[disgruntledphd2]

But if all businesses are run at a loss, the entire system will collapse, so the system requires some companies to be run profitably.

I still maintain that structurally unprofitable companies are an abberation caused by negative interest rates, and I don't think it would be recognised as capitalism by time travellers from the 70s.

[claudeganon]

>But if all businesses are run at a loss, the entire system will collapse, so the system requires some companies to be run profitably.

Not if all the businesses are monopolies. The concentration of wealth allow for an ever greater capture of markets as well as the government that would reign in their monopolistic behavior. This should be obvious with what just happened with Uber, who successfully bought legislation to defend their unprofitability but movement towards monopoly, and has large executive overlap with the former Obama/soon-to-be Biden administrations.

>I still maintain that structurally unprofitable companies are an abberation caused by negative interest rates, and I don't think it would be recognised as capitalism by time travellers from the 70s.

Maybe its not an "abberation," but fiscal policy put in place to further the wealth and power of existing Capital owners? It's also irrelevant in practical terms what people 50 years ago called something versus today. Countries, businesses, religions, ideologies etc both persist and change, regardless of whether they remain recognizable to anyone at a given point in time.

[disgruntledphd2]

> Not if all the businesses are monopolies. The concentration of wealth allow for an ever greater capture of markets as well as the government that would reign in their monopolistic behavior. This should be obvious with what just happened with Uber, who successfully bought legislation to defend their unprofitability but movement towards monopoly, and has large executive overlap with the former Obama/soon-to-be Biden administrations.

Are you joking?

You seem to be making some kind of corruption argument around large companies, which I think is fair. That's not what I'm saying though.

I am saying that if company A earns $90 and spends $100, then the extra $10 must come from somewhere (normally further investment).

As a thought experiment, I noted that this would not work if every company spent 10% more than they earned, because where would the money come from? You seem to say that this doesn't happen because the businesses are monopolies.

Can you clarify your argument on this specific point further, as I really don't understand it?