jjamie12
-
Posts
622 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by jjamie12
-
-
I just said the incentive is profit...
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?
-
Would you not think that would be classified? And how would a American hide in NK?
Really?
Edit: Beaten to it -- should have read farther.
-
b- the capital plus whatever profit in the market is paid off.
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.
-
people will start business. real risk is just how the world works. nothing is guaranteed. there is always a possibility, depending on your situation, say a middle class person and workers losing out. thats just part of a market. if your hot dogs suck, then hey, im sorry.
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?
-
because you need to start a business to make money, and without certain skill you cant...
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?
there are market forces that will force them to pay. otherwise they will go out of business. ie a doctor, or lawyer.
the janitor cant become a lawyer so he knows for his protection and protection of workers, he needs to pay his lawyer.
generally speaking this would also take consensus. so why would a lawyer vote himself out of money? " i vote to get paid nothing"...
this logically doesnt make sense. the 51 could vote the 49 dont get paid. and then nobody gets paid....
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?
-
yes. they are both producing for the company. everyone plays a huge role. from the janitor to the cfo... you might see higher ups on workers councils making decisions that are not voted on. but they would be voted in. there are people way smarter that need to trusted in their decisions but still held accountable. like any job....
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?
-
the workers are the owners. so yes, generally speaking. again, sometimes reps are needed to just make decisions. not every decision will be voted on. thats impossible for any structure or system, left or right. theres also a collective action problem...
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?
-
yes, one man one vote. but again, even this could change, based on a vote. companies have to be fluid and flexible depending on the market they are in.
this is why reps or workers councils would make more sense in certain situations, because people are ignorant on tons of issues, on the top and on the bottom....
democracy is not " one thing "
Just to be clear, that means that the owner of the company gets one vote, as well?
-
well, it would depend. first you might vote on what harder work is and vote if it should be paid more.
some votes might be on whether or not the expansion should stop. its their risk, and they may feel resources are being spread to thin. this might take a consensus vote instead of a simple majority. and this would even change as companies get bigger, they may have to elect reps to make these decisions. the average worker in a huge multi-national is way different than a company with 20-50 people. germany is known for their worker councils.
each situation is different. but overall, like i said before, the decisions should be made based in proportion to how they affect others. ie democracy/or representative democracy.
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'.
-
in that type of association, profits should be democratically voted on. its a collaborative effort and should be voted on that way.
this is after all business cost was allocated.
obviously if you worked longer hours, you would get more. this does not mean people would make the same. some jobs are subjectively harder than others, subjectively being the operative word here....
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'?
-
i dont see a problem with this. as long as someone isnt getting a free ride. we dont live in a utopia, but we should avoid this.
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?
-
in simplistic terms, people should have a say based on the proportion they are affected by someone else.
some examples might be 50+1, another example might be just 1 person, and some examples might envolve consensus. this doesnt have to be anal.
in theory, if you want to blast a boombox down the street, others are affected, and should have some say.
note* not every decision affecting others should be democratic. that would be anal.
it really just depends on the example.
if you want, listen to michael albert on youtube. or read his books. he explains this...
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.
-
not an argument...
no argument...
:blink: :blink: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.
-
there has never been a laise faire free market.
The sun rises in the east.
-
PPP ... where that is a great advertisement.
PPP ... where people have the nerve to act annoyed b/c I make a few posts about how I think Romney is weak (when the entire board is about Obama being retarded)
Tom...there's no sizzle being sold here that I can spot.
We're talking about the Romney campaign trying to get out there a proactively define him before others do it for him. And he comes w/ pipeline...and basically nothing else.
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.
-
What the hell is it you would have done Mitt? What are you going to do now.
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.
-
it has. read john perkins confession of an economic hitman...
the reason america has a great living standard is because we are built on slave labor and extortion overseas.
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.)
-
OMG. Once Romney is in office, all of the US' problems will be solved!!!
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.
-
this is the same concept of freedom slave owners gave or how feudal societies tried to justify their position. you see, you count initial capital as ownership, but you dont let actual people and their own bodies/mind have freedom.
capitalism was the labor movement of the agrarian age, a man and his family worked their farm and had a justified right to their labor as it was sold on the market.
industry is now entirely collaborative, and now capitalism has created non-labor income class simply because you start something with a little money and then take from others the rest of the way. never mind tons of big business gets made up money through the fed or the fractional reserve system...
imagine if i started a lemonade company with literally 50$, and then it turns into a massive billion dollar company. this means i used 50$ to take billions through a !@#$ing retarded definition of private property. this is the equivalent of me giving you a tool belt, i build 10 houses, and now you own the houses. and then you sell the houses buy a million tool belts, and then those people build a whole city, and so on. this literally means through capitalism you can own a whole city hypothetically because you gave one person a tool belt.
the classic example of risk also ignores that risk is relative to your wealth. when walmart starts a new restaurant, that is not the risk relative to the empathy driven example of good ole bob in the middle class taking out a major loan. not to mention, big business gets free tax money to cover loss and even profit. e.g. oil subsidies. given this example, there is literally no risk, or all the risk belongs to labor. you can now see why i want to punch fox business news anchors in the face. they spew propaganda... risk takers my ass!
but even bobs example of risk is bound by math too. eventually, this risk is outdone by new and larger risk because of the contribution from labor. this happens very quickly. of course all of this obfuscates that many times big business just takes from labor and starts new business, creating even further alienation and stolen wealth. ie walmart starting a bank, or a bar, w/e...
in short, all capitalism really comes down to is trying to justify non-labor income, or income through hierarchy and power, and not a real sense of the old capitalism where the farmer sold his goods he worked for. owning initial capital does not mean you own every facet of people and their labor after initial capital. just like owning land does not justify owning people and their labor. this is applying private property to yourself, but not other people. it has nothing to do with skill, or talent, but rather pure power and structuralism.
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!!!!
-
...
Is "the government can't do anything right" a valid excuse for not reforming an industry that is bankrupting us? No. blah blah...and so on and so on...
What freedom are you so concerned about? The freedom to not purchase health insurance? Guess what...it's chalked up right there with the millions of other freedoms that you don't actually have. It's bankrupting the country, so you have to buy it.
...
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.
-
4. THIS IS THE ENTIRE DEAL! This IS how you reform healthcare. You change the pay structure, and then you make sure that those making the purchasing decision have enough skin in the game so that the industry actually works like a free market.
...anyway the point of my post was to just make sure everyone knew my feeling on the subject (lol)...point 4 is where it is at and that's serious talk....
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?
-
No.
I believe that it does what I mentioned in post #1 that it does: it provides a beginning point for tackling the extant care subsidy debacle.
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.
I've delved into the legislation enough to know that there are things that I like and things that I don't like. Some just see "_________ trillion," "giveaway," "poor-people," "Fox," "mandate," etc. And they read/listen to what it takes to support those themes.
Not sure this country can pursue greatness being that profoundly discourteous to nuance.
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?
-
So I am on record as being in support of much of the Affordable Care Act. I generally favor programs that help to sustain the less fortunate and abjectly impoverished so long is there is an aim, vision, goal, and it's sustainable, and it doesn't place an undue or unfair burden on the American taxpayer. Also, I tend to favor programs that profess to mitigate corruption amongst industries that deal in ensuring individual health and well being.
Do you think the ACA will bring health care costs down in a meaningful way?
Facebook Douche Renounces American Citizenship
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
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.