...by making better product and thus increasing sales, vs. those that increase profits by squeezing employees and swindling customers? It seems the latter method is both easier to pull off and is more reliable (for instance, no chance of a competitor undercutting your product sales) in terms of delivering money to stockholders.
So obviously, you need some means of separating the sort of investment that creates jobs and benefits the "common people" when it is successful from the sort of investment that shows a profit by redirecting money that would have gone to the "common people" into the the accounts of the shareholders.
Pray tell, please enlighten us how you distinguish between the two, because if the only standard is the money it shoots your way then there's no incentivizing between the types of investment, which would seem to advantage the company reshuffling existing wealth into fewer pockets over the investment that creates new wealth. In other words, between the latter, which has interdependencies with "common people" to make and buy things, and the former, which profits by basically screwing "common people".
So yes, Milady, I don't understand how that works. But that's not due to any deficiency on my part: it doesn't work. The deficiency is where you think it does, and where your "education" really isn't worthy of that name because it's not preventing you from being dumb enough to believe bullshit.
= new reply since forum marked as read
