Diversity and Inclusion = Kill Capitalism

I’m virtually certain that the “Diversity and Inclusion” ideals are an attempt at wealth transfer and destruction of capitalism.

Here’s my argument:

If you’re an intelligent business owner, you don’t give a # about someone’s gender/orientation/race/etc. you care about hiring people who can do the job you need them to and do it well. Period. Doesn’t matter the job, industry, etc. Nor does it matter what gender/orientation/race/etc. an employee is.

That’s pure capitalism and if you run a business and don’t agree with that you’re not maximizing the profitability of your creation and leaving money on the table. That’s dumb.

All of this artificial BS about D&I is just a way to spread wealth to those who otherwise couldn’t do it on their own, hold back those who are capable, force business to spend money on something that is pure defense/has zero ROI and shift power to “those who are oppressed”.

That’s all BS. If you’re capable, you’re always employable. If you’re really capable, you’ll always be paid well. Talent is always in demand. Always - don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

Lastly, if you don’t like capitalism - you should really think about that. It’s the strongest ism. It’s also the one that gives you the most control over your destiny. All of the current business environment BS tells me this is a conspiracy to institute socialism, communism or greater dependency on the Federal Government - which will bring us all down.

Capitalism isn’t fair. Nor is life. Neither is the football game I’m watching. Neither is natural selection. Nor is science. Nor is [insert discipline]. It’s a competition. Handicapping the game wastes money, holds back the competent (of all colors/genders/orientations) and blunts the advancement of our society. The capable emerge victorious.

In closing, I encourage you all to be the best you can be - whatever that is - and then ask yourself if you’re REALLY the best you can be. Then go get better. If you do that, you can rise above the noise, defeats this BS and have a prosperous life for you and your family (however you define that- which is not my place to judge) - and you won’t depend on anyone else to provide it for you. Particularly, you won’t need the Federal Government to do it.

Own your outcome and don’t feed the “woke” beast - it exists to end the capable.

Unbridled capitalism isn't sustainable. At some point the profits will end, you can't keep expecting ever-growing profit margins year over year. All the money will have been siphoned to the top and into Swiss bank accounts by the time the fat lady sings.

Capitalism feeds off of consumerism and hence profit and build.

Consumerism feeds of materialism.

Materialism feeds from the very elements and substances or resources from our very Earth.

Those resources or elements are limited on Earth and wont last forever, either will capitalism.

Without people consuming materialistic products or services, capitalism falls like a house of cards.

But I do agree, this diversity/inclusion crap our species is being molded into, can hurt capitalism.

Around 1850s or so, is a short window in the grand scheme of Earth/humanity.

A lot of damage to earth and humanity has happened since though.

It's all perspective.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Unbridled capitalism isn't sustainable. At some point the profits will end, you can't keep expecting ever-growing profit margins year over year. All the money will have been siphoned to the top and into Swiss bank accounts by the time the fat lady sings.

By use of the term "unbridled", your statement has merit, but unbridled anything is not a good idea.

More to the point though, American capitalism is hardly unbridled. Regulatory agencies are one way to combat unfair practices, as long as they don't get carried away, such as happened with the previous administration. In fact, overregulation is quite detrimental to virtually any economic system.

Capitalism does depend on an, at least, static population size, and is better with an expanding one.

It is also bolstered by innovation, and new products coming to the market place, as well as people having expendable income to support the system.

Once any economic system provides Maslow"s basic needs, everything else is a choice of the consumer, and that is not a bad thing.


What is your primary knock on capitalism? The inequality of it? If that is the case, I hate to break the news to you, but that exists irrespective of the system. It is a false utopia, unless there is a change in basic human nature.

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Unbridled capitalism isn't sustainable. At some point the profits will end, you can't keep expecting ever-growing profit margins year over year. All the money will have been siphoned to the top and into Swiss bank accounts by the time the fat lady sings.

By use of the term "unbridled", your statement has merit, but unbridled anything is not a good idea.

More to the point though, American capitalism is hardly unbridled. Regulatory agencies are one way to combat unfair practices, as long as they don't get carried away, such as happened with the previous administration. In fact, overregulation is quite detrimental to virtually any economic system.

