How angry are you about politics?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

McElroy:
I'm getting angrier and angrier towards globalism. Social media and mainstream media are introducing globalist crap into our culture non-stop. It seems unavoidable and unstoppable unless we turn more inwards. And oh boy is that a red button for a lot of people - so I can't help but get angry at them, now can I?

Globalist crap? What do you mean by that exactly?

NemotheElvenPanda:
Globalist crap? What do you mean by that exactly?

The idea that everything's better when we give our economy over to multi-national corporate interests.

Look, I understand that the modern economy is more interconnected than ever before, but workers in first world countries are suffering because of outsourcing jobs to cheap labor markets like India and China and etc. etc. And that's ultimately what's going to cause the downfall of our economy: Throwing the blue-collar types under the bus.

Souplex:

Try to talk him into doing his gambling in Macau instead.

Oh god, the amount of money and time it would take to get me to Macau. A 24-hour-flight with transfers which will inevitably get missed by delays leaving me stranded in Latveria.

Outsourcing is really not that big a drain on the workforce, it's just that it affect particular sectors very hard and these sector tend to dominate region which rapidly cause deterioration (which isn't help by the fact that people refuse to accept that the job are gone and don't retrain/move elsewhere, especially since politician just promise the job will come back rather than help them find new jobs). At the same time the advantages of globalization are diffuse throughout the entire population so the effects seems minimal. Look at it this way, if you had 300 millions dollars you could give one dollar to every american, which would have minimal effects, or you could burn 200 millions and give everyone in a small town of 100 people 1 millions dollars. The second scenario seems like it's better for the economy (it's very visible when everyone in a small town become a millionaires) but the first scenario is the one that's far better for the economy, even if you don't notice it.

The job lost in manufacturing were made up by job created in the service industry because of globalization, since things were cheaper to make people could afford more products (both tangible and intangible, i.e. gym membership and stuff). This meant the number and variety of stores increased, along with the number of employee. Globalization also created the number one most important things in the economy, consumer. China as slowly shifted from a manufacturing economy to one of consumption and today they're one of the biggest consume block in the world, and they buy loads of things that aren't made there. For example the movies industry is extremely dependent on the Chinese market, and this goes for plenty of other product that are made here. Eventually the same will happen everywhere. Consumer, especially low/middle class one, are extremely important for the global economy. Poorer people use a larger portion of there income, so 100 people with income of 500$ a months are far better than 10 with 5 millions dollars, globalization does wonderful things for inequality, because odds are we are all within the top 1% richest people in the world. By spreading the wealth around we'll eventually all be far richer.

Anyway those jobs would have disappeared even without globalization due to automation, over the last century the cost of both automation and outsourcing where steadily going down (better machine/robot were built while the cost of hiring worker in wester economy was going up, and shipping price were going down). At some point it just became cheaper to have stuff build elsewhere and just ship it to consumer, but even outsourcing wasn't possible automation was just behind it, and a few years later those job would have been replace by machine anyway. In fact globalization is slowing down at the moment in large part because even the poor worker are starting to seem expensive compared to robot.

American Tanker:

NemotheElvenPanda:
Globalist crap? What do you mean by that exactly?

The idea that everything's better when we give our economy over to multi-national corporate interests.

Look, I understand that the modern economy is more interconnected than ever before, but workers in first world countries are suffering because of outsourcing jobs to cheap labor markets like India and China and etc. etc. And that's ultimately what's going to cause the downfall of our economy: Throwing the blue-collar types under the bus.

That just means we need worker protections everywhere.

After all, if the capitalists can't exploit unreasonably cheap labor elsewhere, first world labor can make a better case for itself. I mean, the multi-national corporation genie is out of its bottle, and there's no putting it back without destroying the civilization we're claiming we're trying to protect.

American Tanker:
Look, I understand that the modern economy is more interconnected than ever before, but workers in first world countries are suffering because of outsourcing jobs to cheap labor markets like India and China and etc. etc. And that's ultimately what's going to cause the downfall of our economy: Throwing the blue-collar types under the bus.

