Change capitalism

 So, let us change the goals.

When he founded the [World Economic Forum] in 1973, [Klaus] Schwab wrote the original Davos Manifesto aimed at urging corporate managers to reject shareholders and embrace a larger role as promoters of societal priorities. With that Davos Manifesto, the WEF now claims, “Stakeholder capitalism was born.”

Not quite. University of Calgary economist Randall Morck, editor of A History of Corporate Governance Around the World, sets the origins of legalized stakeholderism in Germany and the passage of the National Socialist government’s Shareholder Law of 1937. The law, writes Morck, “freed corporate managers and directors of their specific fiduciary duty to shareholders and substituted a general duty to all stakeholders.”

What you are arguing for is not Capitalism. Stakeholder Capitalism, particularly in the currently proposed form, is just a new form of fascism.

To ensure that both people and the planet prosper, four key stakeholders play a crucial role. They are: governments (of countries, states, and local communities); civil society (from unions to NGOs, from schools and universities to action groups); companies (constituting the private sector, whether freelancers or large multinational companies); and the international community (consisting of international organizations such as the UN as well as regional organizations such as the European Union or ASEAN)...It leads to the stakeholder model as we know it today, valid anywhere in the world. When the well-being of people and planet are at the center of business, the four remaining key groups of stakeholders contribute to their betterment. As all of these groups and their goals are interconnected. One cannot succeed if the others fail.

(https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/01/klaus-schwab-on-what-is-stakeholder-capitalism-history-relevance/)

They say capitalism is better because competition leads to better results.

Profit only means redistribution of wealth. Even if you justify it as a result of fair market dynamics, its still just that, redistribution.

We have created a system where people compete to steer the cash flow towards their own pockets.

Any means necesary is NOT acceptable for achieving this goal.

Lobbying is waste of money and politician's time

and it also undermines democracy.

Money spent on advertisements is money witheld from hard working people with dire economic needs. 

The economy is becomming financialised: that means, businesses care more about money than being good businesses and serving their customers.

A company's value is NOT a function of its profit margins.

Road building generates no profit

but they are invaluable services.

This highlights the problem with capitalism.

We need to have an positive economy that benefits society, and money often incentivises the opposite. The tobacco industry and their decades of lies is a brilliant example of the sort of economic activity that even proponents of capitalism must admit is unacceptable. Its possible to harm society and get rich of it.

That is madness. Capitalism should be about being the best, but today big business is a race to be the biggest badest villain to the employee and to society.

We need to change the goals. First off, we need to focus on stakeholder value. Companies ought to prioritize their impact on workers and customers, not just the owners.

Anything less is to legitimize exploitation in the name of profit. The country is made up of workers --- companies are harming the country if they take money from the employees and give it to the owners. 

Similarly, broad social harm caused by private industries must be beaten back. Companies must be punished if they harm society in the name of money. That is, put up a carbon prize so that no companies can doom the planet without paying for it. 

Capitalism and competition. These are such powerfull forces that it would be utterly foolish not to use them to solve the problems todays world face.

Face it, the economy needs to change. If you believe in small government then all you have is the market, and we can't afford sustaining a financialized poison economy.

We speak of economic value as a separate concept from moral value but in a moral society there would not be much separation between the two.  If we agree that our first responsibility as nation, society, economy, generation, etc. is to raise the next generation of children and our second responsibility is to improve that generation's quality of life above our own generation and our third responsibility is to plan for the improvement of future generations then we should agree that what we value economically should reflect those moral responsibilities.

At present, there's little economic benefit to having and raising  smart and healthy kids

when that should be the most prioritized/rewarded activity in our society.  It should be far more profitable to participate in those activities that build and improve society like parenthood, teaching, nursing and less profitable to participate in those activities that don't.

I'm going to presume you're not speaking in favor of Capitalism.

