Originally posted by sh76It's a great saying, isn't it? Though I fear you live in the past. In fact, as a true capitalist I think you'd
"From each according to ability, to each according to needs" is a socialist creed.
like it here now. Everything is privatised. Almost. I think the police is still state controlled (phew), but
other than that... I don't think there's much left of the better system here. Just last week they finally
privatised the rail roads, and the mot (?) will be privatised from July next year (which according to all
the experts means higher prices on having your car surveyed - which is obligatory). I fail to realise
what's so good about putting generally useful services in the hands of private owners.
We no longer live by the motto: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". We live according to the motto: "If if
ain't broke, all the more reason to mess it up".
Originally posted by JigtieCool.
It's a great saying, isn't it? Though I fear you live in the past. In fact, as a true capitalist I think you'd
like it here now. Everything is privatised. Almost. I think the police is still state controlled (phew), but
other than that... I don't think there's much left of the better system here. Just last week they finally
privatised the rail roads, an ...[text shortened]... e according to the motto: "If if
ain't broke, all the more reason to mess it up".
What are your immigration rules? 🙂
Originally posted by JigtiePrivatizing railways? I guess none of the members of your wonderful conservative government have ever been in the UK!
It's a great saying, isn't it? Though I fear you live in the past. In fact, as a true capitalist I think you'd
like it here now. Everything is privatised. Almost. I think the police is still state controlled (phew), but
other than that... I don't think there's much left of the better system here. Just last week they finally
privatised the rail roads, an ...[text shortened]... e according to the motto: "If if
ain't broke, all the more reason to mess it up".
Originally posted by sh76😛
Cool.
What are your immigration rules? 🙂
Alas, another thing we seem to suck at lately is letting new people in. We used to be good at that
too, but now it's like people are scared of the competition and don't want any more people to come
live here. Of course, since we've mostly copied the US lately, I have no doubt that for the right sum
it's possible to buy a citizenship.
Originally posted by JigtieFollowing Milton Friedman again, eh?
It's a great saying, isn't it? Though I fear you live in the past. In fact, as a true capitalist I think you'd
like it here now. Everything is privatised. Almost. I think the police is still state controlled (phew), but
other than that... I don't think there's much left of the better system here. Just last week they finally
privatised the rail roads, an ...[text shortened]... e according to the motto: "If if
ain't broke, all the more reason to mess it up".
KN will have issues...
Originally posted by sh76My concern is not with equal pay, but with control rights. Who controls and runs a firm? Why did it come about historically that control rights are inevitably bundled with investment capital? Why didn't it come about that control rights were bundled with labor input? Or why didn't control rights come to be shared between them? As labor is just as necessary as capital investment, I see no intrinsic reason why capital suppliers should be given exclusive control rights over a firm.
Okay. Fair point.
So, in the pure socialist system, who DOES start this company? Pete's not going to do it. Does the government start the company? Would society be better off if the company never existed?
Let's look at one alternate scenario. A group of workers wants to start a factory to produce widgets, but not being gilded plutocrats themselves they don't have the necessary capital between them. So they solicit outside capital investment. Several investors step forward with the necessary funds to start operations. The workers either directly run the factory themselves, or they elect a board to manage things on their behalf. The factory then goes into operation producing widgets. The investors get paid back on their initial investment (plus interest) and then they're out of the picture. In this scenario, control rights and investment capital are strictly separate. The workers manage their own livelihood and the investors make money.
Originally posted by sh76That is a very reasonable position and I wish more Republicans were like you. At least, I think I remember you saying you're a moderate Republican.
Thanks for bringing that up to give me a chance to clarify.
I am NOT accusing the Democratic party (or the Republican party) in the United States of advocating the position of the bureaucrat in my example.
Both parties are capitalist parties. The policies of Bill Clinton, Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin and co. were absolutely fundamentally capitalist polic ...[text shortened]... s should run everything and the business owners are exploiters" communist/socialist mentality.
I think it's a matter of ballance. Surely a business owner who takes on the initiative, hard work and risk of starting a business should reap the rewards.
That being said, for the good of the society as a whole there should be some laws, regulations and requirements. Otherwise you end up with sweat shops like in many third world countries.
Things like minimum wage, anti-discrimination laws, health and safety codes to protect workers, etc. MUST come in the mix for a country to have decent quality of life. And really, isn't that what we're all after?