So, why are the labour markets in India and China so cheap?

I mean, it's kind of amazing that noone realised this before, isn't it? I mean, if you could just hop over to a developing country and be like "hey doods, who wants to work in horrifying conditions for pitiful wages!" it seems really weird that someone wouldn't have done that, I don't know, a few hundred years ago maybe. Like, it's not like corporations didn't exist back then, so if you wanted to produce a good really cheap you could have just hopped on your sailing ship and gone out to a place where people were more desperate and got them to produce it for you. Heck, if you found out they weren't poor and desperate enough, you could always just invade them, and then you could deliberately set rules which impoverish the local people, like forcing them to buy expensive imported goods rather than producing them themselves.

Like, it always amuses me a bit when people think economic globalisation is a recent thing. Large parts of India and Southeast Asia were literally ruled by a "multinational corporate interest" at one point. In the Belgian Congo, the corporations which ran the place literally built an economy which used severed human limbs as currency. China went to war several times to try and escape imposed trade agreements which forced the state to buy goods like opium at inflated prices. The difference between this, of course, and the "globalization" you're talking about is that the "third world", or "developing" countries gained absolutely nothing from the arrangement.

But today, of course, it's not just "work on this plantation and farm rubber for us or we'll kill your family", but manufacturing and service jobs. You know, things which actually require investment in the developing country and which benefit (even just in a very small way) the people living there, so obviously that's a globalization too far, guys! I mean, sure, almost all of the profits still return to the developed world.. firstly, because that's where the headquarters of these global corporate interests are based, where the upper echelons can enjoy a better quality of life than is available in the developing world, and secondly because the developed world consumes the vast, vast majority of goods produced globally, so having those workers in China make your new iphone for a pittance means that you can buy it cheaper than you could if they paid workers in the developed world. But that's not the point, right, they're taking our jobs.

And that's the problem. If we set some kind of protectionist law that manufacturers weren't allowed to outsource jobs overseas and had to make products locally, then the prices of those locally produced goods would be higher. So sure, your "blue collar" worker gets to keep his manufacturing job rather than having to go and work in an office or in retail or some other thing which he might deem humiliating or emasculating or which offends his traditional working class culture, but he still can't afford the quality of life which he had in a globalised economy because everything he needs to buy is more expensive.

altnameJag:

American Tanker:

NemotheElvenPanda:
Globalist crap? What do you mean by that exactly?

The idea that everything's better when we give our economy over to multi-national corporate interests.

Look, I understand that the modern economy is more interconnected than ever before, but workers in first world countries are suffering because of outsourcing jobs to cheap labor markets like India and China and etc. etc. And that's ultimately what's going to cause the downfall of our economy: Throwing the blue-collar types under the bus.

That just means we need worker protections everywhere.

After all, if the capitalists can't exploit unreasonably cheap labor elsewhere, first world labor can make a better case for itself. I mean, the multi-national corporation genie is out of its bottle, and there's no putting it back without destroying the civilization we're claiming we're trying to protect.

Destroy? No. Nationalize. Seize the means of production and distribution. Redistribute the wealth. The parasitic owners can be expurgated without destroying the host.

Seanchaidh:

altnameJag:

American Tanker:
The idea that everything's better when we give our economy over to multi-national corporate interests.

Look, I understand that the modern economy is more interconnected than ever before, but workers in first world countries are suffering because of outsourcing jobs to cheap labor markets like India and China and etc. etc. And that's ultimately what's going to cause the downfall of our economy: Throwing the blue-collar types under the bus.

That just means we need worker protections everywhere.

After all, if the capitalists can't exploit unreasonably cheap labor elsewhere, first world labor can make a better case for itself. I mean, the multi-national corporation genie is out of its bottle, and there's no putting it back without destroying the civilization we're claiming we're trying to protect.

