undertakers, it means greater demand for labour, which means higher average wages, lower demand for goods and thus lower prices. Again, it's a net win.
Capitalism works, a. The market works. Really fücking well. Sorry, but it does.
Right up until some cöck of a politician tries to put their thumb on the scale, of course.
Nobody is suggesting that capitalism doesnt work. Of course it works. The argument is about how it works and for whom.Sorry, a, but for all the short term damage it may entail, the success of one company at the expense of another still represents a net benefit because the consumer wins from keen competition, which drives up standards and forces down price.
And the undertaker example is silly because it posits an external factor as a critique of market forces: namely a spike in mortality. Even then the market works, though. A spike in deaths is not only good for undertakers, it means greater demand for labour, which means higher average wages, lower demand for goods and thus lower prices. Again, it's a net win.
Capitalism works, a. The market works. Really fücking well. Sorry, but it does.
Right up until some cöck of a politician tries to put their thumb on the scale, of course.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
