REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Jesus Appalled by Capitalism? (part deux)

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 22:31
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2804
PAGE 2 of 2

Friday, April 6, 2007 5:45 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Thanks Rue. I kept answering the question and Geezer kept changing it.

Geezer, the reason why I will not put forth any ideas is because you have so far not accepted even demonstrated historical fact. Your question has been answered. Viable alternatives- even wildly successful ones- exist. No, they're not middle-class suburban Virginia (or wherever it is you live) but they meet the definition of
1) being non-capitalist
2) capable of technological advance
3) providing for a reasonable standard of living (even in densely populated situations)
4) being viable (thriving for decades)

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 6, 2007 5:48 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


And that's why I called him Slick. He'll do ANYTHING to avoid honest debate, even in his other personas.
I went round and round with him a few years ago about US history in South and Central America. He wouldn't even admit there was such a thing as 'gunboat diplomacy', 'banana republics' and 70's CIA meddling. Well, that's Slick for you.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 6, 2007 5:54 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Maybe so, but I refuse to name-call. There is a bit of the troll in all of us. The best response to trollish behavior is to keep the debate focused on the issues, not to engage in similar response. Be Super Nanny. This is the last post from me on this point in this thread.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 6, 2007 6:01 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


yeah - but notice I haven't been addressing him as Slick ! Just explaining where the name came from and why it fits. And you may (or may not) have noticed his seriously trollish snarking in other threads under his "geezer" persona. (He must be slipping and forgetting which name he's using at the moment.)

But anyway, PM me with some of your ideas. It's a topic you've obviously thought a lot about, and you probably have some great things to say. I'd hate to miss out just because of a troll doing what trolls do best and disrupting a discussion.

And I too have things to do. So, catch you later.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 6, 2007 6:17 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Oaky, I won't post them for Geezer but I will for you. AFA Geezer is concerned, unless he chooses to debate reasonably I simply won't respond to his comments.

The first is a tweak on capitalism. Since the checks and balances apparently need to come from outside "the economic system" then politics and information flow must be freed from the influence of money. (Needs to be a truly "independent variable") One partial example is Europe, where wealth distribution is controlled by democratic governments but production is controlled by the private sector.

The second is a "mixed economy" like PRC, Taiwan, and Singapore, with government ownership of the major industries and banking but ownership of minor industries and services by individuals. However, since any system is open to abuse and corruption the government itself must come under checks and balances provided by democracy. (See above)

The third include variations on "cooperative economies" where production is owned by the employees. There are many ways to tweak this system. I can think of ways to add incentive for development

The fourth is complete government ownership, like the USSR, but smarter.

I have a personal preference for Door #3 but I'm willing to discuss the benefits, perils and pitfalls of all of them.

Gotta go.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 6, 2007 7:02 AM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch2:
Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
1. Capitalism is an economic system.



And a spade is a spade. Redundant definition surely?

...This leads to the situation where you can retroactively label most societies since the dark ages as being capitalist in nature when that is not nescessarily true.



Apparently not redundant, since you go on to call capitalism a societial system.





I did not. If I describe Israel as a principly Jewish society do I infer that the Jewish religion is a societal system? You would do better to address the points in hand.



Quote:


Quote:

Capitalism is what it says it is, an economic model where capital, principly money, is seen as the dominant component of a commercial enterprise. In a capitalist enterprise it is the investor, the guy that puts money into a scheme that owns and controls it not the person that runs the business.
So Bill Gates isn't a capitalist?





Bill Gates does not own Microsoft, he has just a little under 11 percent of the company. If the owners of the other 89% decided to close shop and turn Redmond into a parking lot they could. As I said it is the investor that is the owner of the company not nescessarily the guy that runs it.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 6, 2007 7:05 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
All of Taiwan's "economic miracle" came from their mixed economic system. Just because they may be changing their economy NOW doesn't negate the fact that their rapid development came from an alternate economy! How do you justify ignoring such an obvious and significant fact?


Because they are dumping the mixed economic system themselves to move toward more privitization and free market economy. If it works so great, why get rid of it? Same for Singapore. The end state of their planned development is a capitalist economy. Doesn't seem too hard to figure out that they consider capitalism the way to go.