Destroy? No. Nationalize. Seize the means of production and distribution. Redistribute the wealth. The parasitic owners can be expurgated without destroying the host.

If you're talking about stuff like power, water, Internet, or anything that could feasibly be considered infrastructure, I'm 110% there.

That said, government takeovers of business isn't much better than the Corps themselves. I'm thinking co-ops. Shared and equal ownership. Make the CEOs answerable to the workforce because they are the shareholders.

Seanchaidh:

altnameJag:

American Tanker:
The idea that everything's better when we give our economy over to multi-national corporate interests.

Look, I understand that the modern economy is more interconnected than ever before, but workers in first world countries are suffering because of outsourcing jobs to cheap labor markets like India and China and etc. etc. And that's ultimately what's going to cause the downfall of our economy: Throwing the blue-collar types under the bus.

That just means we need worker protections everywhere.

After all, if the capitalists can't exploit unreasonably cheap labor elsewhere, first world labor can make a better case for itself. I mean, the multi-national corporation genie is out of its bottle, and there's no putting it back without destroying the civilization we're claiming we're trying to protect.

Destroy? No. Nationalize. Seize the means of production and distribution. Redistribute the wealth. The parasitic owners can be expurgated without destroying the host.

Why not burn down the economy while you are at it?

SkinnyPenisUnitedFC:
I'M SO ANGRY I STAPLED MY DICK TO MY FOREHEAD AND WENT SWIMMING IN LEMON JUICE.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

See, this guy knows how to live.

inu-kun:

Seanchaidh:

altnameJag:
That just means we need worker protections everywhere.

After all, if the capitalists can't exploit unreasonably cheap labor elsewhere, first world labor can make a better case for itself. I mean, the multi-national corporation genie is out of its bottle, and there's no putting it back without destroying the civilization we're claiming we're trying to protect.

Destroy? No. Nationalize. Seize the means of production and distribution. Redistribute the wealth. The parasitic owners can be expurgated without destroying the host.

Why not burn down the economy while you are at it?

A fair question; I like having an economy and I'd rather not have to rebuild it from scratch.

altnameJag:
If you're talking about stuff like power, water, Internet, or anything that could feasibly be considered infrastructure, I'm 110% there.

That said, government takeovers of business isn't much better than the Corps themselves. I'm thinking co-ops. Shared and equal ownership. Make the CEOs answerable to the workforce because they are the shareholders.

Yes: nationalize and then make them cooperative enterprises.

Seanchaidh:

inu-kun:

Seanchaidh:

Destroy? No. Nationalize. Seize the means of production and distribution. Redistribute the wealth. The parasitic owners can be expurgated without destroying the host.

Why not burn down the economy while you are at it?

A fair question; I like having an economy and I'd rather not have to rebuild it from scratch.

But "Seizing the means of production" will do exactly that, do you think that multi national companies will touch the USA if any sort of presence will be taken over by the state? That will only lead to the USA being an economical outcast, inefficient to a level beyond comprehenstion and on a high road to a third world country.

inu-kun:

Seanchaidh:

inu-kun:

Why not burn down the economy while you are at it?

A fair question; I like having an economy and I'd rather not have to rebuild it from scratch.

But "Seizing the means of production" will do exactly that, do you think that multi national companies will touch the USA if any sort of presence will be taken over by the state? That will only lead to the USA being an economical outcast, inefficient to a level beyond comprehenstion and on a high road to a third world country.

What, does the machinery and equipment all melt when multinationals decide they don't want to do business? Do their employees dissolve into dust? "Foreign Direct Investment" is the idea that we need a rich person's permission to utilize our resources in an intelligent way.

Seanchaidh:

inu-kun:

Seanchaidh:

A fair question; I like having an economy and I'd rather not have to rebuild it from scratch.

But "Seizing the means of production" will do exactly that, do you think that multi national companies will touch the USA if any sort of presence will be taken over by the state? That will only lead to the USA being an economical outcast, inefficient to a level beyond comprehenstion and on a high road to a third world country.

