Discussion in 'Markets & Economies' started by mmm....shiney!, Jul 21, 2015.
And your point?
What? No way! Maybe a Corporate defence attack dog.
Regards Errol 43
Nah, Private Court Justice if anyone would pay me to arbitrate on disputes.
And what about the workers who were sacked in the first retrenchments when the owners had to let non-performers go in the first cash crisis they faced after their major customer went under without paying their invoice and their major supplier refused to extend them more credit?
Or what happens when the business owners, when faced with the theft of their life's work and family's inheritance upon death, sell their business and distribute the proceeds of sale amongst themselves, before anyone dies?
But wait, it's the first 10 workers who get 56.34% ... and employee number 11 missing out is fine with you because the arbitrary rules stipulate only 10, right?
What an excellent example of the stupidity of communism. All those entrepreneurial, creative types working for the miserly benefits stipulated by others is the bedrock for all successful economic systems of course! ... Workism or truculence?
In any system (Capitalism, Communism, Workism, etc.), it's with the permission of the State. Only in absolute Anarchy, in the absense of all rules, there are no State permissions (simply because there is no State). And in Anarchy there are no duties or rights (not even the right of ownership). Aside from the possibility to transfer company's shares to another, a worker having a share of his firm in Workism has the same rights of ownership over it as an investor in Capitalism. In both cases, the system allows the shareholder to hold his share.
Are you really a silver stacker? Do you believe that silver should be money? Do you believe in sound monetary systems where one can't create something out of nothing?
Well, I do. I believe that anyone and anything should be limited to his/its own available resources. Credit bubbles and fake economies are not what I think it's best.
If that collective wishes to expand its production or purchase equipment to enhance productivity, they are free to do so. But if they want to do it without having the money for it, then they can't (or they shouldn't be able to). If I want to jump, I'm limited to my own resources (my legs). If they are weak, I will not jump high. That's life.
If you believe that people should be able to create something out of nothing, then why not allowing fractional-reserve banking? Are you in favour of that?
No, the State would actually allow loans. It would only forbid interest charges. And, just because the individual can't access any funding for his business, it doesn't mean he can't use his property (his business) as he sees fit. He just won't be able to use other's property on his property.
If you acknowledge that, then you know your sentence is wrong. Capitalism will always come with State imposed restrictions. Whether they're just about protections against dangerous or unwelcome outcomes or not, it is subjective. For me, people gaining wealth without working is an unwelcome outcome. For you, it isn't.
Regarding that gun subject, it is a little off-topic but do you think you should be able to use a grenade or a missile?
No, it isn't and you know it. If you've forgotten, read my posts again.
In one of them, I clearly make a distinction between the 3 topics we could discuss regarding wealth flowing from the productive to the non-productive (A - Does it happen? / B - It is good for the economy? / C - Is it moral?) and I said in a subsequent post that I not only find it immoral but also bad for the economy. In another post I told you an economic principle: if a system remunerates people that do not work, then it is incentivizing people not to work.
Besides the previous economic principle, there's also (and I've explained it) price and demand. If you have an inflated demand on a product caused by people that are buying with no intention to use it, then prices will rise. If you remove the renting fees out of the equation, only users will buy. The inflated demand will disappear and prices will plummet to "reality levels".
Actually, it isn't contradictory. The worker didn't inherited his company share. He worked for it.
Ramblings like the 2 previous paragraphs you just wrote? No, I don't do such things. I quote and respond directly to the quote, always staying focused an on topic. Not like you. You constatly avoid my sentences, build long paragraphs with no quotes and never (but never ever) admit you're wrong. I have even tried (in post #147) to reaffirm the points you had ignored once, but you've just ignored them again and again and again, along with further points that emerged after, the last being:
- You said "It's a class struggle where a supposedly dominant class of capitalists are overthrown, in your case via State legislation, to be replaced by the proletariat who have collective ownership of the means of production."
- I answered: "In Workism, there are no classes of capitalists being overthrown and no collective ownership of the means of production. You're confusing everything.
