For instance I know some lawyers and insurance CEOs who built the company themselves and run an ethical business model but because of innovation have made a ton of money. One lawyer has made a name for himself only defending those who have been hurt my big corporations and their life is ruined. The other made an insurance model that helps these hurt people invest their court winnings into annuities to guarantee they’re financially taken care of for life. These are not billionaires but both companies have won for their clients/work with hundreds of millions if not billions.
How can one clearly define someone like Musk or Bezos as bourgeois whereas these hard working individuals who came from nothing and build a huge business actually from nothing and help people?
Hoping for a non-black and white answer. My local MLM group declares everyone evil who isn’t their exact ideology. It doesn’t make sense to apply this thinking when someone whose become rich through helping people isn’t the same as someone whose has taken advantage of people for generations.
Edit: getting downvoted to hell when I am asking a question sure isn’t welcoming.
Ideally, yeah.
There’s no way to make profits that doesn’t exploit the very people who make them possible, and therefore no moral way for shareholders to exist as an economic class. Ownership and it’s demand for perpetual dividends on finite investments can’t ever be anything other than a machine for extracting value from workers.
Thanks! That makes a lot of sense. So if one wanted to expand and make more one would thus have to divide that amongst more workers. Any expanse, salary, and expense would all be decided and taken upon together.
Indeed!
It’s not perfect, but worker-ownership is as close as we get to ethical forms of business organization.
Thanks for taking the time to explain :)
Of course! Online discourse is my favorite way to procrastinate at work. XD
Same! I’m doing it as I watch my infant eat remotes lol