• 0 Posts
  • 49 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 2nd, 2023

help-circle
  • You’re totally on point. Lemmy has a lot of people stuck in the past. It’s a significant bias.

    The store will garner good sales and the Tekken devs will eat well. This will be enabled by people who see value in their work and happily pay for it.

    It really doesn’t matter what a vocal minority thinks, when the valuable non-vocal minority is out there paying big bucks for Kazuya in a fundoshi.

    In order to reach new heights as a game service, Tekken needs all the money it can get.

    People also seem to forget that Tekken started off in arcades. These arcade releases were far more aggressive in their monetization, especially in Korea and Japan. You would have people paying 5-10$ for a couple of hours. Players would also have to pay for their online player IDs.

    Tekken 7 still had this business model. The game released for arcade in 2015. 2017 for all platforms.

    The game was thoroughly milked before it was more accessible.








  • If one country begins sharing resources and wealth, it will get stomped by the others that don’t.

    Capitalism can’t be stopped without a violent revolt of colossal proportions. We’re talking billions of people dead, displaced or left vengeful. It’s a recipe for disaster.

    Peaceful options won’t work at global scale. Even if people begin to vote with their hearts en masse, it won’t change nations where voting is moot.

    I’m against violence, so the best I can see happening in my lifetime is me understanding and living with the system we inhabit and trying to alter what little I can in my small country for future generations.




  • On a global scale you’re right.

    If we’re discussing the scope of a nation, strong enough tax laws and safeguards for unions prevent ludicrous growth within its own contained system. This can allow people to experience a reasonably fair society.

    Finland definitely is still benefiting off of cheap labour from poorer nations though. How to solve that especially if our country wants to retain its status, I would not know where to start. World domination?


  • I’m answering from the perspective of living in a country with functional democracy, so it’s hard to see the power the wealthy have over it.

    Lobbying and representative campaign funding are more transparent here. No party has majority seats alone, coalition governments are a necessity. Legislation is consensus driven.

    Finland is very much operating in a capitalism driven economy while still supplying its citizens socialism driven security.

    Capitalism is like fire. It’s a good tool, but a bad master. With appropriate legislative checks in place, it won’t get out of control.

    In the States it already has, but that doesn’t mean that capitalism is bad. Just that nobody was tending the fire.


  • Dewded@lemmy.worldtoMicroblog Memes@lemmy.worldEvery dang day
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    I think exactly that way and am as left as you can be in the Finnish mainstream party system, with the exception of small sub-1% parties like the Communist Party.

    Landlords & Billionaires = living, breathing taxation waiting to happen

    Even if we were to tax a billionaire by 80%, they would probably still be a billionaire. However, they would also indeed be creating jobs, wealth and sustainable growth. School systems, medicine, hospitals, city infrastructure, job placement programmes, you name it, they fund it.

    Corporate tax is also grossly under-utilized.

    Capitalism isn’t bad if you tax it hard and use the money for the welfare of citizens.



  • Hey all allright.

    Calling me names for asking how people are dying due to actions of the food industry isn’t something that will help affect my choice of words. Sorry for sounding cocky after that. Showing me you seemingly didn’t know how stocks are created and then sold by the company helped set the stage.

    Businesses exist for a number of reasons, legal and personal. A business can exist without profit as long as its expenses and earnings meet. So I wouldn’t say businesses exist for profit.

    It is up to each individual how they run their business. This also applies to whether they sell shares to outsiders. Best we can hope to do is through legislation try to make sure there aren’t feedback loops that reinforce skewed power dynamics and negative behaviour.

    You’ve said your piece, I don’t think I agree. I’ve said mine, I don’t think you agree. That’s about it. Keep on rocking in the free world.


  • Dewded@lemmy.worldtoLeftism@lemmy.worldcrazy idea, let's just feed people
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    That’s caused by things much bigger than the food industry. This has its roots deep in human psyche.

    The uncomfortable truth is that we are all responsible for the food crisis. Inaction is the biggest cause.

    Only by changing global and local policies will we begin to solve this.

    Your method for changing them is yours to choose. History has shown a myriad of options. All stem from individuals teaming up, deciding a course of action and acting on it.

    The first step to teaming up is learning social skills. Calling people names is very detrimental. Especially the people who might join you.


  • Dewded@lemmy.worldtoLeftism@lemmy.worldcrazy idea, let's just feed people
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    You’re only thinking of very large businesses. Not all companies are on the stockmarket. Numerically, most are not.

    All stock originates from the business. Even big business. It was all bought from it at some point. If you don’t know how stocks work, please go read. It’ll help you understand.

    A business benefits greatly from being bought. Many fledgling companies get funded by investors buying stock. Often these investors will also act as advisors and critical connections to the company’s target markets. This helps companies grow enough to be able to provide jobs which generate more wealth.

    Publicly traded companies still experience similar benefits even though at this point most stock gets traded. However, public trading can increase company value. Increase in company value gives possibilities where they might dilute the value of stock by creating more. There are many methods for this, which I don’t have the energy to teach you.

    However, the process of creating and selling these stocks acts as a cash injection for company.

    If you want to dismantle or regulate this system, you better learn how it is built. Not knowing about this will not do anyone any favours. Your ignorance makes you complicit.

    https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/investing/what-are-stocks-how-they-work#:~:text=Stocks are shares of ownership,your long-term financial goals.

    Know your enemy.


  • Dewded@lemmy.worldtoLeftism@lemmy.worldcrazy idea, let's just feed people
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Profit is generally speaking invested back into the business. This manifests in various forms. You hire more staff next year, increase pay of existing staff, buy repairs, invest in new tools and so forth.

    Sure some profit is paid to stock owners in dividends, however this stock was bought from the company at some point. In exchange the company had received money to sustain its workforce and business. It is a fair exchange for the risk the investor was willing to take.

    Profit isn’t a boogieman.


  • Dewded@lemmy.worldtoLeftism@lemmy.worldcrazy idea, let's just feed people
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Yeah, EU is slipping. We need to pay attention to the flaws that we’ve been introducing.

    I don’t find profit to be an inherent antagonist. I believe that workers (even CEOs) need to be rewarded for good work. This is where profit comes in. Without profit there can be no pay rises when job experience and responsibilities increase.

    Unchecked profits on the other hand… This comes in many shapes. Tax havens and top-heavy distribution of profit spring to mind immediately. These are counter-intuitive.

    It is acceptable for the company owners to receive most profit as they have taken the largest risks in terms of capital. However, things like inheritance, bonuses and stock options can distort the degree of risk taken. A newly-hired megacorp CEO will not have taken significant monetary risk relative to the founder.

    Systems should be in place to reduce unfair wealth distribution. Eg. Stock options should be given to the entire company workforce rather than just the top dogs. Annual bonuses should apply to all.

    Profit-seeking drives innovation and efficiency. These to me are good values as we look for incentives to fight climate change or improving working conditions. Obviously legislation must follow suit and ensure it provides structures that encourage this while protecting people from skewed power hierarchies.