I believe the technical term is liability. Workers are liabilities. You are right. A part of capitalism is to increase the assets and reduce liabilities.
"Workers" do not show up on a balance sheet: they are neither an asset not a liability "technically." There may be a payroll liability briefly, though it will then be paid out and taken off the books. Accrued vacation is a liability, which is why we have "unlimited PTO" policies.
It is impossible, in double entry bookkeeping, to "increase assets and reduce liabilities." Every asset must be balanced with a liability. That's the fundamental basis of that accounting system.
To the extent that we're speaking metaphorically, workers are assets. To the extent that we're speaking technically, it's clear that you tried to apply jargon that you didn't understand to confuse others.
You simply cannot have a system that needs consumers to spend money when its in every single companies best interest to pay as little, preferably nothing, to those whose business and expertise you need to survive. You can expand to other nations as a temporary solution but in the end you will run out of people to sell stuff to.
The only real counterforce to global capitalism has historically been the people of a nation, and the populist nationalism of a few nation states has been the only example ever known of an economic system that has upheld basic human dignity (whether it has been called social democracy, christian democracy or something else). This is now going down the drain.
Can you give me some examples? I'm honestly curious as I can't think of any off the top of my head.
By "populist nationalists" I mean what they really are, not necessarily what they call themselves. The Swedish Social Democrats of old are a good example who in practice created a national welfare state, often even with explicitly nationalist rhetoric.
And yet every time there is some great nation-building exercise, the nation in question immediately attempts to build a global empire for itself, by subjugating other nations.
France of Napoleon.
Germany of Bismark.
Japan of Meiji.
Germany of Hitler.
USSR.
Current day USA.
Human dignity, my ass.
PS. Arabs of Muhammad and Mongols of Genghis also qualify.
Just because the US is involved in conflicts you may disapprove of in the Middle East does not make current day USA on par with Hitler's Germany.
There's also a sizable internal backlash against recent wars and historically isolationism has been popular in the US.
You don't have to legally control or own territory to be, in effect, an Empire. When you use your military power to force economic interactions of your liking, you are an Empire.
For examples, read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A...
It has always struck me as weird that the moment a nation enjoys some stability and prosperity, it immediately decides to throw them away for ever-growing expansionistic ambitions.
I mean I get it, we as humans can never get enough -- I've witnessed that in many people, myself included.
It's just so very sad to observe historically. It seems that if somebody sees they can get away with X, they immediately jump to doing something 10*X.
Ironically, this is the exact scheme through which many criminals have been caught -- they admitted they felt a thrill because they have not been caught, and wanted to up the risk. (The police would have never caught them if they haven't did that as well.) I don't believe the same exact phenomena is involved with nations but if you squint your eyes really hard then it does look very similar.
To anyone who is not in the loop (of the alt-right/4chan jargon), "globalism" is currently a code-word for "Jews".