Quote:

So, what WERE your criteria for accepting an alternate economic structure?


An alternative economic structure should provide similar employment, compensation, goods and services, and incentives for development to those provided by the current capitalist system. Actually, to be viable, it should be able to provide these things at a higher level, else there's no reason to implement it.



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 6, 2007 7:17 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Are you SURE the end state is capitalist? Or even mostly capitalist? I haven't seen anything to that effect. I mean, I'd hate spend much time discussing non-facts when there are so many better things to discuss.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 6, 2007 7:42 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
The first is a tweak on capitalism. Since the checks and balances apparently need to come from outside "the economic system" then politics and information flow must be freed from the influence of money. (Needs to be a truly "independent variable") One partial example is Europe, where wealth distribution is controlled by democratic governments but production is controlled by the private sector.


This does exist to a certain extent now. I have no problem with government acting as a check to capitalists who might want to game the system. It's still a capitalist economy, though.
Quote:

The second is a "mixed economy" like PRC, Taiwan, and Singapore, with government ownership of the major industries and banking but ownership of minor industries and services by individuals. However, since any system is open to abuse and corruption the government itself must come under checks and balances provided by democracy. (See above)

The government-controlled economies have pretty much been set up by totalitarian regimes, and worked because they didn't have to deal with the "checks and balances" of a democracy. When the all-powerful government owns companies and that same government regulates companies, guess whose companies get the breaks. As noted above, Taiwan and Singapore are moving away from the mixed economy and towards privitization, free markets, and capitalism. They must have compelling reasons to do so. China's most successful industries function on a capitalist model.

Quote:

The third include variations on "cooperative economies" where production is owned by the employees. There are many ways to tweak this system. I can think of ways to add incentive for development
There are quite a few businesses which operate on this model now. I expect that there will be more eventually, as this fits in with a lot of people's ethos. I don't think that it will replace capitalism as the dominant economic force. Situations where large amounts of capital ar needed for startup or infrastructure will require outside investment. There will probably also be people who just want to draw a salary, and not risk their money by investing it in their workplace.

Quote:

The fourth is complete government ownership, like the USSR, but smarter.
I find it hard to believe that you would use the words "government" and "smarter" in the same sentence.

Quote:

I have a personal preference for Door #3 but I'm willing to discuss the benefits, perils and pitfalls of all of them.

Gotta go.



I'd prefer #1, as it's probably the least disruptive and most likely to get accomplished.

I gotta go too.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 6, 2007 7:47 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Because they are dumping the mixed economic system themselves to move toward more privitization and free market economy.
Not entirely. You're misrepresenting.
Quote:

If it works so great, why get rid of it?
Could just be plain old corruption.

And I addressed this already. I will repeat myself one more time. That does not take away from the fact that they spent the last 40-50 years developing under a different and very successful model. It does not mean that the end state WILL be capitalism. (It may be "more" capitalist but not fully so.) And it does not guarantee that privatization will provide a better standard of living. In fact, I can name you several nations that privatized and tanked badly. Seems to indicate that capitalism is not a viable alterantive either.
Quote:

An alternative economic structure should provide similar employment, compensation, goods and services, and incentives for development to those provided by the current capitalist system. Actually, to be viable, it should be able to provide these things at a higher level, else there's no reason to implement it.
Ah, so the Geezer standard of viability comes out! I refer again to Singapore, Taiwan, and PRC. They meet all of your requirements and they are not capitalist.

AFA raising capital is concerned.. you know, there are ways to raise money besides selling stocks. Whatever happened to loans, bonds, and government-guaranteed loans?

Geezer, you're such a millstone in this discussion! Always looking backwards and dragging your feet. No fun at all! Don't you realize that you're dealing with a MASTERMIND?