Any founder of a company will hold his share until he dies. He will never be overthrown. After he dies, his share will not be "overthrown" (to use your language) by his sons. Instead, it will go to the people (still alive) most responsible for the company's existance. If there are other founders, it will go to them. If there aren't, it will go to the workers according to their contribution (the accumulated value-added generated by each). There is no collective ownership. Each founder or worker has his own share. Just like in today's stock market, there is no such thing as collective ownership. Each investor has his own share."
- You could've either counter-argue or admit you're wrong. You didn't do any.
Instead, you wrote misinformed ramblings about how I write misinformed ramblings. How ironic...
Both. I described Workism and you responded with truculence. You couldn't even understand the concept and you jumped all over my quote. You got it all wrong and I will try to explain where.
Former workers will also hold a share. I said it in point 8: "Even if a worker leaves the company, he will not lose his share".
They can't sell the business. If a company is a man life's work, Workism is the perfect system for him, once he will hold the company for life. There is (and can't be) no theft.
Wrong. That was just an example ("To give you an example:...5 - This last founder dies and the company has 80 workers: 10 working for 20 years at an annual salary of 4000$ ; 50 working for 10 years at an annual salary of 1000$ ; 20 working for 2 years at an annual salary of 3000$."). Did you really think that Workism would force every business to have 80 workers??
The criteria is, as I had clearly stated: "If there are other founders, it will go to them. If there aren't, it will go to the workers according to their contribution (the accumulated value-added generated by each)." In the example:
10 x 20 x 4000$ + 50 x 10 x 1000$ + 20 x 2 x 3000$ = 1.42M$ (this is the total accumulated value-added generated by the workers)
20 years x 4000$ = 80k$ (this is the total accumulated value-added generated by one of the first 10 workers)
80k$ / 1.42M$ = 5.65% (this is the contribution to the company from one of the first 10 workers)
Phransisku, at best you do have some theoretical groundwork (looks like Marxism to me, with an overdose of Picketty) that enables you to apply many of your ideas consistently though erroneously, but at worst most of your ideas are nothing more than folk economics whilst your concept of how society should be organised is rooted in the continental European tradition of authoritarianism.
1. The State has assumed control over our systems of economics, just because the majority of our relationships with others require the permission of the State doesn't justify the State's interference in those relationships. Just because something "is" doesn't mean it "should be". You are merely appealing to authority rather than arguing the merits of your own ideas. A society of individuals cooperating for their own mutual benefit would not be bereft of rules, property, rights or duties as you falsely argue.
2. Money is the most convenient means by which we can exchange the value of our skills and labour. If I choose to save my money by deferring my current consumption and then loan it to another who wants to use it to fund the purchase of capital goods then I am contributing to the rise in wealth in society and I should also receive a share of that increasing wealth. Don't introduce a strawman into the debate about what constitutes real money and what doesn't, I'm not discussing that.
3. Your argument that the State would allow money to be lent but would forbid the charging of interest is an example of your lack of understanding about the function of interest rates.
4. Your comment about regulations under a State in a capitalist society is a red herring, government regulations exist wherever governments exist.
5. You seem obsessed with the notion that people receive remuneration for not being productive. Firstly, your understanding of productivity is flawed and secondly if someone is not being productive yet they are being remunerated for it then it is not a fault of capitalism.
6. Your position on inheritance is contradictory. The worker worked for his share, not to gain the share of the other worker upon his death. Furthermore, your opposition to inheritance based upon the notion that those who receive one continue to be remunerated at the expense of others is entirely baseless and is not supported by the evidence eg unless those receiving an endowment put the wealth to work it will decline, contrast Gina Rinhart with David Rockefeller.
7. If I've ignored any of your comments it's because I've addressed them before, or you've used false analogies, or they are off topic and contribute nothing to the debate. If I've chosen not to quote you it's because as someone else posted there is enough word wallpaper in this thread already.
Phransisku, you say that in your make-believe system of economics, employees get to diversify their investment portfolio by being sacked from job after job, but you will not allow entrepreneurs that create businesses in the first place to sell their creation.
