neanderthal

your position presupposes that capitalism can serve to improve our collective wellbeing, when it is fundamentally an oppressive heirarchy enforced through violence.

Ok. So is your proposition that capitalism NEVER serves the collective well being or that it GENERALLY doesn't. If it is the former, all I have to do is find a single case to prove it false.

Your argument sounded like it was this (correct me if I am wrong):

P: Bad people use NPO as a tool for bad things Q: NPOs are bad

P->Q

I was demonstrating that at best you can put the existential qualifier on that statement and not the universal. All I have to do is find a single good NPO. If you want to argue what it means to be good, have a PhD in philosophy as it has been argued about since Plato wrote Euthyphro. Probably before.

Edit: civility

argument through analogy is a logical fallacy, I'm not going to engage that.

Your argument is you don't like the tool. My argument is we shouldn't not use a tool because bad actors use a tool for bad things. Not using a tool means we don't benefit from the good things it can be used for. I just gave examples demonstrating it.

you've yet to convince me that further entrenching capitalism

Explain how this entrenches capitalism? I see it as working within the environment. Buying anything from a for profit company or working for a for profit company entrenches capitalism. Using a 401k does too. You can vote, run for office, whatever, but in a capitalist economy, you can't avoid participating in it, i.e. entrenching it.

it seems to me as though you would like to eat your cake and have it too.

I don't have any love for capitalism. I'm just a person that sees a problem and is doing their best to fix it. I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't question my intentions because you don't like my idea. I'll give you the same benefit of the doubt. Deal?

War planes and assault rifles are used by Russians to invade Ukraine. Should Ukrainians not use them to fight back?

Trains transport coal. Should we stop using freight trains?

That is how they are often used, yes. The NPO is a tool. It is used for nefarious things, yes. It doesn't have to be though.

Do you have an argument about why it is a bad idea other than you don't like NPOs because bad wealthy people use them for power and reputation management? We need power to make changes to address the climate crisis.

Youngkin was elected by enlightened centrists that bought into the CRT bad and scary nonsense. His opponent misspoke about not letting parents dictate what teachers do. He was just trying to say it is a bad idea to let loud ignorant people have outsized influence in curriculum. Now Virginia has a private equity manager as governor. What could go wrong?

Trams are perfect for the strip. One with maybe 5 or so stops would probably get a lot of use.

I'm a bit out of the loop. Haven't watched the debate, haven't watched or read about it yet. What happened?

"Even if we want to do the right thing, our board of directors will fire us. If the board members don't, the institutional investors will elect new board members that will allow or even encourage the spread of misinformation because it makes them more money."

It's getting to the point where that isn't exaggerating all that much.

immediate finances, quality of life, and standard of living.

That is the problem. The immediate finances isn't true. A small car for commuting to work is cheaper than a giant SUV. Poultry is cheaper than beef. Having more money means less stress and an increased quality of life.

As far as quality of life goes, how are these heat waves, wildfires, and extreme weather events treating everyone? Soon enough, we will start seeing shortages of various things due to crop failures and shipping issues like we are seeing currently with the Panama canal.

Blaming corporations is exactly what corporations want. It means consumers can feel ok with more consumption, which is good for their bottom line.

Suburbia, one of the biggest culprits just isn't sustainable in its current form. It will take years to fix, but in the meantime let's all replace a few steaks with anything else. And stop buying monster trucks and canyoneros to commute to an office job.

You are why individual action matters. Replacing your power source will take years. I can eat 5 less cheeseburgers a year right now and start slowing demand for beef production almost immediately. If the whole world does this, we start slowing things down a bit and buy time for things like your grid situation to be fixed.

Without commenting any of your other points, saying that "our stuff is made by corporations so it's the individuals fault for buying it"

I didn't mean it in a way to pass blame, but to empower.

Yes they're nice, good on you for doing it, but does it really fix any of the pressing issues?

If a billion people make an effort, then it certainly helps. It will require individual action AND systemic changes.

We really need an all hands on deck effort here. We are racing down a mountain towards a cliff with a buried speedometer. Individual action is removing our foot from the accelerator. Systemic action is applying the brakes. We might have to crash into the side of the mountain to avoid going over the edge, so let's try and slow down as much as we can first.

Not really. Share price has no bearing on financial health. Sometimes share prices have no connection with reality. Tesla is a perfect example. It has a market capitalization of 720 billion. Market cap. Is just the number of all classes of stock multiplied by their respective number of shares. I.e. how much it would cost to buy the company in it's entirety. General motors has a market cap of 45 billion. Toyota, the world's largest auto maker by sales, costs 264 billion. Without getting into P/E ratios and book values, stop to think about this. Tesla would have to sell more cars than Toyota, Volkswagen, GM, and Ford, COMBINED to be worth 720 billion. That is after a substantial drop in share price.

The way security analysts and prudent investors evaluate a company's financial health is by looking at the financial statements they have to file every quarter with the SEC and make publicly available, calculating ratios, and comparing them to prior reporting periods, other companies in the same industry, and the overall market of the industry they are in.

As far as reputation, it probably doesn't matter. The only shareholders anyone cares about are insiders and large shareholders (big enough to file a form 4) actively managed funds, and super Investors like Warren Buffett.