Capitalism

[pknopp]

Wrong

government corruption is not an economic system

It is ours. Otherwise taxpayers wouldn't be on the hook for business that help fund the politicians.

 

[Soupnazi630]

It is ours. Otherwise taxpayers wouldn't be on the hook for business that help fund the politicians.

No it is not ours it is a common problem in any and all governnments.

It is not an economic system of any sort it is what simply comes with any sort of government power

 

[dblack]

So? Simply defending my position that Capitalism is just a theory.

Well, it seems like you're trying to make a point relative to the discussion. But it's not all clear what that point is. If you're just trolling, I'll leave you to it. But if you're interested in communicating, you're failing.

 

[georgephillip]

Hmmm... were you responding to a different quote or something? This doesn't address what I posted.

You posted since employee-owned companies already exist in the US, socialists currently have a viable opportunity for collective ownership and finished by asking "(W)hy does anything need to change?"

I attempted to respond by pointing out the current influence of the investor (shareholder) class in America severely limits how much any politician can do to advance the cause of workplace coops.

As an example, in 2014 a Carrier plant in Indiana threatened to move out of the US leaving behind 1400 jobs. During his 2016 campaign, Trump "blasted the company's plan to send 1400 jobs to Mexico."

Trump campaigned on saving jobs at Indianapolis' Carrier plant. This is what it's like now

"Workers quickly learned the deal would only save some of their jobs, despite $7 million in state tax credits and training grants incoming Vice President Mike Pence had arranged as one of his final acts as Indiana governor.

"More than 600 people would still be laid off.

"The limits of Trump's influence over manufacturing jobs has only been reinforced since then. Despite Trump's lofty promises, companies have continued to send jobs overseas."

A POTUS committed to worker coops would have considered using the policy of eminent domain to take the plant and sell it to all of its employees.

 

[dblack]

You posted since employee-owned companies already exist in the US, socialists currently have a viable opportunity for collective ownership and finished by asking "(W)hy does anything need to change?"

I attempted to respond by pointing out the current influence of the investor (shareholder) class in America severely limits how much any politician can do to advance the cause of workplace coops.

Why does a politician need to do anything to advance the cause of workplace coops? They're legal already.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

They laughed at me a few years ago when i posted how capitalism works. It requires growth to work. Greed run capitalism requires big growth.
Prices double every 200 years
Prices double every 100 years
prices double every 50 years
prices double every 25 years
Prices double every 12-13 years--we are here
prices double every 6 years= disaster
prices double every 3 years- the ultra rich become slave masters of 99% on earth. They are rushing us to this.

So does one think capitalism is best for the human race?

Thats called legerdemain economics.
How does all this pan out under other systems, say socialism/communism? if we don't know that then I have to say yes it is best for the human race until you show what the prices are under other systems, and do not forget to show taxes.

 

[georgephillip]

Why does a politician need to do anything to advance the cause of workplace coops? They're legal already.

Legality is a good start, but it hardly matches the benefits government has bestowed on capitalism since implementation of the American System:

Historical Spotlight: Hamiltonian Economics - Glimpse from the Globe

"The American System was premised on a deceptively simple idea—the American republic would be more sustainable if it were stronger, and therefore its economic strength should be encouraged.

"Statesmen facilitated its growth through a series of wealth-creating policies that encouraged dynamic industrialism to take root within the United States, and align its interests with the government’s.

"These policies, in Alexander Hamilton’s prototype of the American System, included federal support for domestic industry through subsidies, the establishment of a National Bank for the maintenance of sound public credit and intensive government funding of new, innovative technologies."

 

[Foxfyre]

They laughed at me a few years ago when i posted how capitalism works. It requires growth to work. Greed run capitalism requires big growth.
Prices double every 200 years
Prices double every 100 years
prices double every 50 years
prices double every 25 years
Prices double every 12-13 years--we are here
prices double every 6 years= disaster
prices double every 3 years- the ultra rich become slave masters of 99% on earth. They are rushing us to this.

So does one think capitalism is best for the human race?

You don't look just at the price of goods and services. You also look at the prosperity of Americans over the same period.

For instance:
The median U.S. wage in 1960 was roughly $2.75/hr
The median U.S. wage in 2020 before the pandemic hit was roughly $19.00/hr
In other words the median hourly wage increased by roughly $16.25

The median price for a loaf of bread in 1960 was 10 cents a loaf
The median price for the same loaf of bread in 2019 was roughly 85 cents a loaf or an increase of .75 cents. You could feed a family of four well on $125/month in 1960. In 2020 that had risen to about $500 month, an increase of $375.00 while median monthly incomes increased more than $5,000 month.

In other words old fashioned capitalism has vastly increased personal wealth of Americans over the last 60 years. We did some backsliding for a bit in the late 70's/early 80's and wages have not kept pace with inflation overall during the Biden years but capitalism is the ONLY system in which ALL the people can hope to significantly increase their economic status/situation.

 

[dblack]

Legality is a good start, but it hardly matches the benefits government has bestowed on capitalism since implementation of the American System

Ok, that's what I figured. Despite what you said a few posts ago, socialism is after a good deal more than employee owned businesses. It's about government "bestowing benefits".

Alright. Let's go with it. Let's say you get some program going that offers state guaranteed loans, or just straight up grants, for groups of workers to start their own companies. A couple of questions:

Would privately owned businesses still be legal?
Can employees sell their shares? Do they lose them if they are no longer employed?
What happens if an employee owned business fails?

 

[georgephillip]

Would privately owned businesses still be legal?
Can employees sell their shares? Do they lose them if they are no longer employed?
What happens if an employee owned business fails?