What, does the machinery and equipment all melt when multinationals decide they don't want to do business? Do their employees dissolve into dust? "Foreign Direct Investment" is the idea that we need a rich person's permission to utilize our resources in an intelligent way.

Oh boy we are doing this. The machinery will not melt, but it will get damaged eventually and need replacement, and who will replace it when all the engineers escape to countries where they can get a better salary? Who will invest in making better machinery and technique? The employees won't desolve into dust, but how will you force people to do shit jobs?

I'd rather have a rich individual dictating how to work than a massive bureaucratic body that has no reason to be better (since it has no competitors) and will without a shred of a doubt become just as corrupt as the what it replaced.

inu-kun:

Seanchaidh:

inu-kun:

But "Seizing the means of production" will do exactly that, do you think that multi national companies will touch the USA if any sort of presence will be taken over by the state? That will only lead to the USA being an economical outcast, inefficient to a level beyond comprehenstion and on a high road to a third world country.

What, does the machinery and equipment all melt when multinationals decide they don't want to do business? Do their employees dissolve into dust? "Foreign Direct Investment" is the idea that we need a rich person's permission to utilize our resources in an intelligent way.

Oh boy we are doing this. The machinery will not melt, but it will get damaged eventually and need replacement, and who will replace it when all the engineers escape to countries where they can get a better salary? Who will invest in making better machinery and technique? The employees won't desolve into dust, but how will you force people to do shit jobs?

I'd rather have a rich individual dictating how to work than a massive bureaucratic body that has no reason to be better (since it has no competitors) and will without a shred of a doubt become just as corrupt as the what it replaced.

Why wouldn't workers want to pay workers (including engineers)? Especially when they wouldn't have to be lining the pockets of a parasitic ownership class?

inu-kun:
I'd rather have a rich individual dictating how to work than a massive bureaucratic body that has no reason to be better (since it has no competitors) and will without a shred of a doubt become just as corrupt as the what it replaced.

...because reasons?

We have nationalised industries in the UK. Heck, our healthcare system is nationalised. It costs half as much per person as the US healthcare system and yields similar life expectancy. Where's the corruption? Where's the inevitable efficiency decay which nationalisation must cause? Why hasn't a lack of competition lead to falling standards?

Secondly, why assume that popular ownership of the means of production would mean no competition? The British company John Lewis for example (which also owns the supermarket chain Waitrose) is a partnership owned by a trust on behalf of its employees (partners) without public share ownership. In terms of "competitiveness", it has the second largest market share in UK department store retailers and the seventh largest in groceries, despite having no publicly owned shares. How is this even possible? Surely any employee owned business is doomed to devolve into sprawling bureaucracy! Surely such an endeavour would immediately become corrupt at once as the foul tendrils of commusatanism leaked into our world from the Stalin dimension.

I mean, it's funny because the actual USSR had a hypercompetitive, corporatist economy. Bureaus or industries would compete so fiercely with each other for resources or recognition that they'd end up with targets or promises which simply weren't realistic and could only be satisfied through cheating or manipulation. If competition really were the economy boosting magic bullet which neoliberals and self-appointed defenders of capitalism seem to think it is, we'd all be living in the Soviet Union by now. We aren't, because "competition" often just isn't a very efficient way to do things and can just as easily incentivize doing things badly as doing them well.

After Trump was elected I remember it was said that people were tired of the far left and that pushed them toward Trump. So while Trump is pissing people off, they were pissed off before the election too.

Mothro:
After Trump was elected I remember it was said that people were tired of the far left and that pushed them toward Trump. So while Trump is pissing people off, they were pissed off before the election too.

So people who felt alienated by the state of the country decided to elect someone who would alienate everyone else. On top of being the biggest man child we've ever had as president, and while they regularly ignore the shit he spews on a regular basis.