At present, there's little economic benefit to having and raising  smart and healthy kids

That isn't true at all.

when that should be the most prioritized/rewarded activity in our society.  It should be far more profitable to participate in those activities that build and improve society like parenthood, teaching, nursing and less profitable to participate in those activities that don't.

Why do you think this is?

Why would you ever presume that? 

I am a Liberal- liberals invented free market capitalism.

That's in the context of individual benefit.  Please detail some of the economic benefits afforded to parents in the US.  Yes, there are some tax benefits but those tax benefits don't compensate for the cost of raising smart and healthy kids.  I'm looking for total monetary benefits of raising children vs. not raising children.

Traditionally, care-taking was assigned to women and women were expected to work without compensation.

I said it was a global fascist-like system. Nationalism is replaced with globalism.

Is the government a primary stakeholder in this new system?

Just a new private-public partnership on a global scale - the Great Reset.

The dictator is replaced by an oligarchy of technocrats.

You first have to UNDERSTAND said system or framework

Delineate the tenets and principles of this moral economy; substantiate them as well.

Democracy is not worth defending.

Withheld?  Please delineate the exclusive claim and/or entitlement working people with dire economic needs bear on money spent by advertisers.

If we qualify value in the context of Economics, then yes it is.

Stop buying Tobacco-based products. But people won't, will they? So who's really responsible?

Provide an exemplar of Companies prioritizing just the owners an not their workers or customers.

Because of Marx's labor theory of value?

You mean carbon emissions which ALLEGEDLY exacerbate "Global Warming"?

Except your vision for Capitalism is to achieve Socialist ends, thereby defeating the purpose of Capitalism.

You're under the delusion that this economy is Capitalist.

Instead of a nation being controlled by a racist leader to serve selfish goals at the peril of other nations...

Your idea of "facism" is the opposite of real, historic facism.

The dictator is replaced by an oligarchy of technocrats.

Thats a flaw of capitalism itself. I say we give more economic power and freedom to the people in the world. In the name of democracy and FAIR capitalism.

What is your suggestion? How do we improve capitalism without "making a deal with the devil" (that is humanity as a whole).

The economy is becomming financialised: that means, businesses care more about money than being good businesses and serving their customers.

We need to have an positive economy that benefits society, and money often incentivises the opposite. 

Capitalism should be about being the best, but today big business is a race to be the biggest badest villain to the employee and to society. We need to change the goals. First off, we need to focus on stakeholder value. Companies ought to prioritize their impact on workers and customers, not just the owners.

Capitalism is great but not without flaws -- and the biggest one is that everyone is incentivised to give no fucks about the world.

• What aspect of capitalism (be very specific) gives incentive for everyone to only care about profit and not care about the well-being of others?
  
• What aspect of capitalism (be very specific) would you change, and how would that cause companies to prioritize their impact on society rather than greedy profiteering?
  
• Who are the stakeholders whose values will be prioritized, and what specific role will they play in shaping the business practices of a company under your proposed changes?
  
• What means will stakeholders have to enforce these practices to ensure companies follow through?
• What authority does the company/shareholder have to veto the proposals of stakeholders?

• Facism is about a single nation and race, the new facism is about the world
  
• Facism is about a single unelected leader, the new facism is about capitalism.
  
• Facism is about politics, the new facism is about economics.
  

An oligarchy of technocrats is not a flaw of capitalism

Capitalism has done more for the world ... the solution is not to change capitalism.

• What aspect of capitalism (be very specific) gives incentive for everyone to only care about profit and not care about the well-being of others?
  

• What aspect of capitalism (be very specific) would you change
  

1. Punish unethical business practises that have already proven to significantly harm society, customers or workers  (by economic or criminal law)
   
2. Give workers a say in their own lives, that is, the owner of a company cannot be the only ones dictating the policies that control workers's lives.
   