The Meyers-Briggs Test www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=27992
Quote:

INTJs are known as the "Systems Builders" of the types, perhaps in part because they possess the unusual trait combination of imagination and reliability. Whatever system an INTJ happens to be working on is for them the equivalent of a moral cause to an INFJ; both perfectionism and disregard for authority may come into play, as INTJs can be unsparing of both themselves and the others on the project. Anyone considered to be "slacking," including superiors, will lose their respect -- and will generally be made aware of this; INTJs have also been known to take it upon themselves to implement critical decisions without consulting their supervisors or co-workers


---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 6, 2007 8:34 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
And I addressed this already. I will repeat myself one more time. That does not take away from the fact that they spent the last 40-50 years developing under a different and very successful model.



A model that's only viable with a totalitarian government to create it. Thanks, but no thanks.

Quote:

I refer again to Singapore, Taiwan, and PRC. They meet all of your requirements and they are not capitalist.


The PRC "provide{s} similar employment, compensation, goods and services, and incentives for development..." to, say, Germany? What you smokin', SignyM?

Quote:

AFA raising capital is concerned.. you know, there are ways to raise money besides selling stocks. Whatever happened to loans, bonds, and government-guaranteed loans?

And where do you think that money for loans, bonds, and government guaranteed bonds comes from? Investors. Capitalism at one remove.

Quote:

Geezer, you're such a millstone in this discusison. Always looking backwards and dragging your feet. No fun at all!


I'm having fun.

I recognize that economics isn't a monoculture. There are varieties of ways for things to work. At this time, capitalism seems to be a vital part of the mix. Some day something else may arise and supercede it as top dog, but parts of it will still be around, just as barter is still around now. You seem to want that "One Simple Solution" system, but one size does not fit all when you're dealing with individual humans. Everybody's not going to want to own part of the company they work for. Everybody's not going to want to work for the State. There has to be variety, or your "simple" solution just won't work because everybody's not going to do what you think they should.



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 6, 2007 8:43 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Quote:

The first is a tweak on capitalism. Since the checks and balances apparently need to come from outside "the economic system" then politics and information flow must be freed from the influence of money. (Needs to be a truly "independent variable") One partial example is Europe, where wealth distribution is controlled by democratic governments but production is controlled by the private sector.

At first I thought this was about separating the power of money form government - breaking the "$1 = 1 vote" equation as you formulated a while ago. However, wealth distribution under control of government is just as liable to cascade the other way (FROM wealth and power to people TO wealth and power to corps) should corporate money gain the edge. It looks like a bi-stable system. So I'd like a bit more explanation on this.


Quote:

The second is a "mixed economy" like PRC, Taiwan, and Singapore, with government ownership of the major industries and banking but ownership of minor industries and services by individuals. However, since any system is open to abuse and corruption the government itself must come under checks and balances provided by democracy. (See above).

I think government needs to stand between ANY economic interests and social ones. The ownership of business interests - whether corporate, public or cooperative - will always look after narrow business decisions rather than broad social ones.
However, we have seen how easily government can 'game' a democratic system by controlling the media.
So there needs to be some sort of media protection, both from government and business agendas.


Quote:

The third include variations on "cooperative economies" where production is owned by the employees. There are many ways to tweak this system. I can think of ways to add incentive for development.

I think this goes a ways to avoid concentration of money and power into VERY few hands. But it doesn't keep businesses from despoiling the environment, from becoming monopolies, from becoming powerful enough in their own right to do the same thing current businesses do, nor does it require them to consider broad social issues. So there still needs to be government restriction.


Quote:

The fourth is complete government ownership, like the USSR, but smarter.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 6, 2007 8:47 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


SignyM, you'll never be able to have a bona fide discussion with him.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 6, 2007 9:04 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

A model that's only viable with a totalitarian government to create it. Thanks, but no thanks.
I don't see any reason why a partly government-owned economy has to be totalitarian. I can perfectly envision some sort of democracy where the government owns the banks, power generation, transporation, electrical power, water supplies, telephonics like... oh, say.... Germany? If that's the case, why cannot that be extended to the extractives, steel, cement, refining and industrial chemicals? Not that it needs to go that way, but I don't see any reason why not. Do you?
Quote:

