It's not just any criticism, it's the specific criticism you made about the basis of the capitalist system, "When you're ultimate goal is profit, whether a company fails or is successful, you're in it for the wrong reasons."
All I was saying is that those are exactly the right reasons to be in business. You see it as a bug, I see it as a feature. It's not like you were making a critique of this or that feature, but the very basis of capitalism. So I don't think it's unfair of me to ask, what is your alternative to the profit motive, if you don't feel that people should be in business for profit?
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."
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.
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.
