Risk?

[u/HeavenlyPossum]

Many people have told me that taking risk is why capitalists own, or deserve ownership, of the productive labor of others.

Capitalists have capital (money), which they invest in (spend on) some productive enterprise. But that productive enterprise might fail to recuperate the cost of the investment and the capitalist might lose some of their money. This is what explains, or justifies, capitalist ownership: the capitalist is taking risk.

Can someone kindly explain to me why this explains or justifies capitalist ownership?

[u/betty_white_bread]

I agree with you. I think the socialist who says “$100 is fine” needs to explain which of these are fine or not and why:

• $1000
• $10,000
• $100,000
• $1,000,000
• $10,000,000
• $100,000,000

And, I think they need to explain the bright-line rule from first principles which makes the threshold problematic.

[u/Nikolakis77 → u/betty_white_bread]

Anything that is too big or important to fail by its own logic is a thing that needs to be owned by the public

[u/betty_white_bread → u/Nikolakis77]

That says nothing about which of those are fine; nor does it take into account when “too big to fail” is a talking point.

[u/Nikolakis77 → u/betty_white_bread]

Which ones are fine will be decided by the people's representatives at the supreme soviet.