The PRC "provide{s} similar employment, compensation, goods and services, and incentives for development..." to, say, Germany? What you smokin', SignyM
In the cities, definitely. But excluding the PRC, that still leaves Taiwan and Singapore, which meets the OTHER critical part of your "requirements" (capable of supporting current population densities.)
Quote:

And where do you think that money for loans, bonds, and government guaranteed bonds comes from? Investors. Capitalism at one remove.
Huh? What YOU smokin', Geezer? There isn't a single "capitalist" in the scenario. A lender is not an "owner" in the sense that they do not exercise day-to-day control. In addition, they do not share in future growth. Your definitions, like your requirements, are a little bendy.
Quote:

I'm having fun.
Wish I could say the same. You lack vision.
Quote:

You seem to want that "One Simple Solution" system, but one size does not fit all when you're dealing with individual humans.
Hey, you're the one who wants everything to look, sound, smell and perform like suburban Virginia! You sound like Goldilocks... this one's too big. This one's too small. And this one smells funny.

But seeing as you have conceded that not one size fits all, have you figured out which nations tanked under capitalism?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 6, 2007 9:08 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Hey Rue, I'll be happy to explicate later. You're right- talking with Geezer is a waste of time.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 6, 2007 9:15 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Well, I guess this is "later"!

Quote:

At first I thought this was about separating the power of money form government - breaking the "$1 = 1 vote" equation as you formulated a while ago. However, wealth distribution under control of government is just as liable to cascade the other way (FROM wealth and power to people TO wealth and power to corps) should corporate money gain the edge. It looks like a bi-stable system. So I'd like a bit more explanation on this.
It is about separating money from politics. But in order to do that, you also have to separate communication from money, because money has it's entree into politics through the necessity of advertising. Also, an information stream controlled by corporations is likely to be pretty quiet about how you're getting fucked over by corporations.

So the first requirement is that content is free. I don't mean just free as in Freedom, I mean FREE as in "beer".

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 6, 2007 9:25 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


SignyM

"You sound like Goldilocks... this one's too big. This one's too small. And this one smells funny."

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha .... OMG LMAOROTF

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 6, 2007 2:01 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Sw'anyways ... I'm going to talk about door #3 (cooperatives) because it interests me the most.

In a cooperative economic system as I have envisioned, the only allowable busniess forms are either single member cooperatives (sole owner/ employee) or multi-person Cooperatives. Every worker "owns" a portion of the business (whatever it is) in proportion to the number of hours they work. Each cooperative pays a certain percent in taxes from their gross revenues, then pays expenses and creditors. The remainder is reinvested and divvied up according to the goals of the cooperative.

The problem with current cooperatives (as practiced in North America) is that they require every member to vote on every issue- from how much beans they should buy next month to who's sweeping the floor tonight. There should be several forms of co-ops, just as today there are several forms of business (DBA, LLC, Inc. etc.) One form would be direct democracy, but other forms would include voting in a board of directors or hiring a management team. However it works, "the management" should always be at the behest of "the managed". And there are some things that the co-op always gets to vote on:

1)What to do with the leftover money. Distribute to the folks, or re-invest for higher productivity and greater return later?
2) The form of the cooperative.

AFA salary ranges, I wonder how it would work out if you paid everyone the same? I know that sounds like a "radical" idea, but look at it this way.... If you get paid the same no matter what you do, then you get to do what you like (and presumably what you're best at). High-paying jobs wouldn't attract hacks just because they pay well. Trainers would train, managers would manage, designers would design, and floor sweepers would sweep because that's what they WANT to do.

There are pitfalls with this too. The same tendency towards "monopolism" is present in this arrangement. Theoretically, you could have a particularly efficient co-op take over other co-ops like some sort of amoeba until only "super co-op" was left. The co-ops are also not inherently eco-friendly, warm and fuzzy, or any of the other things that we think of a "co-operative". They could have the same corrupting influence on government that business currently has: there would have to be a strong wall of separation between co-ops and government.

In some end state, when cooperatives are 100% efficient and don't need any employees... or in the march towards that end state... you could theoretically generate significant unemployment.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 6, 2007 2:37 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"So the first requirement is that content is free. I don't mean just free as in Freedom, I mean FREE as in 'beer'."

