Sure, you CAN make money while bringing happiness to the people. As long as it doesn't touch you bottom line, that is. There is a landmark legal case from 1916 (Dodge vs Ford), that's now codified in most countries, that's illustrative of corporations priorities.
Ford (the man) wanted to use some of his company's huge profits to do good and make the customers happy. He paid his workers more than the going rate and reduced the price on the company's cars. He figured his company wouldn't have been where it was if it hadn't been for his customers. So this was a way for him to say "thank you" and be a responsible community citizen.
He got sued by some of Ford's (the company) stock holders, who argued that Ford (the man) had no business giving away their money, however good his intentions, and however happy the customers (in this case) would be. The stock holders won handily, and Ford (the man) was severely rebuked by the judge. So the law nowadays expressly forbids companies to do anything that may jeopardize the bottom line and the stock owners dividends.
Of course, companies can make people happy _as long as that's the best way to make more money_. But given the choice of making a lot of money while making customers happy and making more money by screwing them the corporations have no (legal) choice but to screw the customers.
As to your definition of altruism, that will have to stand for you. It's not a definition shared by very many. If you continue to use words with a definition you invent yourself, it's going to be difficult to communicate meaningfully with your peers. Not that I believe true altruism actually exist. But self interest can frequently masquerade as altruism quite effectively, and be virtually indistinguishable from it.
Your implied idea that capitalism has some monopoly on "free" trade is also so patently ridiculous that I can't even be bothered to comment on it.
And as to "free choice" in the capitalist countries of today, what choice do I have, for example, if I want to watch my movies, or TV shows, or sports events, or news without commercials? None. Other than that Alaskan cave you mention. And even if I take the draconian step of not watching TV at all, because I dislike the commercials so much, I STILL have to pay for those commercials every time I go shopping. Some choice, huh? I can give you more examples like this if you're interested.
And returning to trade. You're not , even in the US, allowed to trade in everything you like. You're for example forbidden to trade in heroin, where you actually face that gun you were speaking about if you don't comply (or his brother, the chair). But maybe that's socialism, what do I know?
As a concluding remark, I find it interesting that everytime any of the serious organizations (american mostly) compile reports on the happiest countries in the world, the US are beaten by this or that "socialist" country. But I guess these organizations must be socialist themselves. An no, I'm not paranoid. I swear! They're REALLY out to get me!!!
Sure, you CAN make money while bringing happiness to the people. As long as it doesn't touch you bottom line, that is. There is a landmark legal case from 1916 (Dodge vs Ford), that's now codified in most countries, that's illustrative of corporations priorities.
Ford (the man) wanted to use some of his company's huge profits to do good and make the customers happy. He paid his workers more than the going rate and reduced the price on the company's cars. He figured his company wouldn't have been where it was if it hadn't been for his customers. So this was a way for him to say "thank you" and be a responsible community citizen.
He got sued by some of Ford's (the company) stock holders, who argued that Ford (the man) had no business giving away their money, however good his intentions, and however happy the customers (in this case) would be. The stock holders won handily, and Ford (the man) was severely rebuked by the judge. So the law nowadays expressly forbids companies to do anything that may jeopardize the bottom line and the stock owners dividends.
Of course, companies can make people happy _as long as that's the best way to make more money_. But given the choice of making a lot of money while making customers happy and making more money by screwing them the corporations have no (legal) choice but to screw the customers.
As to your definition of altruism, that will have to stand for you. It's not a definition shared by very many. If you continue to use words with a definition you invent yourself, it's going to be difficult to communicate meaningfully with your peers. Not that I believe true altruism actually exist. But self interest can frequently masquerade as altruism quite effectively, and be virtually indistinguishable from it.
Your implied idea that capitalism has some monopoly on "free" trade is also so patently ridiculous that I can't even be bothered to comment on it.
And as to "free choice" in the capitalist countries of today, what choice do I have, for example, if I want to watch my movies, or TV shows, or sports events, or news without commercials? None. Other than that Alaskan cave you mention. And even if I take the draconian step of not watching TV at all, because I dislike the commercials so much, I STILL have to pay for those commercials every time I go shopping. Some choice, huh? I can give you more examples like this if you're interested.
And returning to trade. You're not , even in the US, allowed to trade in everything you like. You're for example forbidden to trade in heroin, where you actually face that gun you were speaking about if you don't comply (or his brother, the chair). But maybe that's socialism, what do I know?
As a concluding remark, I find it interesting that everytime any of the serious organizations (american mostly) compile reports on the happiest countries in the world, the US are beaten by this or that "socialist" country. But I guess these organizations must be socialist themselves. An no, I'm not paranoid. I swear! They're REALLY out to get me!!!