i saw someone on twitter unironically say this 100% and then link this page on amazon (sustainability.aboutamazon.com/environment/sustainable-operations) to prove it

Something all would agree on if not for propaganda

Of course. The quintessential American conservative idea only worked on the prairie, when you were alone and had nobody to rely on but yourself, when you had to fight off the Indians and go to the West, when you grew the crops you fed your own family.

Modern capitalism doesn't work like that, it isn't about "leave me alone"; it is highly cosmopolitan, everybody is connected, there is no idyllic prairie where you work hard and get all the fruits of your labor - most people work for a boss, you have the surplus extraction going on there, you have taxes on top of that, you are working for some anonymous market you don't know about and not your family, many don't work with their hands anymore but in front of some computer and so on. The economic base for those conservative cowboy views doesn't exist anymore and hasn't for a very long time.

The real conservative politicians usually don't believe that stuff anyway, it is just a way to dupe simple-minded voters. The real conservative politicians know about how modern capitalism works. Just see how Trump was acting all folksy to speak to the rural voters, when in reality he was some real estate capitalist from Manhattan who wouldn't touch these people with a pole.

For you to say that conservatives as a whole are selfish and bad is kinda dumb.

I mean I can't even say "black lives matter" without conservatives pushing back at it so yeah, I think most are bad people when they routinely on the wrong side when it comes to social issues.

second paragraph is so true

this whole "i just want to be left alone" thing injects a nice dose of self-righteousness into their base but it makes zero sense in modern society

unless youre out in wyoming living literally 100% off the land or something

Ktt2 and generalizing are bread and butter

The vast majority of that capital is illiquid goofy. These billionaires would have to sell off their equipment, buildings, basically the they’d have to sell off the very infrastructure of their business to get money off that.

Its like owning 100million dollar houses but you only make 100,000 a year.

Wow, you are telling me capital is not just cash? Wow, I thought the economic system was called moneyism, not capitalism. You are telling me there are other forms of capital rather than cash? Tell me more.

yall care way too much about what people make

It doesn't really matter how much people believe what they say because the practice is in-differentiable. Obviously corporations are ultimately amoral, but when they promote social norms for profit, it's indistinguishable from if they did it out of actual belief; both the speech and the effects are virtually understood the same way, which is why I say that. I obviously agree about the middle part, all I'm saying really beyond that is any ideology who cares in any way shape or form about perserving capitalism is going to have their ideology subsumed by capitalism and then mirror in belief the shift of capital to the most profitable norms the same way the economic system itself does. Not in a "capitalist realism" way necessarily, but more in a "when your ideology defends capitalism, ultimately the ideology is nothing except capitalism" way

"Obviously corporations are ultimately amoral, but when they promote social norms for profit, it's indistinguishable from if they did it out of actual belief; both the speech and the effects are virtually understood the same way, which is why I say that."

@krishna_bound

I disagree. Unless you're some soyfacing Marvel-Reddit-tier cuck, you can see through transparent attempts at corporations pandering, don't you think?

So you basically answered your own question. If an overwhelming amount of your capital worth is illiquid that doesn’t mean you can spend 200 billion easily. No need to have your panties in a bunch.

Do you have any business experience whatsoever? Do you think every transaction needs liquid capital?

The market cap of the US stock market is around $35 trillion. Around $122 trillion worth of stock changes hands in the US every year. If you wanted to liquidate a trillion dollars over, say, five years that would constitute about 0.16% of all the trading that happens in that time. Now tell me again how they are only paper billionaires and they would turn poor overnight if they liquidized a small portion of their assets to solve the problems that that other user said they could solve.

Obviously no company is going to sell off a sector of their logistics infrastructure to help raise money for fighting climate change. You have to convince a board to put the illiquid capital up for sale, then have negotiations on the price, then finalize the contract, this obviously takes time. It’s a cumbersome, slow and extremely unconventional for a company to that ojl

It’s easier to just pull money from profit and donate it to whatever you’re doing.

You’re not doing anything but further answering the question you were crying about.

WHO THE F*** SAID THEY HAVE TO SELL OFF THEIR LOGISTICS? You dishonest piece of s***.

The user argued: Give 1 billion to the top 100 US billionaires.

I said: Even the #100 spot has a net worth of 8 billion USD.

So even the poorest would only give away 12.5% of his wealth. The richest would even just give away 0.5% of his wealth. What the f*** does that have to do with asset stripping the company, you equivocating son of a w****? You built a strawman and then you burnt it, congratulations.

Furthermore no CEO personally owns the logistics of his company, what on EARTH are you talking about. If they are a founder/CEO of a big corporation, they own a part of the company and the company owns the logistics. Them giving away even 1% of their personal wealth will have no impact on the company whatsoever. I feel like I am talking to some teenager with zero knowledge of the business world here.

Bruh just get off ktt and go outside if you’re getting this pressed over a discussion .

It’s like y’all look for a reason to act like a b**** and catch a pissy attitude. Don’t quote me I’m not gonna reply to you lol.

If you wanted to liquidate a trillion dollars over five years that would constitute about 0.16% of all the trading that happens in that time. Nothing is going to collapse over that. You are simply a retärd. Go suck some more billionaire cock with your high-school tier understanding of business.

Reported for using the r word

Screenshoted the post too

Cry harder, bootlicking smoothbrain

I'm very afraid of your screenshots

I think if, for example, a restaurant allows black people to come in and eat because they think segregation is wrong vs if they just want the money of black people, the effect in practice doesn't really matter; yes, I understand "in reality" there is a nuance like maybe the waiter acts more racist or something, but like, let's put that aside for a second. If a corporation adopts Robin DiAngelo race-grifting business practices because its a grift vs the CEO actually believes it, it also doesnt really matter, those practices are still real and in place. OBVIOUSLY all of these things are transparent and not meaningful, if we had a sudden nazi regime come to global power tomorrow, all corporations would change overnight to have iron eagle branding instead of rainbow flags.
Obviously corporations don't believe anything ultimately on an intrinsic level - like you can see this with Disney in China vs Disney in US, where in the US it's "DIVERSITY DIVERSITY LOOK AT THE EPIC HECKIN BLACK ACTOR GUY IGNORE THE FACT WE'RE A MONOPOLY DIVERSITY" and then in China they're censoring black people in promotional material. But in a domestic social economy the influence of grift norms vs real norms still create the overton window of social conditions. I don't for one second believe any CEOs believe anything they say, but they've created the conditions for an environment under which there now exists people who staff the company who do believe the norms which they've fabricated. Still, the effects of fabricated norms are still as omnipresent as if they weren't fabricated.
If it was popular and trendy to be an epic traditional orthodox christian LARPer and corporations and media started faking that angle of pandering rather than the current, do you not think the overton window of social norms would be different?

I get what you are saying. Ironically it is conservatives who don't understand this and show some corporate Twitter account posting a rainbow flag to show some "cultural Marxist conspiracy" that is going on. They are just as delusional as liberals taking these corporations at face value. The Disney cucks are the biggest and most vapid examples I can think of. There are people whose political campaigning solely exists to ensure there are more non-white actors in superhero movies.