Capitalism does depend on an, at least, static population size, and is better with an expanding one.

It is also bolstered by innovation, and new products coming to the market place, as well as people having expendable income to support the system.

Once any economic system provides Maslow"s basic needs, everything else is a choice of the consumer, and that is not a bad thing.


What is your primary knock on capitalism? The inequality of it? If that is the case, I hate to break the news to you, but that exists irrespective of the system. It is a false utopia, unless there is a change in basic human nature.

Well said.

originally posted by: Elementalist


Around 1850s or so, is a short window in the grand scheme of Earth/humanity.

I found your entire post to be quite an interesting perspective.

I wonder if you could elaborate on your reason for pointing to that specific time period.

From the perspective of it being the beginnings of the industrial revolution, I can see the economic effect, but there were so many constantly warring factions, as well as somewhat oppressive colonialism around the globe, I'm not sure there was really much chance that any one ideology would be embraced by a large majority of governments.

The form of capitalism we practice now has been bastardized.

Someone posted about Smedley Butler the other day and I had all but forgot about him. He had some things to say that involved capitalism that holds just as true today as they did then.

Smedley Butler on Interventionism
-- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.
War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.
I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.
I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.
It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.
I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China, I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

Take in that and think about the 3,000 US troops that were just deployed to SA to protect their oil and it sinks in.

For those who forgot who Smedly was here is a little about him.
Sme dley Butler and the 1930s Plot to Overthrow the President

Capitalism requires consumers and labor to thrive... think about that for a moment.

It needs two major components to thrive, if you start abusing either one it will end up in push back. This is why it's not a perfect model, but it surely does take into account the human nature of things, we're greedy as hell.

a reply to: EnigmaChaser

Diversity and inclusion have no effect on market forces per se as long as the government doesn't act to enforce artificial quotas.

The government's role in the market is to assure an even playing field, create infrastructure for a productive society, and prevent untoward abuse of the system by the powerful.

However, it's also anti-capitalist to let your religious beliefs interfere with profits in my opinion, yet, that happens.

It does because the best of the best are not getting hired. It stifles productivity and efficiency. In the US this is the problem with Government jobs. Bids for contracts for example get extra points if owned by a woman, minority or a Veteran. They could beat out someone more qualified.

From experience, when contracts get awarded and they edge out the competition with those factors it turns into a disaster most of the time. The company does not have the experience and it turns into on the job training or, they have to fire most of their staff and go hire the people from the more qualified bid that did not get the contract.

It's really shameful because, yes, it does lift up some people but big picture, it hurts a lot more. All taxpayers suffer. Billions of dollars lost but that is the system.

Sometimes contractors will make a woman or a minority owner of the company on paper just to get the contract award. I have seen that many times.

a reply to: EnigmaChaser

Speaking as somebody who lived under communism, socialism, and capitalism, the biggest threat to the capitalist system is that items often lead to the rise of companies that are so powerful that market forces no longer apply to them.

Essentialy, capitalism will often produce companies that have so many resources under their control that they can strangle or starve competitors. So instead of the market dictating which companies rise and fall base on their own individual merits you have corporate executives calling the shots.

For example, you have a small town hardware store that sells good products at reasonable prices s, and which responds to public demand quickly. But a large mega store arrived I town and sells its product at a loss. The public will often switch to that store due to price difference. The mega store can also buy up the land from under the small store and put up its rent. Or it can go to its suppliers and strangle the flow of goods to it.

This kills the store, and takes away public choice. The free market is now gone.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Your post is an excellent truth-based critique.

a reply to: EnigmaChaser

Here’s my argument: If you’re an intelligent business owner, you don’t give a # about someone’s gender/orientation/race/etc. you care about hiring people who can do the job you need them to and do it well. Period. Doesn’t matter the job, industry, etc. Nor does it matter what gender/orientation/race/etc. an employee is.

That’s pure capitalism and if you run a business and don’t agree with that you’re not maximizing the profitability of your creation and leaving money on the table. That’s dumb.