Privately owned businesses would enjoy all the legal rights they currently posses as far as I know.

Sale of shares would be determined democratically by a vote of all employees at each business. If an employee quits her job, I don't have any idea what would happen; this is another detail each coop would have to decide for itself.

Coops that fail would likely be unwound in the courts just as private business bankruptcies are.

 

[dblack]

Privately owned businesses would enjoy all the legal rights they currently posses as far as I know.

And if it turns out that employee owned companies aren't competitive with traditional companies (in terms of profit, market share, etc ..), would that change? Should the state do anything to prop them up?

Sale of shares would be determined democratically by a vote of all employees at each business. If an employee quits her job, I don't have any idea what would happen; this is another detail each coop would have to decide for itself.

It seems like a pretty important question. If employees ARE allowed to sell their shares of the company, there's the risk we'd end up in the same boat, with ambitious investors buying up companies from employees who'd rather have the cash in hand.

 

[dblack]

And if it turns out that employee owned companies aren't competitive with traditional companies (in terms of profit, market share, etc ..), would that change? Should the state do anything to prop them up?



It seems like a pretty important question. If employees ARE allowed to sell their shares of the company, there's the risk we'd end up in the same boat, with ambitious investors buying up companies from employees who'd rather have the cash in hand.

I'm raising these questions because some socialism advocates claim that what they call socialism is compatible with free markets - and I don't see how. Employee owned businesses are fine. They're legal, but I suspect they have a hard time competing with privately held, or investor owned, companies.

I suppose it depends on how much "democracy in the workplace" there really is, but the priorities of workers in a collective will be different than owners with a stake at risk. They'll inevitably favor policies and decisions that improve work conditions, compensation, benefits etc ... while sacrificing profits and the overall health of the company. I realize that's the point - the goal. But if it makes them unable to compete with private companies, what then?

This why most socialists that I've talked to target private business ownership for extinction, and I think they're right. Widespread socialism just isn't compatible with free markets.

 

[Ringo]

If a mentally healthy person does not want war and genocide, then a bourgeois personality does not want war and genocide for himself - other people for him are goods that would be nice to shuffle in the interests of the market, to profit from conveyor deliveries of meat. That is what nationalist butchers are for.

 

[dblack]

If a mentally healthy person does not want war and genocide, then a bourgeois personality does not want war and genocide for himself - other people for him are goods that would be nice to shuffle in the interests of the market, to profit from conveyor deliveries of meat. That is what nationalist butchers are for.

???

 

[georgephillip]

And if it turns out that employee owned companies aren't competitive with traditional companies (in terms of profit, market share, etc ..), would that change? Should the state do anything to prop them up?

Based upon this 2013 snapshot, worker coops "slightly outperform their peers":

https://institute.coop/sites/default/files/resources/State_of_the_sector_0.pdf

"In 2013, the average private firm had a profit margin of 5.9%, while the margin for worker cooperatives was 6.4%.

"While this figure is based on a small sample size (67 firms), it does appear that the worker cooperatives examined here are competitive and viable as a whole, particularly in the manufacturing and retail industries."

I don't believe the state should assume any role beyond ensuring a level playing field for traditional businesses and worker coops. Of course, in our current political landscape that would depend on which side provides the largest bribes to office seekers?

 

[georgephillip]

I'm raising these questions because some socialism advocates claim that what they call socialism is compatible with free markets - and I don't see how. Employee owned businesses are fine. They're legal, but I suspect they have a hard time competing with privately held, or investor owned, companies.

All ownership and decision-making power of a worker cooperative should be vested solely with the worker-owners:

Worker cooperative - Wikipedia.

"Even though there is no universally accepted definition of a workers' cooperative, they can be considered to be businesses that make a product or offer a service to sell for profit where the workers are members or worker-owners.

"Worker-owners work in the business, govern it and manage it.

"Unlike with conventional firms, ownership and decision-making power of a worker cooperative should be vested solely with the worker-owners and ultimate authority rests with the worker-owners as a whole. Worker-owners control the resources of the cooperative and the work process, such as wages or hours of work.[1]"

 

[dblack]

Based upon this 2013 snapshot, worker coops "slightly outperform their peers" ...

All ownership and decision-making power of a worker cooperative should be vested solely with the worker-owners:

That's all great. But again, it's the policy toward traditional, privately held companies that I'm curious about. My understanding is that socialists want to replace privately owned companies. That they want to seize their assets and put them under state control. I think most people assume the same if they hear the term socialism. If all you're doing is promoting worker owned businesses, you're kind of undermining your cause by calling it socialism.

 

[pknopp]

I'm raising these questions because some socialism advocates claim that what they call socialism is compatible with free markets - and I don't see how. Employee owned businesses are fine. They're legal, but I suspect they have a hard time competing with privately held, or investor owned, companies.

I suppose it depends on how much "democracy in the workplace" there really is, but the priorities of workers in a collective will be different than owners with a stake at risk. They'll inevitably favor policies and decisions that improve work conditions, compensation, benefits etc ... while sacrificing profits and the overall health of the company. I realize that's the point - the goal. But if it makes them unable to compete with private companies, what then?

This why most socialists that I've talked to target private business ownership for extinction, and I think they're right. Widespread socialism just isn't compatible with free markets.

Free markets don't exist so it's all simple theory.

 

[Burgermeister]

Yeah this is as stupid as I figured it would be.

 

[Arlette]

Capitalism uses up too much resources to produce stuff we don't need. Capitalism is still unable to produce necessities like affordable housing and health care