• Mongostein@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    22 hours ago

    That argument made sense before everything was owned by a few megacorps who collude with eachother.

    So like, back in 1875.

    • slaacaa@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Right? People who try to apply things from econ textbooks to the current world are on the wrong track. It doesn’t matter anymore. Line must go up

      • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        19 hours ago

        Yep, I was gonna say this.

        Ford was a racist piece of shit.

        But he was at least competent enough at capitalism to understand that… consumer products… need consumers… who are paid enough … to be able to buy said products.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          Ford saw it as a means of control. He dictates who gets to live in the suburbs, who gets the cushier factory jobs, and who earns the more lavish managerial salaries.

          I don’t think his model was strictly intentionally good. It just so happened that baking your consumer base into your workforce guarantees a certain baseline in sales and promises growth that scales with the size of your business.

          • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            3 hours ago

            Oh yes, I completely agree with you, it was for him a system of control.

            … He was just actually fairly competent at managing that system, unlike our current gaggle of racist rapist reprobates.