I see you are deficient in both reality and metaphor.
On the contrary, labor in a vacuum is entirely worthless. No amount of effort can create something from nothing.
It's ok to be angry about capitalism
- Thread starter XsjadoBlaydette
- Start date
OK, but answer my question. Why do you think it's interesting to say capitalism requires strong gov regulation, and also to say it was at its best in the 80s?
But basically nothing of that is something capitalists personally do.
Logistics ? Drivers, warehouse-managers etc.
Demand ? Market research and Marketing
Development of new products? R&D
It is all people working for wages, aka workers. Doesn't matter that some are white collar.
The only thing a capitalist actually provides is capital. And there is no reason why that contribution is the only one worthy of the profit.
First, all of those are things capitalists do. Including labor. A capitalist is one who owns significant resources and uses them towards the end of profit, that designation does not preclude also doing any of the work. Of course you can have useless ownership, but you can also have terrible employees, so it seems unfair to focus on just one. But for the sake of this argument, we have to first decide that we are talking specifically about someone who only provides capital and is otherwise useless, which we can do, because that's not the real issue with your argument here, that's just me being picky.
The real issue of your argument is a matter of definitions. You say that capital contribution isn't the only one worthy of profit. What you should be saying is that other contributions are worthy of compensation, and they are, and they are compensated. And the profit by definition is what is left over after all costs are paid, including the compensation of workers. Imagine I own a company with 9 workers and myself, and at the end of the day we profit $10. As owner, that money is mine. Maybe I decide to share that profit equally, and give everyone a $1 bonus, and then everyone has gotten an equal portion of the $10. Did they get profit from that? No, they got more compensation, my payroll went up $9, and the profit reduced to $1. Abstractly, I can spread out the wealth and share with my employees, but definitionally, they will never have the profits, because giving it to them means it's no longer profit.
Unless you, like Seanchaidh, want to take the position that providing capital is not worthy of any compensation at all, you have to look at each case independently to determine whether the workers are fairly compensated and whether ownership is fairly compensated. That there is profit does not indicate that. it only indicates that ownership was compensated at all. And conversely, in many cases there isn't any profit and the revenue still isn't fairly allocated. You can't just say "well, there was profit, someone was exploited" unless you want to take the strict position that the decision to deploy one's wealth towards a certain enterprise is the singular action that nobody should ever be rewarded for.
True. I focus on each proportionately to how much unearned value they extract. Which means I care a fuckton more about useless ownership than poor employees.
Yep, do that. Just don't call it a "bonus", considering their labour directly generated that value they're receiving as compensation.
I didn't say it was its best in the 80s. Unless you're claiming capitalism is presently the best it's ever been, then I'm right.
I didn't claim anything. You did, and I asked you to provide detail, which you've comprehensively refused/failed to do.
And I asked you when, and you said the 80s. And then you also said capitalism works better with strong gov regulation, and I asked you if you thought there was anything interesting about those two statements. Thanks for the recap! Now, is there anything interesting about those two statements?
it's interesting that you have to go on a naked space walk in order to for your economic ideas not to be ludicrous.
this is what we've been trying and trying again to warn of it's not fucking sustainable
www.theguardian.com
it's not hard to understand, the problem is the number of ultra wealthy ppl who don't want to understand and really really don't want you to understand
Climate crisis on track to destroy capitalism, warns top insurer
Action urgently needed to save the conditions under which markets – and civilisation itself – can operate, says senior Allianz figure
www.theguardian.com
it's not hard to understand, the problem is the number of ultra wealthy ppl who don't want to understand and really really don't want you to understand
Climate crisis
Climate crisis on track to destroy capitalism, warns top insurer
Action urgently needed to save the conditions under which markets – and civilisation itself – can operate, says senior Allianz figure
Damian Carrington Environment editor
Thu 3 Apr 2025 11.41 CEST
The climate crisis is on track to destroy capitalism, a top insurer has warned, with the vast cost of extreme weather impacts leaving the financial sector unable to operate.
The world is fast approaching temperature levels where insurers will no longer be able to offer cover for many climate risks, said Günther Thallinger, on the board of Allianz SE, one of the world’s biggest insurance companies. He said that without insurance, which is already being pulled in some places, many other financial services become unviable, from mortgages to investments.
Global carbon emissions are still rising and current policies will result in a rise in global temperature between 2.2C and 3.4C above pre-industrial levels. The damage at 3C will be so great that governments will be unable to provide financial bailouts and it will be impossible to adapt to many climate impacts, said Thallinger, who is also the chair of the German company’s investment board and was previously CEO of Allianz Investment Management.
The core business of the insurance industry is risk management and it has long taken the dangers of global heating very seriously. In recent reports, Aviva said extreme weather damages for the decade to 2023 hit $2tn, while GallagherRE said the figure was $400bn in 2024. Zurich said it was “essential” to hit net zero by 2050.
Thallinger said: “The good news is we already have the technologies to switch from fossil combustion to zero-emission energy. The only thing missing is speed and scale. This is about saving the conditions under which markets, finance, and civilisation itself can continue to operate.”
Nick Robins, the chair of the Just Transition Finance Lab at the London School of Economics, said: “This devastating analysis from a global insurance leader sets out not just the financial but also the civilisational threat posed by climate change. It needs to be the basis for renewed action, particularly in the countries of the global south.”
“The insurance sector is a canary in the coalmine when it comes to climate impacts,” said Janos Pasztor, former UN assistant secretary-general for climate change.
The argument set out by Thallinger in a LinkedIn post begins with the increasingly severe damage being caused by the climate crisis: “Heat and water destroy capital. Flooded homes lose value. Overheated cities become uninhabitable. Entire asset classes are degrading in real time.”
“We are fast approaching temperature levels – 1.5C, 2C, 3C – where insurers will no longer be able to offer coverage for many of these risks,” he said. “The math breaks down: the premiums required exceed what people or companies can pay. This is already happening. Entire regions are becoming uninsurable.” He cited companies ending home insurance in California due to wildfires.
Thallinger said it was a systemic risk “threatening the very foundation of the financial sector”, because a lack of insurance means other financial services become unavailable: “This is a climate-induced credit crunch.”
“This applies not only to housing, but to infrastructure, transportation, agriculture, and industry,” he said. “The economic value of entire regions – coastal, arid, wildfire-prone – will begin to vanish from financial ledgers. Markets will reprice, rapidly and brutally. This is what a climate-driven market failure looks like.”
Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
after newsletter promotion
No governments will realistically be able to cover the damage when multiple high-cost events happen in rapid succession, as climate models predict, Thallinger said. Australia’s disaster recovery spending has already increased sevenfold between 2017 and 2023, he noted.
The idea that billions of people can just adapt to worsening climate impacts is a “false comfort”, he said: “There is no way to ‘adapt’ to temperatures beyond human tolerance … Whole cities built on flood plains cannot simply pick up and move uphill.”
At 3C of global heating, climate damage cannot be insured against, covered by governments, or adapted to, Thallinger said: “That means no more mortgages, no new real estate development, no long-term investment, no financial stability. The financial sector as we know it ceases to function. And with it, capitalism as we know it ceases to be viable.”
The only solution was to cut fossil fuel burning, or capture the emissions, he said, with everything else being a delay or distraction. He said capitalism must solve the crisis, starting with putting its sustainability goals on the same level as financial goals.
Many financial institutions have moved away from climate action after the election of the US president, Donald Trump, who has called such action a “green scam”. Thallinger said in February: “The cost of inaction is higher than the cost of transformation and adaptation. If we succeed in our transition, we will enjoy a more efficient, competitive economy [and] a higher quality of life.”
