(03-29-2023, 10:48 AM)The Real Marty Wrote:

(03-29-2023, 10:23 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: Lol, dude. In any other scenario, you would understand that McDonalds can't buy our government and then make the laws that govern fast food industries. This is where we are. Stakeholder capitalism is the new brand being worn by companies to give credibility to this idea. The governments need to comply with their wishes for the world, not the other way around. This is a disaster waiting to happen. This is not shareholder capitalism. You know nothing of which you speak.

What are you saying?  First you say, "Stakeholder capitalism is the new brand being worn by companies to give credibility to this idea."  Then you say, "This is not shareholder capitalism."  Which one is it?  You seem to be saying they are faking their stakeholder capitalism, then you say they are not practicing shareholder capitalism.  Which one do you think they are actually practicing?  

I'm just trying to understand what you are saying, because you seem to be contradicting yourself.

Stakeholder capitalism is fundamentally different than shareholder capitalism. Stakeholder brands itself a more caring form of shareholder capitalism, which it isn't. The reason they hide behind that "brand" is because people would object to corporations controlling our governments. How does that not make sense?

---

(03-29-2023, 11:40 AM)mikesez Wrote:

(03-29-2023, 10:23 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: Lol, dude. In any other scenario, you would understand that McDonalds can't buy our government and then make the laws that govern fast food industries. This is where we are. Stakeholder capitalism is the new brand being worn by companies to give credibility to this idea. The governments need to comply with their wishes for the world, not the other way around. This is a disaster waiting to happen. This is not shareholder capitalism. You know nothing of which you speak.

What policy change did McDonalds buy?

It was just a hypothetical, dude.

---