Does that makes any sense to you? It will not to anyone who has had to risk anything for a business, because the first rule of creating a business entity is to define your exit plan. That is, how one is going to realise the financial benefit of their creation if/when they want to pursue other interests, such as an early retirement. If a business creator can not benefit, he/she will not create.
Your workism economics fails right there at conception.
If it's only the workers who receive the benefits of the entrepreneur's creation, while the original creators are condemned to die working in the businesses you refuse to allow them to leave, then no sane person is going to play. Especially, while slack-arse employees who can't even hold down a job get to create a diversified portfolio of shares by moving from Employer to employer.
I would like to hear more about the value created by the your politburo members and how you would avoid the establishment of privelege and elitism vis-a-vis Animal Farm.
I'm done with your ramblings. I read again my last response to you (which was made quote by quote) and I think everything I said is correct. If you disagree with anything, quote it and counter-argue. If you don't, I will rightfully assume you agree with everything I said and your ramblings (in the form of big text not addressed to any quote) are only to raise new points, which I will not address until the older ones are closed.
You're still making the same mistake. You're not getting the concept yet and you would rather make wrong assumptions than asking me the points you haven't yet understood. Plus, you're not even admitting you were wrong before. I corrected you and you just ignored it, following up with other points. Still, I will once again show you where you misunderstood Workism.
Wrong. It's their work (their value-added to the firm) that will generate for them a share of the company. Being sacked from the job will only limit their share. Once they are out of the company, their value-added will not grow anymore while the value-added from other workers will continue to grow over time, decreasing the share of the ones that got fired. As you can see, getting fired is of no good for the worker (as you were suggesting).
Wrong. No company creator is condemned to die working at his businesses. He can close them down at any time he wants in order to pursue other career paths or retirement or anything he wants.
He will be able to sell all the company's assets, just not the company itself. That, along with all the profits generated during the lifetime of the business, is the financial benefit he will get. You can't say there is no benefit.
Wrong. If a man creates a company at the age of 30 and he dies at the age of 80, he (the owner) will get all the dividends of 50 years of business. The workers will get none. How can you say that it's the workers that get the benefits? Not at all. The workers will only get something when the founder can't get anything anymore (because he's dead).
As you can see, in Workism the founder has absolute priority over the benefits of the company. Even if he is aged and senile (with no capacity to bring value to his business anymore) he will still get all the dividends. The workers get none.
I didn't understand a word of what you said. Please explain.
Your the one trying to promote a communist manifesto but don't understand the implications of a politburo or the simile of Animal Farm, yet I'm wrong and ignorant. I suggest you go read a few George Orwell novels and reconsider the morality of making up rules for other people.
let me ask you a couple of direct questions:
- do you desire freedom for yourself and your fellow man?
- do you believe limiting freedom with the enforcement of arbitrary Rules is desired by people?
- do.you believe limiting incentives and enforcing arbitrary rules stimulates creativity, innovation or productivity?
Fine, assume away, I have nothing more to say.
Edit to add: tell me though, what school of economics most influences your beliefs?
You have nothing more to say?
I find that very hard to believe.
And again, your point?
Phransisku, just to help Newtosilver out as he seems to be struggling to keep up, I have countered your core position at post #187 not to mention on repeated occasions previously, hence why I said I have nothing more to say.
I will now expend my efforts upon the brick wall next door with likely far more satisfaction. Value is subjective.
If you cant understand that there is something very wrong, it is pretty straight forward reverand.
So would you care to elaborate, or are you just going to keep posting thought terminating cliches?
Edit to add: I liked it better when you posted about the fruits of your capitalist life, you know, eating ice cream, playing on your lap top and going shopping with your pet hyena and flamethrower. :lol:
Haven't gone to the movies in years but this one will get me there, the story of Ray Kroc and McDonalds: the Ford assembly line of fast food.
You would be the most biased person, you would not be suited to the job at all
Ouch! I'm hurt.
Separate names with a comma.