It would be kind of interesting to apply this to 'free speech' ideas. In order to count as 'free speech' it literally HAS to be free. However, sadly, I can see ways around that too, even in current every-day life. Corporations for example do 'issue' publishing. And this is not to make money (directly) it's to influence thought. Monied interests may make a small sacrifice to put out 'free' (as in beer) speech to influence public thought. So simply requiring political speech or other speech to be free$$ doesn't necessarily remove the influence of money.

Either that or I'm completely misunderstanding what you mean. ????


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 6, 2007 3:22 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


The only really "free speech" is the internet. If supported by the goverment everyone gets their say, and more $$$ does not necessarily mean more presence (Altho I can see that being abused too.) If radio, TV, and newspapers are suported by the government you risk hearing only government viewpoints. But if you have to PAY to communciate something, it seems to me that it should be regulated as "advertising". The concept of making communication free really needs more work!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 6, 2007 3:28 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I was just curious. Though an internet where everyone gets ONE site might be useful for 'free speech'. ??

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 6, 2007 3:37 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
In a cooperative economic system as I have envisioned, the only allowable busniess forms are either single member cooperatives (sole owner/ employee) or multi-person Cooperatives.



Ah, totalitarianism. Do what we say or die. Wonderful.

I envisige an economic system where faerie creatures of fire and light descend from above and grant every person an imperishable wishing flower made of purple crystal. As new people are born, their faerie friends provide them with a new flower. Everyone can have everything they want, at any time, at no cost to themselves. About as likely to occur as your options 2 through 4. Since this is the "Real World Event Discussions" forum and you're obviously way outside practical real world solutions, I leave the fantasizing to you. Ta.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 6, 2007 4:05 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I envision a world of space travel and dispersed peoples, of core systems and far flung frontiers, where ships might have quixotic names like 'Firefly' ... nah, no point in discussing something like that.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 6, 2007 4:06 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


try again ...
I envision a world where heat and light are automatic, where people get around in machines not drawn by animals, where people can fly ... nah, no point in discussing something like that.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 6, 2007 4:08 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


try again ...
I envision a world where kings don't rule, and people can decide their governments, where there is no taxation without representation, where trials are fair and open ... nah, no point in discussing something like that. (well, especially not now )

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 6, 2007 5:13 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Conducting this thought experiment has made me wonder about the ultimate causes of unemployment. In today's situation I'd say its lack of wealth redistribution: capitalists will only produce what they can sell, and if people who NEED medicine (for example) can't pay for it, or there is no constituency for it (such as reforestation) then it simply won't be done. Money travels in tighter and tighter circles.

A more distant cause of unemployment is increasing productivity. As long as jobs and wealth are distributed more or less evenly, then what the general population sees is a gradual decrease in work and an increased standard of living. But if increased productivity rewards only a few, then a large number of people are out in the cold. Looking at the boundary conditions of capitalasm we see that happening. But it could also happen under cooperatives... more slowly perhaps but it could still wind up that way.

Handling productivity requires other feeback systems aside from "more" equitable distribution of wealth.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 6, 2007 5:31 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"But it could also happen under cooperatives".

But what would be the downside? In cooperatives I imagine the work gets equally proportioned up or down as efficiency increases or demand changes. If they are producing more with less work hours then the benefits of those sales accrue to the people who 'own' the cooperative, no matter how many or few hours they work. More money AND more lesiure time. YUM !

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 6, 2007 8:48 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


The issue that I have is that a cooperative might have such an advantage productivity-wise that it .... oh, right. Nevermind!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 7, 2007 1:12 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
If they are producing more with less work hours then the benefits of those sales accrue to the people who 'own' the cooperative, no matter how many or few hours they work. More money AND more lesiure time. YUM !