All of this artificial BS about D&I is just a way to spread wealth to those who otherwise couldn’t do it on their own, hold back those who are capable, force business to spend money on something that is pure defense/has zero ROI and shift power to “those who are oppressed”.

Here's the problem with your argument: No one is forcing this on business. Exactly the opposite. Business is forcing all this diversity and inclusion on the rest of us.

Business groups urge Congress to combat LGBTQ discrimination in workplace

HRC Announces Unprecedented Business Support Ahead of Reintroduction of the Equality Act in Congress

U.S. Chamber of Commerce Letter Supporting H.R. 5, the "Equality Act"

a reply to: Boadicea

Is there a problem with Americans using their right to assemble and speak?

How exactly does a business "force you" to do anything?

What's anti-market (anti-capitalistic) about a more diverse and inclusive customer base again?

If your personal beliefs are more important to you than profit, so be it, but why should the rest of us let you force that belief on us?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Boadicea

Is there a problem with Americans using their right to assemble and speak?

Of course not. Unfortunately, the ongoing Trans Activism is doing exactly that, and shutting down any and all discussion and debate that doesn't serve their purposes. From being banned on Twitter and Reddit forums, to being de-platformed from speaking publicly on the issues, to meetings being disrupted and women physically attacked.

It's Trans Activism denying others their right to assemble and speak -- women, lesbians, transsexuals -- anyone and everyone who dares to express dissent.

How exactly does a business "force you" to do anything?

When CORPORATIONS use their government granted privileged existence to promote and support legislation that would force people to act, speak and think against their own will at the barrel of a government gun, that is force.

What's anti-market (anti-capitalistic) about a more diverse and inclusive customer base again?

Nothing... if that's what the business wants. Maybe they don't. That's where the "free market" capitalism comes in. If the market is forced, then it cannot be and is not "free market."

If your personal beliefs are more important to you than profit, so be it, but why should the rest of us let you force that belief on us?

As long as government isn't making any laws denying people the freedom to serve anyone and everyone, no one is being forced to do or believe anyone or anything.

For example, Jim Crow laws were forced upon everyone. Government was literally making it illegal for White folks to treat Black folks equally. It didn't matter if the White drug store owner wanted to serve Blacks at his soda counter, the law forced him to segregate. Absolutely nothing free market about that.

I would much prefer that we use the laws -- incorporation laws, tax laws, etc. -- to encourage and promote inclusion and diversity. Not to force inclusion and diversity.

a reply to: Boadicea

As gently as possible I'm going to point out that your statement about "Trans Activists" is a bit exaggerated. First of all there's no unified "Trans Activists" that accomplish those things, second all discussion and discourse is obviously not being shut down. I don't agree with the disruption of meetings nor should we tolerate any violence at all for political purposes against anyone.

Personally, I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea that gender dysmorphia is a recognized disorder that can be (and should be) treated, but we can't refer to that fact in any other context regarding trans folk.

CORPORATIONS lobby at every level of government. That is indeed an overarching problem. I'm not sure how any activity is forcing me to be more inclusive or diverse however, and certainly I can't think of instances in which a "government gun" is forcing me to accept trans folks. I disagree with any regulation, law or anything else that forces me or you or anyone to use or not use certain speech (like pronouns). Can you expand your thought on that?

Right, it's not free-market if it's not free, but your claim that I referenced said that BUSINESSES are trying to force these ideas on the customers, when if anything it seems, they are working to expand their customer base. How is that anti-market?

I don't personally care for any level of government encouraging me to do anything, LOL, I just want the mail to be delivered on time. I'm saying that I don't need government to interfere in my life, I expect government to do its Constitutionally mandated job and not a whit more.

What are some specific examples of say a tax law that is forcing inclusion and diversity?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Boadicea

Is there a problem with Americans using their right to assemble and speak?

How exactly does a business "force you" to do anything?

What's anti-market (anti-capitalistic) about a more diverse and inclusive customer base again?

If your personal beliefs are more important to you than profit, so be it, but why should the rest of us let you force that belief on us?

