EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1810
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23218 Posts
On September 19 2019 15:22 Falling wrote: It's Canada. But as it was neither in a valley, nor near a river, I don't know that there were any indigenous settlements before the logging camps came through to take out the first growth. But if we're talking about returning land, I guess you'll have to ship the owner to Mars because there is no returning to ancestral homeland, as his ancestors were chased around Europe in countries that no longer exist before settling in Canada in the 20s. But I don't think we can go that far back because that is impossible to untangle. Where does anybody belong? And if that's the main thing to level at the business, that true of literally every business across all the Americas that are owned by non-indigenous people, so I don't really see the point. I don't see why another example is needed, but I suppose another one could be used. The beauty of this one is there are very few moving parts. There's a forest, there's a 'portable' sawmill, there's a solar-panel kiln. It's marketed online. Then the woodworkers buy it, turn it into a useful product and sell it (or the hobbyists keep it for themselves). It's at a scale that most businesses begin- and yet still must make a profit. From there, I'm trying to see where the theft enters because there is certainly profit being gained. Restaurants I don't know much about except that something like 50% of them fail within a couple years, so it seems to me that if restaurants are guilty of exploitation even with that fail rate, maybe such a business is not even possible. But I've gone out of my way to explain pretty much the entire process of the business, but you still aren't able to say at what point there is exploitation, given that I've demonstrated there is profit? I'm confident I've given enough information that you could identify some instances of profit = exploitation. I don't think this is the time to get deep into this particular aspect but capitalism demands a concept of private ownership that isn't/wasn't as ubiquitous as it's heirs teach us. The short answer is the land and it's fruit belong to no individual beyond an equitable distribution of the value obtained including compensation for work done with consideration to it's place within a global community. The issue is that the instances of "profit=exploitation" are dramatically reduced in circumstances where they are essentially democratic and worker owned (which is one reason why I think it's a model that should be emulated/encouraged in transition to a socialist economy). You've established this by reducing it to 2 business of 1 interacting with a neutral environment and a final consumer. That's obviously not practically applicable to large scale economies and is represented by the tiny fraction your example represents of the economy or even it's general area of it. You're right that socialism also lines up with the reasoning behind minimum wage, in that any business that can't afford to provide it's workers with a living wage should not exist. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12169 Posts
On September 19 2019 15:36 JimmiC wrote: Because ownership is not the community as a whole. That is called communism :p | ||
|
gobbledydook
Australia2603 Posts
Secondly, the owners/management provide the direction for their workers to follow. If their direction is not correct, the business goes under. Compare to a worker who does his job wrongly, the effect is typically limited only to his duties If managers weren't paid more, why would they bear the responsibility if things go wrong? Therefore it should be obvious that if you want people to bear more responsibility and risk,.which are inherent in running a business, then you have to pay them more. Their time is worth more than a workers'. Now, to what extent the difference should be, this is something that no one can answer perfectly. Capitalism would suggest that everyone should get paid according to how much they are worth to the company. For workers with limited skill that might not be enough to live on. Communism would suggest that everyone gets paid according to some pay scale defined by society, usually by the government. This however means that people who can contribute more actual value wouldn't be too happy and look to leave, not give a shit, or abuse their power to get what they think they deserve in illicit ways. All of those being bad for society. I think there has to be some equilibrium where everyone gets to live with dignity, where talent and hard work are rewarded, and where people with power and money are not able to subvert society. It's not something that can be fixed by partisan policies - the culture of the country needs to change as a whole. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13924 Posts
On September 19 2019 15:35 JimmiC wrote: Not really what I was getting at. I mean the situation where the machine shop is having difficulty making their paymemts. In our system one or more would inject their own cash ( or a venture capitalist) for a percentage ownership and likely some control. In this system where everyone is equal, but not everyone might have the same cash to inject how do you proceed? Well the business would be rather more resilient to these cases then others. I don't know how trade works in a profitless world but inherently the workers supplying their labor would simply receive less for their labor as their labor would inherently be less valuable. Past more major seasonal issues and those of poor management the business would just fail if it couldn't justify its existence or simply get more shareholders. The business doesn't have to be equally owned by everyone. Having a larger share of the end sale price vs a minimum buy-in for ownership of the entirety of ones own labor at the shop could easily be negotiated and protections for all parties regulated. Lawyers and kwarks have to have jobs too. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12169 Posts
