Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is just your opinion, and I disagree with that premise. Most people shop with price as the main factor, therefor "cheap" is what they want and exactly what they get.
Everything else about business hating the free market and consumers being forced to buy things are again just an opinion, and an incredibly biased one at that, which also paints with enormously wide strokes.
Things like prices most people look at, but marketing and capital are deeper than that. All companies try to lower the cost of their product but the influence comes more from what you buy and where you buy it. Take Tyson’s food. They fill up the grocery store with their products so people are more inclined to buy them (access to the market only capital owners have).
And the second part once again is not my opinion, you can go to any corporate executive and see if their intention is to sell something to better people’s lives, or make money.
Take the rubber bracelet things that were a fad at one point. No one needed the and no one wanted them. It was the job of the company to make the product cool and available to the most buyers at the lowest price (supply chain) because that was their tool to make money. These production chains don’t use resources for societal gain, but for private advancements. Their supply needed demand or else they’d have a financial hole that would bring them down.
Free markets as theorized should be a competition to make the products that people need produced by consumer demand in the cheapest most innovative ways while also providing the best available version of the product.
The problem is in a privatized environment you will never see businesses looking into the needs of a people, building a product/service, and then factually listing the pros and cons of such products for consumer viewership. Profit means finding things to sell and diverting the capital that real people could use to better their lives (free practice of labor).
Free markets are not possible with the privatization of capital, conversely you can’t have free markets without the privatization of capital, therefore the free market is impossible to achieve. A myth if you will.
The majority of Americans think corporate CEOs like Bezos produce hundreds of times more than the individual worker and deserve their wealth and are the backbone of this country.
They have for a long time but not because of Bernie.
Quote:
Then when Obama or Trump put them in to help the economy, they fail, because their skill set is limited to bribing state governments for subsidies, outsourcing marketing, development, etc. and cost cutting none profit enhancing structures within their company.
And yet still Americans by in large look at these people like they're geniuses who know how the economy works.
I do not disagree with you outside of the idea that Bernie had much of anything to do with this.
No one is forced to work for him and no one is forced to buy his products.
I’ve already explained that the entire corporate culture in this country owns the vast majority of the capital therefore controlling the majority of the free labor. Furthermore the business practices each company share are remarkable similar (as they need to be as the free markets are a threat to their bottom line).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.