Where I think most reasonable disagreements are about where to draw that line between total government intervention and pure, unchecked capitialism.
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettThe problem here is that you assume that all those workers would continue working (especially if, like most factory jobs, the work is rather unpleasant). Those workers could hire others to slave in the factory. Since the original workers are owners of the business, they could simply distribute the annual revenue stream from the business amongst themselves.
My concern is not with equal pay, but with control rights. Who controls and runs a firm? Why did it come about historically that control rights are inevitably bundled with investment capital? Why didn't it come about that control rights were bundled with labor input? Or why didn't control rights come to be shared between them? As labor is just as necessary re strictly separate. The workers manage their own livelihood and the investors make money.
Or if the business was a valuable asset, the original workers could sell their business to Greed Inc for a tidy sum.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraAlways good for a laugh KN, you trip yourself up with your own words.
Socialism is not, or at least not necessarily, about telling businesses how they should run their business, other than setting the rules by which the game ought to be played (but that is the role of any government).
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperEach one of these has probably had threads spent on them.
Things like minimum wage, anti-discrimination laws, health and safety codes to protect workers, etc. MUST come in the mix for a country to have decent quality of life. And really, isn't that what we're all after?
Minimum wage: An hour of my time belongs to me you have no right to dictate what I can sell that hour for.
ADL's: Other than a few cases that make the news this still happens and will continue to happen, if a business owner chooses an employee based on how they look rather than their ability, or an employee chooses to work at a company based on the how their employer looks rather than the rates and conditions, they both lose. but then that's their business eh.
Health and Safety Codes: Sounds good on the surface but we are starting to see the outcomes coming through now, untold billions are being wasted (yes, that's right, wasted) on this lastest rapidly growing, unproductive, busybody, parasitical buratcracy. I could easily give examples of the cost of jobs ballooning 5 times or more. Not because they're unsafe, not because employees or employers want them, but because some busybodies have been given some unearned power and they're going to wield it. Are you going to welcome some clip board toting, grey shoe wearing busybody OSHA bureaurat into your home to check the relationship between your seat and desk ? There are regulations concerning these things.
Workers have a form of protection, they have the right to go somewhere else to find a job that matches some conditions that they have set themselves. It is the same right employers have.
Prepare for the left whingers to claim they know better than you or I or any of their fellow man how best we should run our own lives.
Originally posted by MelanerpesYou raise some good points, but I suspect from the content of your questions that you already know the answers to most of them. None of these problems are insurmountable. Control rights could be restricted to the active labor force. Workers leaving the firm could be required to sell their share back to the company, which would in turn sell it to a new employee. This would prevent the workers from selling shares to absentee investors, which would, in the long run, have the effect of transforming the firm back to a capitalist controlled one.
The problem here is that you assume that all those workers would continue working (especially if, like most factory jobs, the work is rather unpleasant). Those workers could hire others to slave in the factory. Since the original workers are owners of the business, they could simply distribute the annual revenue stream from the business amongst themselves ...[text shortened]... as a valuable asset, the original workers could sell their business to Greed Inc for a tidy sum.
If the workers were to appropriate the revenue stream for themselves without repaying the investors, they would, one assumes, be subject to lawsuits which would forever dry up any future investment for any possible expansion. Aside from repaying investors and setting aside a percentage for re-investment in the firm, the workers would be free to distribute the revenue stream as they saw fit. If you are concerned that the workers will simply run the company into the ground for short term gain, I think it would be less of a risk with a labor managed firm (LMF) than with a capitalist managed one (KMF). The workers' future livelihood would depend on the continued viability of the firm. The capitalist investor could simply cash out and move on.
As for the possibility of an LMF selling out to a KMF, that is always a possibility. It has happened. The trick would be to adjust things so you have a net increase of firms being transformed the other way (from KMFs to LMFs), either through employee stock buyouts or from LMFs being created de novo.
This post probably rambles on a bit too much, but you get the idea. There are solutions to every potential problem. Although it remains to be seen whether I have articulated them clearly or not.
Originally posted by rwingettAre companies not free to form on this basis now?
You raise some good points, but I suspect from the content of your questions that you already know the answers to most of them. None of these problems are insurmountable. Control rights could be restricted to the active labor force. Workers leaving the firm could be required to sell their share back to the company, which would in turn sell it to a new emplo ...[text shortened]... tential problem. Although it remains to be seen whether I have articulated them clearly or not.