There’s nothing anti-market about a diverse consumer base.

If people are acting rationally (which I realize they don’t do perfectly in mass) then the free market should eliminate the lack of diversity/increase diversity naturally.

I do realize that in many instances a business owner could discriminate on any number of bases simply based on their own opinions. In theory, those decisions to discriminate come with an economic cost (e.g the non-diverse consumer base) Which over time the market will respond to by rewarding (financially) those businesses with a more diverse consumer base. Eventually, the business with the larger consumer base could create material spread on the business with a less diverse base, start taking their customers or force the less diverse company to change its ways.

That’s one reason I suggest D&I should occur naturally if business are trying to maximize their value.

My point was never to say D&I is bad. My point is to say forced D&I - just like forced segregation/excessive regulation - doesn’t allow the market to work these problems out on its own - which it would over time IMO.

The “conspiracy” of sorts is the way the media pushes D&I and nearly always paints the narrative that women/minorities/etc. are constantly oppressed. To a point made earlier, the Feds then give grants/contracts/programs/create laws to “forward” those who are “oppressed”. Philosophically, I’m pretty free market in my thinking - which means being biased for or against any one subset of the population would be counter productive. I also don’t see the point in hating on any one group of people on the basis of orientation/race/gender. That’s my philosophical to say but I do believe that philosophy squares with free market principals.

a reply to: EnigmaChaser

Thanks for the clarification. In general, anything forced on markets by government can be non-productive.

Corporate media does indeed push for certain groups to be accepted, and other parts of the corporate media push back.

Again, market-forces at work. I’m not aware that any mainstream media claims that any group is CONSTANTLY oppressed at the current time. I do know that for myself, at times I am unconscious of participating in discriminatory behaviors either unintentionally or unconsciously, BUT, I would also say that media plays it up and the other “side” correspondingly plays it down. I do believe there is something of an equalization of pressures going on at the moment, as I would say that the extremists on both sides have been working overtime.

To me, free-market simply follows from an “equity-based” outlook (it’s too easy to misuse the term libertarian and god forbid classic liberal). There is no reason and no justification to discriminate against anyone due to their characteristics that aren’t causing harm to me and mine, and in the US, that is confirmed and sustained by our Constitution.

originally posted by: Elementalist
Capitalism feeds off of consumerism and hence profit and build.

Consumerism feeds of materialism.

Materialism feeds from the very elements and substances or resources from our very Earth.

Those resources or elements are limited on Earth and wont last forever, either will capitalism.

Without people consuming materialistic products or services, capitalism falls like a house of cards.

But I do agree, this diversity/inclusion crap our species is being molded into, can hurt capitalism.

Around 1850s or so, is a short window in the grand scheme of Earth/humanity.

A lot of damage to earth and humanity has happened since though.

It's all perspective.

To your point on the industrial revolution above, we’ll probably see that again.

Capitalism will forward efficiency. AI/Robotics will end up making most of our basic consumer needs dirt cheap to produce. That money will then go into other forms of innovation. Someone will slash prices on said consumer goods which will force the market to comply - margins thin for everyone as the race to being a cost leader continues.

In regards to damage to earth - capitalism can solve that as well via efficiency gains and technology (innovation). We already use less oil per $ of gdp now than we did 30 years ago. Cars are wildly more efficient. Alternative energy will eventually be far more viable - perhaps we even perfect the fusion reactor.

Damage has been done - that’s 100% true. The “why” had not just to do with capitalism but a lack of technology - we didn’t have better ways to do things nor did we have the tech to understand the consequences/impact of our behavior. We now have better tools to understand impact and minimize/reverse the damage - which I believe will become more and more the case as newer/better/advanced tech keeps being developed and released across industries.

Captalism's dog eat dog, man vs man mentality encourages and rewards sociopathy. If we desire a society of sociopaths, go capitalism.

We can do better.

Socialism is not the answer and neither is capitalism.

We need a different solution, to try different combinations of both. Something that encourages that it is man vs nature, not man vs man, and rewards those who help man succeed in it's quest fot a better life here on earth and beyond.