1. I want strong unions to ensure workers's interests get heard
   
2. Better yet, have the workers represented in the leadership of businesses
   
3. Give workers a safer lives with less fear and more freedom
   
1. Make it impossible to fire workers quickly and without adequate justification and warning
   
2. Make searching for new jobs easy and always possible.  
   
3. Support workers as long as they are unemployed to ensure FREEDOM TO CAREFULLY CHOOSE A DESIREABLE JOB WITHOUT TIME CONSTRAINT
   
4. Rewarding ethical business practices and good working conditions and wages. In this way, even jerk CEO's would want to run their business cleanly.
   

• What means will stakeholders have to enforce these practices to ensure companies follow through?
  

• What authority does the company/shareholder have to veto the proposals of stakeholders?
  

My personal knowledge has no bearing on the validity of my points,

and your claim about ignorance on my part is an ad honimen.

I do in fact understand economics and the philosophy and practise of capitalism.

Do you expect me to give a lecture on the basics? I assume you are knowledgeable and don't need an introduction.

A single principle can suffice: Money should not be aquired through immoral means. You cannot kill for money, commit robbery or sell poisenous food in your restaurant, not even use slaves in your factory. This principle is already a foundational part of our legal system, so I don't see how you would contest it. We are civil people and not barbarians. When we recognize that all humans are created equally and endowned with inalienable rights, the economy must obey a moral code.

Do you prefer feudalism? Dictatorship? Oligarchy? Tribalism? My oppinion is we stick with democracy untill we find a better system.

Businesses spend money on advertisement.

That is money not spent improving the service or the conditions/salary of workers.

This serves nobody.

A cental pilar of stakeholder capitalism is that businesses and the people working in them are not just means to an end, but an end in themselves.

The conditions and sallaries of workers is important in an of themselves.

Disagreeing  is to dehumanize the majority of people on earth, saying their lives don't matter.

My point excactly. The economy works under the assumption that simply making money is a virtue in and of itself. A road or fire department isn't valueable or productive, but apparently drug empires are, and so is scamming and robbery. How does this view make sense in a wider context? Whats valuable and whats desireable is not the same, often quite the contrary. We recognize this with economic crime, but apparently use a double standard when it comes to business.

 The thing is, contemporary capitalism is fine-tuned for exploitation.

Companies generally cannot afford to care about human workers because that would render them at a disadvantage. The past proves this point.

Slavery is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to unfair treatment of workers. Even you must agree that capitalism incentivices slavery because not having to pay a sallary and practically owning the workers puts you at a competetive advantage. 

Slavery.

 Amazons cruel treatment of workers.

The entire legal and illegal tobaco and drug industry.

Rockerfeller massacre of strikers.

You need not look far to see that the human ego that makes communism impossible also causes immense harm in our "free" economy.

To assert that a system which only rewards profitt never leads to tragedy is to not understand economics.

Nope, because of logic. Constant abuse of the masses only benefits the few powerfull enough to evade said problems and often profit from the suffering. An economy is good for the country if it benefits the people living in the country. Capitalism is better than feudalism and communism but still can be improved.

Look, I get that you don't trust the narrative, but the effects are not limited to future catastrophy.

 Harvard research suggests 8 million deaths in 2018 due to pollution by burning of fossil fuel. Pollution is like forcing people, and the gobe, to smoke sigarettes -- the resulting death and misery is tangible and well established. The carbon tax would incentive clean non-toxic energy production, all without central planning by the government. This is a moral imperrative.

Are you saying disincentivicing unnecesary evil in a capitalistic economy makes it socialist? 

You claim I am ignorant of economics and yet you don't seem to understand what capitalism means.

Capitalism means private ownership and economic freedom.

That is, the government doesn't own everything and doesn't tell you which products to buy or which company to work for.

The united states is by definition capitalist.

Soooo:

• Facism is about a single nation and race, the new facism is about the world
  
• Facism is about a single unelected leader, the new facism is about capitalism.
  
• Facism is about politics, the new facism is about economics.
  

Admit it, this new form of facism is so different that any argument against historic facism is harmless against the new version.

Marx was a bourgeois hypocrite.

They say capitalism is better because competition leads to better results.