On September 19 2019 15:42 gobbledydook wrote: Fundamentally, if it pays the same to be an owner with the risk involved as it is to be just a worker with no skin in the game, no one would run a business. There just isn't any benefit. Secondly, the owners/management provide the direction for their workers to follow. If their direction is not correct, the business goes under. Compare to a worker who does his job wrongly, the effect is typically limited only to his duties If managers weren't paid more, why would they bear the responsibility if things go wrong? Therefore it should be obvious that if you want people to bear more responsibility and risk,.which are inherent in running a business, then you have to pay them more. Their time is worth more than a workers'. Yeah the goal is for there to not be an owner, the goal is that the workers are the owners instead of an individual. If there was a benefit to being an owner, the goal couldn't be achieved. That's the feature, not a bug. Similarly, I don't want the owner to provide the direction, or assume responsibility, I want the workers to democratically decide what is good for them. I am concerned that the owner is going to look for his own interests when deciding the direction of the company, and not the best interest of his workers. It's okay if someone gets paid more btw. If you're doing more work, that should be rewarded. If your job is very important, that should also be rewarded. Those decisions can be taken by workers. Don't you think it would make more sense for this to be based on labor, rather than ownership? | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12169 Posts
On September 19 2019 16:02 JimmiC wrote: Im not sure that works. Lets say 5 people are owner workers.with votes and 3 are best friends, family what ever. And they vote themselves the best jobs and the most pay. Don't work with them^^ | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13924 Posts
On September 19 2019 16:04 JimmiC wrote: Im not sure that is terribly different from what goes on now. Especially in the small business world. Well yeah that's pretty much the entire game. Not knowing the whole thing figured out is both the biggest strength and weakness of socialists. No one was advocating for capatalism when it was codified as what we had been doing this whole time. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On September 19 2019 14:30 Nebuchad wrote: Why are you convinced that we need to eliminate greed in order for socialism to be better than capitalism? I've made this comparison before but this is like arguing authoritarian systems vs democracy. Sure, democracy looks better than authoritarianism in practice, but people are power hungry, which is why authoritarian systems are so popular. This is an argument against democracy. Like, no, it's not. Even with power hunger democracy is preferable to authoritarianism. And even with greed socialism is preferable to capitalism. I never understand this either. If people weren’t inherently greedy and powerhungry and lived up to some altruistic ideal, where noblesse oblige was a lived reality rather than mere pretension, then the capitalist sytem would be perfectly acceptable, because e.g. owners would encourage extensive social safety nets at the expense of their own wealth as par for the course. There would hardly be any superrich, because people who started successful businesses would lavish their early employees with equity and respect them as full partners. But that is not what happens, they hoard as much for themselves as possible, ithey buy yachts, giant villas and they host pedophile parties, and then invest the rest of the money into lobbying to undermine social safety nets and regulations. Hence the need for socialism. | ||
Falling
Canada11349 Posts
You've established this by reducing it to 2 business of 1 interacting with a neutral environment and a final consumer. That's obviously not practically applicable to large scale economies and is represented by the tiny fraction your example represents of the economy or even it's general area of it. So then are you willing to reduce your massive generalization? Profit is not inherently exploitative? Only certain forms of it (I'll leave you to clarify, if you wish.) I don't think this is the time to get deep into this particular aspect but capitalism demands a concept of private ownership that isn't/wasn't as ubiquitous as it's heirs teach us. The short answer is the land and it's fruit belong to no individual beyond an equitable distribution of the value obtained including compensation for work done with consideration to it's place within a global community. I suspect as soon as you had agrarian, sedentary societies, then it was pretty ubiquitous with three main categories- king or his administrator's land, family/ clan lands, and common pastures. The first two are more or less private property and the last is due to the fact that herding sheep and the like is one step away from nomadic living. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23218 Posts
On September 19 2019 16:53 Falling wrote: So then are you willing to reduce your massive generalization? Profit is not inherently exploitative? Only certain forms of it (I'll leave you to clarify, if you wish.) I suspect as soon as you had agrarian, sedentary societies, then it was pretty ubiquitous with three main categories- king or his administrator's land, family/ clan lands, and common pastures. The first two are more or less private property and the last is due to the fact that herding sheep and the like is one step away from nomadic living. I'm fine accepting the parts of your argument that support mine (that democratic worker owned businesses are superior to concentrated ownership divorced from workers) and leaving the disagreement over my generalization and the anthropology bit for another time. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11349 Posts
