Especially when it comes to business. I just got off of a meeting with a company that focuses on “monetizing the user experience journey” and the amount of jargon that was used just left me yearning to go tend a field instead.
Especially when it comes to business. I just got off of a meeting with a company that focuses on “monetizing the user experience journey” and the amount of jargon that was used just left me yearning to go tend a field instead.
I’m a socialist so no big fan of capitalism. That said, I don’t think capitalism is just about selling things for more than they’re worth.
We add value through our labor. Think of a log, it has some value as raw material. A worker might cut it into planks, and another might make a table out of it. It’s now worth more than when it started. The value came from our labor, and we should be compensated for it.
The issue with capitalism is that the few benefit off the work of many. Based on the rest of your comment I think we’re pretty much in agreement, but just want to highlight that as a worker-owner (vs robber baron) there’s nothing wrong with charging for what you’re worth.
Yes. Trades are between people with different values of the subject; no problem there. Seller values it less than buyer, they trade, everyone benefits. Negotiation is about splitting the difference and trying to get a fair price.
That can all be free and fair if the traders do not have excessive market power.
Capitalism is about accumulating market power, or other power that can influence the terms of trade and extract more than a fair share. Or worse distort the information about the trade so the one party mis-perceives the subject or the terms.
The classic case is to monopolise the means of production, or exclude workers from borrowing on fair terms to buy their own tools. Or prevent new market entrants from scaling to the minimum efficient economy of scale. So that capitalist can offer unfair terms of trade to workers and extract more than their fair share of the surplus.