Any reason why Keeper isn’t on the list? Is it bad?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

How are they dying? Is it due to issues in quality control? Worker safety? Or are you attributing world hunger deaths to the agricultural industry? Big numbers are cool, but they’re awesome when they are elaborated.

Farmers where I come from are generally the owner and the worker. They already get the “full” value generated.

Funnily enough due to the government paying them, this allows the manufacturers and stores to drive down the price of goods (when bought from the producer).

The main idea behind this was to drive down the value of goods for the consumer and to ensure the EU produces food locally, but it has created an ugly transfer of wealth where manufacturers and stores now earn more. Consumer barely sees the difference.

So most likely something should change for manufacture and vendors as well if the system was to be made fair.

Locking prices for manufacture and vendors is not a thing. Giving subsidies to them will stifle competition.

Agriculture subsidies do help producers compete with China, US and other outside markets, but at the cost of reward for labor.

I think the system is not oppressive, but it certainly is not fair. Issues crop up in the middle of the value chain and there are no easy solutions.

How about any small business? If the process of being able to accept food stamps has bureaucracy, you’ll end up locking out small companies unable to meet requirements or who cannot afford it.

Food stamps at scale could also lead to stores opting for the cheapest alternatives. Salaries will ultimately scale down through supply and demand to a point where people will have less money, but now they’ll have stamps. This in turn can hurt innovation and competition as newer products tend to cost more and people will need make stamps suffice for daily food.

A money-based UBI is safer as you’ll ultimately see smaller salaries, but the amount of money you’ll have per month will remain static. This gives freedom of choice. Not to mention people also need homes, clothing and other daily goods in exchange for money.

How and where?

This could have negative effects similar to what has been seen in communist countries where vendor lock-in leads to weakened quality control if not every company can accept those food vouchers.

It’s good to allow people freedom of choice.

UBI would be at its best as a static lump sum of money.

It’s the government’s responsibility to feed the people that elected them. This is not the responsibility of producers. Producers have a right to make money from their work.

It’s probably US-bought goods they’re using to fire. Return customers are good for business.

They broke up a couple of months back. Something must have happened.

r/tekken is sorely missed. Same applies for r/starcraft. I guess there is a com for StarCraft, but it seems quite dead.