This assumes they are making an adequate return on their investment. What if they can't sell enough of their product at a high enough price to pay the bills?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 7, 2007 7:25 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Then they raise their prices or go belly up. Same as under capitalsim.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 7, 2007 8:13 AM

LEADB


Produce more ... prices drop. Econ 101.
Several possible results.
As prices drop inefficient producers are wiped out, pushing people into the gutter.
Luckily prices drop, but not enough to put anyone out of business; society benefits at the reduced costs of things overall; profits/leisure time of the producers somewhat improved.
Prices drop; inefficient producers go out of business; resulting in decreased product supplies; prices return to original level and original producers make a killing.

Ripples on a pond.

====
Please vote for Firefly:
http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 7, 2007 9:20 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Then they raise their prices or go belly up. Same as under capitalsim.


And then everybody in the cooperative's out of a job. And this is better than capitalism how?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 7, 2007 9:24 AM

BROOKLYNBROWNCOAT


just call Buffy the Christ killer- she'll take care of it

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 7, 2007 9:33 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Distributing wealth thru work not ownership. Keeping the money circulating w/o welfare, so it doesn't clump up in one spot and stop flowing while still retaining the positive aspects of competition, free markets, and increasing productivity.

I think that YOU think I'm a bleeding-heart liberal.

I'm not. Hence my avoidance of "charity". I want to FIX the system, not bandage it.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 7, 2007 11:37 AM

FREMDFIRMA


*fires up the rock-ola in the corner*

So much bobbin and weavin goin on here, might as well put some music to this little dance.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 7, 2007 12:52 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I'm not bobbing and weaving. Do YOU think I am? I think I'm being straightforward.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 7, 2007 1:03 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Distributing wealth thru work not ownership.


But in your cooperative, everybody is forced to be the owner. They are required to risk their capital - be it money, physical labor, or special skill - on the success of the cooperative. If the cooperative fails they are all responsible to creditors, fellow members, people who have ordered product, etc. As noted before, some folks are up for this, and this model has worked in many cases. However, a lot of people would not want to be in this position, and would rather just work for wages, then you got capitalism again.
Quote:

Keeping the money circulating w/o welfare, so it doesn't clump up in one spot and stop flowing while still retaining the positive aspects of competition, free markets, and increasing productivity.

There are always going to be people who can not or will not work and will need some sort of welfare. There are also people who's jobs go away and savings are wiped out for a while due to business failure (Probably more if everyone involved in the business has to pay off its debts). There still has to be some sort of social safety net.
Quote:

I think that YOU think I'm a bleeding-heart liberal.

Based on your ideas here, I think you have totalitarian leanings. Everyone MUST structure their lives to suit your economic theories. Not good.

Quote:

I'm not. Hence my avoidance of "charity". I want to FIX the system, not bandage it.


Then you need better arguments. The fact that you can convice folks who already agree with you is fun, but doesn't do much good. When you can convince the guy who puts in his 40 hours a week at the widget plant, goes fishing on the weekend, watches sports, and is pretty happy with his life that your idea is better, then you might get somewhere.

Then you need to figure out how to get the means of production out of the hands of owners and investors and into the hands of the workers without lots of folks getting screwed over, lots of economic disruption, and lots of folks out of work until things get sorted out.

Or else the faeries need to bring you a magic crystal wish-granting flower.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 7, 2007 4:16 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

I'm not bobbing and weaving. Do YOU think I am? I think I'm being straightforward.

Nah, i'm busting Geeze's chops for moving the goalposts every time you blow his argument to hell.

Reminds me of two folks I knew, both pretty hard right conservatives, and I didn't expect it of em, mind..

So they started comin to me with whatever bash of the week it was on TV talkshowland, which, imop, is a place pretty damn far removed from the real world, and I would systematically demolish the entire argument/theory/talking piece, end to end, and I can be awfully mean and downright thorough about it if I wanna be, which I was.

Couple hours later, they come back WITH THE EXACT SAME THING, couched in slightly different words and phrasing, as if I hadn't just blown it apart less than 24hrs ago!?

Round and round, again and again, and they start getting pissed about it, angry and physically threatening, so I threw em outta my house and was done with em.

Past a point, you just *can't* argue with these people, it's pointless, so I just state my piece once and then snark at them a little when they start sounding like a broken record... like now.

