That particular quote of mine, "When you're ultimate goal is profit, whether a company fails or is successful, you're in it for the wrong reasons", was my admonishment of the practices, like those at Bain, where purposeful gutting at the expense of employees who didn't HAVE to be let go, or unnecessary company *restructuring*, or a host of other procedures that took place, were done specifically to not stabilize the company for the long term...but to stabilize it long enough, polish it up enough, to roll it over for cash. Company bankruptcy or jobs be damned. The pay off is the prize. That lines the pockets of a few, at the expense of not only the company that's now gone, but of the workers who's livelihood were intertwined with the company...and by proxy the community or town. Now, let's move onto the next "venture."
How do you know that the people that Bain let go didn't have to be let go? That's a pretty high level accounting call I would think. Most people who have a job depend on the livelihood it provides and would be devastated if they lost their job. I know I would, and I don't doubt that was true for the people who worked for the companies Bain restructured. But I don't know how you (and I mean you, not the accountants who vett the numbers) determine that Bain got rid of too many jobs. For any company, including healthy ones that are not being restructured, the right number of employees is the number that provides value. That's not a personal call on what the job means to the employee, it's what the employee can do for the company.
You're being absolute about a concept and treating any critique as an impurity that changes it to such a degree, that it now must be replaced or doesn't resemble what it use to...so what is my replacement? I don't want to replace it. I want it to work for society, not at it's expense. The augmentation I suggest does not kill capitalism, it stops capitalism from ravaging economies for personal enrichment at the expense of society, while STILL offering undreamed up profits that only the very few will still experience.
I don't think I'm being absolute, but I don't see what sort of reforms or changes you want to implement that would provide what you want, which seems to be some other governing principle besides profit for capitalism. I mean, what is the augmentation that allow that?
Does it not count as capitalism unless there's rampant fraudulent pursuits of profit? Does it not count as capitalism unless workers are fired for the singular purpose of profit...and not a companies actual viability at stake or employee ineptness?
I think I've made myself pretty clear through this back and forth. Capitalism is an instrument, a concept...a tool. As I've said before, it is exactly what we allow it to be. It does not take on any form, other than that which we permit.
It's no different than a needle. We can use it to inject things which are good or we can use it to inject poison. The needle has zero say, it is merely the delivery device.
Where do you draw the line between honest profits and "rampant fraudulent pursuits of profit?" Somewhere you have a pretty good idea of where that line is, but I don't think you've expressed it in a way that could be useful guide for business or government.
