Would the relationship between an ultra-capitalistic empire and a very religious kingdom be automatically bad?

Capitalism and religion aren't mutually exclusive.

Is the relationship between America and America bad?

>capitalism
>exploitative
wew

No
t. Amarr

The US keeps supporting Saudis, Al-Queda and Pakistan, and supported Taleban in Afganistan until they refused to allow for American mining of their mineral resources.

>strong focus on asceticism and collectivism
It'd be somewhat antithetical to their interests then, unless they were trying to influence capitalism-land to becoming more collectivist and adopt tenants of their faith.

For the ultra-capitalistic kingdom, I assume their interests are profits, so it could possibly be within their interests to trade unneeded surplus goods from the religious kingdom to sell at a low price for profits. But there's the question of if the religious kingdom would be okay with this arrangement, or would see it as some kind of exploitation and contrary to their ascetic and collectivist teachings.

All in all, it means it's less a matter of good or bad, but more a question of "is it a beneficial relationship for one or both kingdoms".

American here.
Yes.

I mean, by its very nature capitalism is about getting away with as much as you're able to so you can maximize capital gain. It's the definition of exploitative.

One could argue that it's acceptable for a number of reasons, or even that it's just a fact of life that needs to be accepted, but there's no question that it's exploitative.

>free choice in a free market

If that's exploitative, what isn't? State-dictated economics at gunpoint with both deliberate and accidental starvation of entire populations?

Exploitation in the sense you're using is so broad, it's meaningless.

>capitalism is about getting away with as much as you're able to so you can maximize capital gain
As I said before
wew

>If that's exploitative, what isn't?
Again, that's a way to argue it's acceptable. That other systems are just as exploitative or needlessly controlling.

However, it's still exploitation in that it's in an organizations best interest to take every available opportunity, whether fair or unfair, to maximize profits.

Can you get away with paying workers less without hurting productivity? Can you buy out a competitor and raise prices on your goods since there's no other competition? Can you replace workers with automated machines and save money since the upkeep cost is less than what you would normally pay workers? Can you raise the prices of goods that are essential to survival way more than the cost of their production because consumers literally cannot live without it? If so, it's a financially wise decision to do so, and ensures your organization's survival for a longer period of time.

Capitalism is inherently amoral. It's a neutral, practically Darwinian system unconcerned with fairness and morality. It's the closest system to nature than an economic system can have.

Buying what you want isn't the exploitative part marxists REE about, It's not being paid the full value of your labor. Anything past that and you creep into Antifa hippie dreamland.
Capitalism doesn't have to be a free market and vice versa.

Caldari up in this.

Hell, Amarr are even friendlier now that Catiz is in the throne.

free markets doesn't exist

Accumulation of capital as an abstraction of extracted labour that is then invested into itself to create more abstracted labour works pretty well with Christianity, or any religious orientation that focuses on metaphysical transubstantiation for that matter.

Even religions with a strong focus on asceticism, transcendence, etc. become materialistic when organized enough to have temples, libraries, centralized hierarchy of enlightenment and other kingdom related activities.

The value of labor is subjective. Workers value their wage more than their sweat, which is why they willingly trade it. Employers value it the opposite, which is how they turn a profit. People just all bent out of shape when both sides aren't making the same margin on the trade, but since only one half is measured in an objective quantity and the other is entirely subjective feelies whose to say what the"right" middle point is?

Is the relation between America and the Saudis bad?

>which is why they willingly trade it

Well considering their other option is to starve to death...

It's not a willing exchange if you need to work to make the money to survive. Which is why it's exploitative, because the worker has no other choice.

Calvinism and robber-baron capitalism go together like apples & cinnamon. So no.

>Workers value their wage more than their sweat, which is why they willingly trade it
I fucking wish that was how it worked.

Ah yes, I remember going to the company store and get into the Sweat Extractors, and it was uphill in the snow!

If you're in some Republican strongholds in the South, the two can be synonymous.

Yep, just look at all those poor Amish, starving to death as they refuse an oppressive capitalist system

kys

Depends on the method