If people wanna take offense at reality being held up to their little dreams, that's up to them, but don't expect me to ignore the realities of my life to support what amounts to plain fiction, yanno ?

So dance, dance, dance, cause as a fencing match, this is goin nowhere.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 7, 2007 7:27 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

So they started comin to me with whatever bash of the week it was on TV talkshowland, which, imop, is a place pretty damn far removed from the real world, and I would systematically demolish the entire argument/theory/talking piece, end to end, and I can be awfully mean and downright thorough about it if I wanna be, which I was.
Too bad I wasn't sitting on the sidelines eating popcorn and enjoying the show!

AFA Geezer is concerned, I'm just here to talk. It helps to discuss with someone who is in serious opposition. I'll tell you how I interpret Geezer's behavior later.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 7, 2007 7:55 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

But in your cooperative, everybody is forced to be the owner. They are required to risk their capital - be it money, physical labor, or special skill - on the success of the cooperative. If the cooperative fails they are all responsible to creditors, fellow members, people who have ordered product, etc. As noted before, some folks are up for this, and this model has worked in many cases. However, a lot of people would not want to be in this position, and would rather just work for wages, then you got capitalism again.
Well, this being a thought experiment, the laws governing cooperatives: how they're formed, how they dissolve, their liabilites and so forth.... are strictly up to however we choose to design the system. Maybe the cooperative members have limited liability for this contingency.

Also, you don't necessarily have to START a cooperative in order to work for one. What would prevent anyone from quitting one cooperative and joining another?
Quote:

There are always going to be people who can not or will not work and will need some sort of welfare. There are also people who's jobs go away and savings are wiped out for a while due to business failure (Probably more if everyone involved in the business has to pay off its debts). There still has to be some sort of social safety net.
That's partly what the taxes are for. I'm assuming that the government assumes SOME functions that market-forces don't respond to, for example, the elderly, disabled, the very young, those not yet born... in other words, those who may not have a strong presence in "the market" but nonethless need attention.
Quote:

Based on your ideas here, I think you have totalitarian leanings. Everyone MUST structure their lives to suit your economic theories. Not good.
Do you think that the laws governing our current economic system are any less artificial? Businesses- and I don't care which kind- are all regulated. Their forms, liabilities, structures, and responsibilities are all set forth by law. As it stands, individuals are at a SERIOUS legal disadvantage when it comes to business (especially corporations) starting with tax law, laws governing theft, privacy etc. That's not even taking into account the practical disadvantges of facing a multimillion-dollar entity.
Quote:

Then you need better arguments. The fact that you can convice folks who already agree with you is fun, but doesn't do much good. When you can convince the guy who puts in his 40 hours a week at the widget plant, goes fishing on the weekend, watches sports, and is pretty happy with his life that your idea is better, then you might get somewhere.
I think my idea is pretty sound. But since there is no LEGAL basis for what I'm proposing, I guess it would take some sharp-penned lawyer to write up a mutual contract along the ideas of what I'm proposing. I suspect it would work best (at first) for enterprises that don't need a lot of capital to start with: programming, system management, technical services and such.

Hmmm... but you made me think of the whole idea of a minimum wage. I suppose that would be a necessary part of the system.


---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 8, 2007 2:16 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


What I've set up then is an ecology of (limited liability) worker-owned businesses which raise caoital thru loans and bonds. Some will be large and some small, some will be more efficent and some less so. These cooperatives (as currently devised) pay their taxes and creditors, set aside capital for future investment or contingency, and then pay their owners by divvying up the remainder.

The more efficient cooperatives will be able to pay their members more, the less efficient cooperatives will pay their members less. Do you suppose there should be some sort of minimum-wage law? OR is the basis for a minimum wage (protection of workers from "the bosses") simply not existant/ applicable, and will market forces efficiently handle these differences?

Don't forget that in this system there is still competition: for capital, market share, jobs, workers, etc. In the ideal world these forces will keep the economy near equilibrium, but in the REAL world power concentrates. Does this system need further legal constraints?

