Best method would just be encouraging of ethical and moral 'good amongst people low and high, I'd think. And regulations to restrain greed.
Perhaps you do not understand the thought experiment proposed by Mr. Burnham. As the CEO of a company that makes rape whistles you started with one goal but the financial reality is that accomplishing the goal will ruin you financially and all of your employees will be out of a job. In other words you are now in a position of being punished if you do happen to accomplish your original goal. Capitalism at it's most basic only rewards profits.
Regulations to restrain greed are a temporary stop gap at best. Greed will then be ever vigilant for ways to circumvent or repeal these regulations.
The only real way to effect change in a capitalist system is to monetize selling less of your product as it becomes less necessary. What regulation do you propose be put in place? Shall we subsidize rape whistle companies commensurate with the losses they experience as their product accomplishes the end they originally set put to achieve? Do we do this with every conceivable enterprise? How do we subsidize everything? Where would the money come from? Capitalism is not equipped to prioritize human welfare.
Many financial pursuits are finite, rather than repeatable pursuits.This is not bad, simply fact.
If a company advocated for more rape, just so they can sell whistles, society ought be hostile towards that company that encourages a social ill for it's own profits.
Many financial pursuits are finite, rather than repeatable pursuits.This is not bad, simply fact.Good and bad are subjective terms that only have meaning when we have a frame of reference for them. The capitalist frame of reference is profit. Anything that limits profits is therefore "bad" within the capitalist framework. Any argument t pl the contrary is coming from a different frame of refer.
In short the problem with capitalism is that it is a system which is especially permissive of being expansionist, resource greedy and self preferential.
Without rapists, who's gonna buy your whistles?
only pointing out the problems of capitalism
Yes, but I'd suggest being careful about using Bo Burnham as your frontman. As Burnham said in response to a series of podcasts by Pete Holmes, another comedian, who expressed fear that Burnham, "always makes me feel like a fraud," Burnham replied, characteristically, "Oh, that's not true. My show is a complete fraud." Then you take him seriously at your peril.Reverse argument from authority. The source of the argument is unimportant as long as the argument is sound. All arguments either stand or fall on their own merits.
Immaterial. I am not presenting any alternative system nor asking you to do so only pointing out legitimate problems with capitalism. As for a limit to generosity I'm not sure if I am impressed by a life spent in accumulation of profit for profit sake followed by one flashy and impressive philanthropic gesture after becoming socially advantaged. I remain unconvinced that this provides a net gain for the disadvantaged or that it would not be better for society (though less of an ego boost and more of a cost to the individual) to consistently behave charitably in small ways throughout one's life. Especially and this part is important, if your lifestyle consumes enough resources that it is actively contributing to the state which maintains the disadvantaged you are making your large gesture towards.I'm not saying capitalism is perfect, but I am saying that it is the best economic system to feature the individual rather than the collective. The best individual will allow that his successful capitalism will always keep in mind the benefit he can be to the collective. Thereby, capitalism, as a construct of civilization, is a construct that allows an individual to do his best, but remember that he is not in it alone. It allows for generosity without limiting his own potential because it is the only system that has the approach that the money supply is not limited by a ceiling. Not every capitalist feels that way, and, I'll admit, that is a problem, but the problem is not due to the idea of capitalism, but only how some approach it.
one flashy and impressive philanthropic gesture
It's not their job. Show me where it is mandated to them.
Reverse argument from authority.
Corporate America is already more charitable than you imagine, but figures if there's a givernment [I am misspelling on purpose] doing it, their contribution is not necessary to extend. It's actually the way it used to be done.
So, we should trust the private sector which revolves around profit and competition... To provide better than the government that needs to satisfy its citizens in order to remain in power...
love is being the owner of the company that makes rape whistlesAnd even though you started the company with good intentions trying to reduce the rate of rape, now you don't want to reduce it at all cause if the rape rate declines then you'll see an equal decline in whistle salesWithout rapists, who's gonna buy your whistles?
Though I still read about all these conspiracies with a bit of salt. I'm often wary of becoming some conspiracy nut.
Stop depending on it. It's not their job. Show me where it is mandated to them.
Best method would just be encouraging of ethical and moral 'good amongst people low and high, I'd think. And regulations to restrain greed.
(IFF) people were guaranteed a modest and safe life (food, clothing, shelter)