So it's small scale businesses with workers 'divorced' from ownership. . .it was never an option for them to be owners. What would they own exactly when the equipment they are working with is already owned and the current owner feels no need to sell a partial share? I quite frankly don't know how you stop this in a free society, unless you outright outlaw the practice. Bill Gates and Paul Allen too began as so-called democratic worker owned businesses when they were working out of a garage. But success meant hiring employees. And unless these new hires were to arrest ownership from the owners, I don't know why it would turn out much different than it did. But that isn't the argument I took issue with: Profit is "real" the illusion is that it isn't stolen work and displaced costs. This is what I think is false and/or nonsense. I've seen little to dissuade me. | ||
|
Vivax
21972 Posts
phoneposting until october sry for poor formatting. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23218 Posts
On September 19 2019 18:06 Falling wrote: What is democratic about it? The fact that the business exists in a democracy? Because nobody is voting in this business. All the ownership is concentrated at the very beginning. If it expands out, it would likely mimic similar businesses in the States (where the kiln designs originated) where they hire workers who are not owners. (As an aside, in order to incentivize quality floorboards, one owner makes sure that the guys cutting the floorboards are the same installing them- if you got lazy with your cuts, you won't next time because you are only making your own life difficult when you try to fit together your bad cuts.) So it's small scale businesses with workers 'divorced' from ownership. . .it was never an option for them to be owners. What would they own exactly when the equipment they are working with is already owned and the current owner feels no need to sell a partial share? I quite frankly don't know how you stop this in a free society, unless you outright outlaw the practice. Bill Gates and Paul Allen too began as so-called democratic worker owned businesses when they were working out of a garage. But success meant hiring employees. And unless these new hires were to arrest ownership from the owners, I don't know why it would turn out much different than it did. But that isn't the argument I took issue with: This is what I think is false and/or nonsense. I've seen little to dissuade me. If we use an example where workers make profit for an owner (instead of them being the same individual), so workers are alienated from their labor, the exploitation is more obvious. I'm not just unconvinced but don't see the significance of your argument even if it were true? I think neb and kwark sufficiently explained why your example that had a worker is exploitative and your argument there is that it's good for everyone which Kwark explained with his game theory scenario how that is flawed. I don't see me putting more effort than they already have to get you to see it our way any time soon though. It's democratic because there's a vote of all the workers in the business before it does things (just so happens to be 1 voter). | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11505 Posts
On September 19 2019 18:49 Vivax wrote: There are some sectors that shouldnt be designed for profit, like health, agriculture and housing. basic needs. rents in ger and aut are becoming unaffordable, and seeing the manager of our health insurance brag about how many millions they made a while back made me want to puke while other articles at the same time mentioned how our doctors move to countries with better work conditions and pay. phoneposting until october sry for poor formatting. True. I think ownership of housing might be becoming more of a problem than ownership of production. Rents go sky high, and if you are lucky enough that someone in your family bought property in central munich 50 years ago, you are set up for life. But it is impossible to join that owner class on any sort of a normal income, because property prises are rising even quicker than rents. Furthermore, there is a housing shortage, so there is really nothing you can do if your landlord decides to raise the rent, because you are not going to find a new apartment easily, and if you do, it is even more expensive. This means just another step where the owner class can syphon of the wealth of the people who actually work. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On September 19 2019 16:53 Falling wrote: So then are you willing to reduce your massive generalization? Profit is not inherently exploitative? Only certain forms of it (I'll leave you to clarify, if you wish.) I suspect as soon as you had agrarian, sedentary societies, then it was pretty ubiquitous with three main categories- king or his administrator's land, family/ clan lands, and common pastures. The first two are more or less private property and the last is due to the fact that herding sheep and the like is one step away from nomadic living. It should be noted that the cost of failure for business owners is already partially socialized. If you invest two million in a product and it fails, then there is no way that you have to pay every penny of it back. You have bankruptcy law and many tax subsidies or bailouts. And there is a social safety net in play for the event of complete financial catastrophy. But if your business succeeds, as sometimes it must, then there is no law demanding you give up equity to your employees or to the government. Such laws are now proposed by the labour party in Britain, and were greeted with typical hysteria by the business community. Every large British company would be forced to hand over 10 per cent of its equity to workers within a decade under Labour plans branded “draconian” by one business group. Unveiling one of the most interventionist business policies put forward by a mainstream political party in the UK for a generation, John McDonnell, shadow chancellor, said workers would become “part-owners” of their employers, eventually benefiting from the proposals by up to £500 a year in dividend payments. Labour said its policy would put money in the pockets of millions of workers after years of effective pay freezes. But business groups see the policy as part of an unacceptably intrusive approach by Labour, which would also increase corporation tax, nationalise various utility companies and extend full employment rights to all workers. | ||
| ||