(Maybe I should write a program and iterate the process several million times and see what happens. If I can simulate the real capitalist world and then .... oh yeah, I have a job and a family. The chances of me doing this are about as good as developing the Unified Field Theory. Still.... hmmm....)

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 8, 2007 11:02 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


SO hey Geezer- any comments?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 9, 2007 3:31 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
SO hey Geezer- any comments?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.



Easter is a busy day for me, stealing all those Easter eggs while the Christians are at church.

Let me look back up the thread and make sure of what I think you are proposing and I'll get back to you. Also, remember that I don't think that cooperatives are bad, just that they won't be the only solution.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 9, 2007 4:26 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


HAHAHAHAHA!!!

Hope yours was a good one.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 6:35 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
What I've set up then is an ecology of (limited liability) worker-owned businesses which raise caoital thru loans and bonds. Some will be large and some small, some will be more efficent and some less so. These cooperatives (as currently devised) pay their taxes and creditors, set aside capital for future investment or contingency, and then pay their owners by divvying up the remainder.

The more efficient cooperatives will be able to pay their members more, the less efficient cooperatives will pay their members less. Do you suppose there should be some sort of minimum-wage law? OR is the basis for a minimum wage (protection of workers from "the bosses") simply not existant/ applicable, and will market forces efficiently handle these differences?

Don't forget that in this system there is still competition: for capital, market share, jobs, workers, etc. In the ideal world these forces will keep the economy near equilibrium, but in the REAL world power concentrates. Does this system need further legal constraints?



In your cooperative economy, the co-ops would need pretty much the same legal constraints as those currently in place in a capitalist system (anti-trust, price-fixing, collusion, etc.), since the co-ops will have the same roles as capitalist corporations (and the same temptation to bend the rules to make a profit). The only changes might be in the area of employer/employee relations. Owner/Employees will be more empowered(if they're careful), and have more say in compensation, working conditions, pensions/benefits, etc.

Government will have to get more involved in the lending business, probably with loan guarantees, since banking cooperatives are probably going to be less willing to risk their money that venture capitalists willing to gamble their investment for return. There will also have to be some regulations to prevent banks from becoming de-facto owners of co-ops to which they have loaned substantial sums. Not to mention ways to keep co-ops who have deposited large amounts in banks from becoming players in their operation.

Since pretty much everyone now has a direct financial stake in their employing business, there would probably have to develop a new legal specialty around how an individual changes jobs. How and when can he withdraw his equity from his current company and invest it in his new one. How to be sure that if a group of employees want to split off from a co-op that they won't unduly damage the remaining employees by draining resources. Lawyer co-ops will be big for a while.

So I'd say that there will pretty much have to be more legal constraints and more government involvement.


"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 7:08 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I came to the same conclusion myself.

"I think government needs to stand between ANY economic interests and social ones. The ownership of business interests - whether corporate, public or cooperative - will always look after narrow business decisions rather than broad social ones.
However, we have seen how easily government can 'game' a democratic system by controlling the media.
So there needs to be some sort of media protection, both from government and business agendas.

I think this goes a ways to avoid concentration of money and power into VERY few hands. But it doesn't keep businesses from despoiling the environment, from becoming monopolies, from becoming powerful enough in their own right to do the same thing current businesses do, nor does it require them to consider broad social issues. So there still needs to be government restriction."

As proposed, this is strictly an economic system for distributing money in a different way. It's not a proposal for a broad social restructuring into a 'utopia'.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 8:54 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Hey, so what would it take to create a utopia? We have several Masterminds on this website (funny, that...). IS this something we can sink our teeth into?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 9:08 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Hey, so what would it take to create a utopia? We have several Masterminds on this website (funny, that...). IS this something we can sink our teeth into?



First, define "Utopia".

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 9:21 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Maximum non drug-induced oxytocin. heh heh heh

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 10:31 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


That's probably the best, most succinct definition one can find.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:54 - 3414 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:49 - 11 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:45 - 56 posts
Elections; 2024
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:33 - 2075 posts
Long List of Celebrities that are Still Here
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:00 - 1 posts
China
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:10 - 447 posts
Biden
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:03 - 853 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:20 - 6155 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL