jjamie12

Yes. I don't think you do. No. People opening business every day knowing that they might fail is absolutely, 100% NOT called interest. Well you've finally said something that is factually correct. Well, except that loans, in every sense, are a risk. Wrong. They're all risks. All right. I give.

And you continue to be wrong. There is already profit. Me and my worker buddies keep voting that the profits are distributed equally to everyone in my current company. Why would I take my savings and invest in a new start-up company (that might fail) when the people I will need to work for me can just vote themselves the potential upside of the company? The best I can do is the status quo, while I *might* lose all of my money. Who in their right mind would take the bet that says: Bet $50, if you win, we'll give you your money back. If you lose, you lose the $50. Is there anyone alive who would do this?

Really? Edit: Beaten to it -- should have read farther.

I don't really know what this means (Frankly, it's really hard to follow most of what you've written over the last 5-6 posts. You appear to be responding to me, but then keep jumping all over the place. First you are against capitalism. Then you talk about worker councils which exist inside of capitalism. Now you're back to 'paying off capital'). Here's the point -- Incentives matter. In the scenarios that you've created, there is no incentive for anyone to ever start a business, since the people you hire can just vote themselves the upside (after 'Capital' is 'paid off' -- again whatever that means. I don't think you fully understand the context in which your own arguments would or could exist, to be honest). You don't seem to understand that however 'fair' the outcomes would be in your utopia, innovation would completely stagnate. Incentives matter. This is the difference between reading a book thinking "Hey! This is fair!" and then realizing what those kinds of ideas would look like in the world where people live, respond, and work. The reason that the 'state' (I'm assuming you mean the law) plays this role is because, by and large, most people seem to realize that incentives matter. That innovation, wealth creation, and ever higher standards of living come from investment. From trial and error. From success and failure. None of which would exist without making sure that the 'capitalists' get the upside of their investment. Without upside, there is no investment.

Let's try a real-world example. I'm a 19 year old kid going to Harvard. I've got lots of great opportunities with good established companies in the future. I've got this great idea for something called a 'personal computer'. Why would I quit college and pay money to start this new business (let's give it a fun name! How about we call it Microsoft!) when the people who will eventually work for me get to vote away the upside in this business? Keep in mind that it's not clear at this point in time that anyone even wants a pc, let alone would pay for one. Why wouldn't I just go to work for IBM and sit in a cubicle for 8 hours a day?

No, I already have a job. I work for a company. I'm asking why I would ever start my own since my fellow workers and I can just vote the profits of my current company to ourselves? I'm struggling to understand what you're talking about in the first part of this quote, so I'll only respond to the last few lines. I *thought* we were talking about capitalists and capitalism. We're talking about the 95 voting themselves 95% (or 90 or whatever) of the profits. While that may strike you as 'fair', there would be no incentive to start new companies that disrupt the status quo and continue to generate wealth and ever higher and higher living standards for people. Again: Why would I start a new company when I can take no risk and vote myself (and my worker buddies) all of the upside in my current company? If I start my own company, it might fail (lose any money I saved), and even if it succeeds, I am still in no better position than I was before because the people that work for me can 'vote' to take the upside of the new business? Why would I ever do that?

Fair enough. Thank you for engaging. One more question: If employees can vote away any profit upside (to themselves) in a venture, why in the world would anyone ever start a company?

So, the person who started the company and is the CEO gets one vote, do I have that right? Same as the guy on the line producing the widgets?

Just to be clear, that means that the owner of the company gets one vote, as well?

Well, that's not very specific. Please be specific. What is the best way? How 'should' this company democratically distribute its profits? Do all of the votes you've talked about above = one man, one vote? Does the owner get more votes? How many votes should 'management' get? One each? Please be specific about what you mean by 'democratic'.

Right. This is what I'm asking you to define for me. What do you mean by 'democratically' voted on? In the specific instance of this fictional company, please specify for me what you think would be the 'right' way to systemically define how the profits should be 'distributed'. What do you mean, specifically, by 'democratically voted on'?

You don't see a problem with what? I asked you what you meant by 'having a say' and gave you the example of a fictional company that you could use to define what 'say' meant. I would like to understand what you mean by having a 'say' in how the profits are distributed. How 'should' this fictional company be organized so that everyone has a 'say' in dividing up the profits?

Well, I'd like to get YOUR thoughts on this, because for all intents and purposes, this really defines the issue. The idea of 'say' is nice, but what does it actually mean? What do you mean by employees have a 'say', specifically? Use this example: Some sort of manufacturing company, started by a guy 20 years ago that has grown from 10 employees to 250. No private investors. "Management" includes the CEO/Owner a CFO, COO and a Business Development guy.

MDP- Can you please define what you meant by 'democratically decided upon' some pages back? I'd like to understand, specifically, what you meant by that.

Oh, we're having an argument? I thought we were just trying to find out who could win in a "Thanks for that, Captain Obvious" competition.

The sun rises in the east.

I'm confused because in your last post you, literally, asked for "What would you have done, Mitt? What are you going to do now?". It seems like the Mitt Romney ad is exactly what you were asking for because, you know, it sort of directly answers the question that you're asking. Now you want to play politcal games, which is fine -- but just admit that, literally, no matter what President Obama does or says nor what Governor Romney has ever done or will say will make you think that any ad he ever runs will be a good one. Really, it's OK, just admit it then we can stop pretending and save ourselves carpal tunnel syndrome arguing about (shocker!) Progressives or liberals or Democrats not liking Mitt Romney ads.

Well, for starters, he would approve the Pipeline that would create 10-20 thousand jobs immediately. You know, just like it says in the ad.

Totally agreed! There is no doubt that it was way better to live in Russia when they were the USSR and that living standards in China have only decreased since the so-called Communist gov't decided to introduce some capitalistic reforms -- those sellouts. You're totally right about the slave labor and extortion, too. People in Singapore, Korea, Brazil, India, China ... you name it! They'd all be better off without us as a trading partner. (Edit: I did read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" already. Thanks for the suggestion, though! I'm convinced that John Perkins is NOT a megalomaniac like other people said and that his book is a completely factual account of his time as a 'consultant' (yeah right -- more like a Weapon of Mass Consultancy -- I'd bet anything that Bain Capital had something to do with what was described as happening in Panama.)

Definitely not. However. At the very least, he has a long track record of solving problems, along with a demonstrated ability to work with the other side of the aisle. Two things that cannot be said about President Obama, in my opinion. Both of which are vitally important in a President, obviously.

Yes, this awful construct of capitalism has only decreased the living standards of people around the world! We need to shift away from capitalism so we can move back toward the good-old days of 1850. LET'S DO THIS!!!!

No. It. Isn't. Health CARE costs are bankrupting this country. NOT health insurance costs. This bill, by your own admission several posts back does not address health care costs in this country. No amount of shifting the money around is going to stop healthCARE costs from rising. They're rising because people have almost no idea what they're paying for or why they're paying for it because of the lack of transparency of costs inherent in 'Health Insurance', which (surprise surprise) wasn't addressed in this bill.

How does ACA address your point #4? Please be as specific as you can. If it doesn't, how can you say (from a few posts above) that you're "fine" with the ACA?

Then I just don't understand how the rest of what you wrote here makes sense. Fundamentally changing the trajectory of health care costs is the ONLY thing that can take us from 'health care costs are bankrupting the country' to 'health care costs are NOT bankrupting this country'. Doing all of the 'good' things that you like, WITHOUT fundamentally changing the cost of care only adds to and turbo charges the problems that we have. Generally, I agree. Sometimes nuance gets in the way of common sense, though. I believe this is one of those times. We have a health care cost problem in this country. You and I both agree that this bill didn't do anything to address that. What other nuance do you need, really?

Do you think the ACA will bring health care costs down in a meaningful way?