Great response there. When's that wall going up again?

erttheking:

Mothro:
After Trump was elected I remember it was said that people were tired of the far left and that pushed them toward Trump. So while Trump is pissing people off, they were pissed off before the election too.

So people who felt alienated by the state of the country decided to elect someone who would alienate everyone else. On top of being the biggest man child we've ever had as president, and while they regularly ignore the shit he spews on a regular basis.

Great response there. When's that wall going up again?

So do you dispute anything I said or are you just rambling?

The problem with the US, is we have a consume based economy. We've slowly whittled away the job variety down to the "owner" class and the "server" class, with much of the population in the service industry, which has been rigged to be a lesser, financially weaker job quality then the alternatives of the more unionized industry jobs. They've been phasing them out, because they cost more in the US to support. We've incentivized companies to squeeze every penny they can for their shareholders, legally, turning the working class into assets instead of investments. Assets to be purged or flipped in an instance the second it looks like the optics can take the hit of cutting them as a cost to move just that much more money up the ladder.

AT&T talking about giving thousand dollar bonuses like it's actually equivalent of the displaced wages needed to live, then turns around and tells the shareholders they're setting up massive layoffs, not only nullifying the bonuses completely, but taking the moment in which they can enrich themselves to the absolute maximum over the changes to the new tax bill while it's in effect. There is no worker protections. A company can legally lie to the consumer, the workforce, and the press, but not the shareholders.

So yah, I'm sort of with altnamejag. We need to revise the way that business is done in the US to place the workforce on the same level as the shareholders in order to keep them from being lied to and have them able to look to the government for help in demanding a better quality of employment before the loopholes and greed fucking brings down the whole system. And it will. The consume model of economics only functions if more money floats down to the working class in order to purchase the products that the service jobs sell. When the scale tips to far because of things like what we're seeing today, you're at risk of a massive collapse when there's not enough money supplying the workforce with capital to spend to basically keep themselves in jobs.

Something will have to change. Something MASSIVE. And we're sitting on a government right now who is doing every single thing in their power to empower those businesses to ignore this catastrophe while deregulating and weakening the workforce's means to fight against it. We're seeing the loss of health and safety protections right now with how badly they've bashed in things like the EPA. We're sitting right now on the oldest congress we've ever had as a country. Old men with old beliefs that want to die with the most money they can possibly stuff into their coffins. They know that they're going to tank the working class to horrific ends in order to enrich the donors for one last lovely grab bag of cash into their own coffers as "political donations", and opening up the church and dark money donations to get that last massive influx'll come now that they have shown they can get away with it to those already sending cash.

I used to be a full on capitalist, let businesses make money. My job exists only when companies have the excess funds to support it, and I like what I do for work. But now? No. There is a point where we've set the balance on the economy so badly that we're in trouble. We're in severe trouble the likes of which this country has never seen before if things are left as they are. I don't want to see a future where companies have the cash to hold the government at ransom, and it's kinda doing that now. Get money out of politics, get workers the wages they need to pull power from the top and set the model so that there's more money being spread for more things. How you steal power from these multinational "near monopolies" is by paying workers enough that they can afford to spend it at alternative sources. It's the only way to fund small businesses, and kill the power of the Wal-Marts of the world.

I'm not pissed off at the players. I'm incredibly pissed off at the game.

Seanchaidh:

Why wouldn't workers want to pay workers (including engineers)? Especially when they wouldn't have to be lining the pockets of a parasitic ownership class?

If the cleaners owned the company as much as the engineers do you think they'd agree to have a fraction of the engineers salary?

evilthecat:

inu-kun:
I'd rather have a rich individual dictating how to work than a massive bureaucratic body that has no reason to be better (since it has no competitors) and will without a shred of a doubt become just as corrupt as the what it replaced.

...because reasons?

We have nationalised industries in the UK. Heck, our healthcare system is nationalised. It costs half as much per person as the US healthcare system and yields similar life expectancy. Where's the corruption? Where's the inevitable efficiency decay which nationalisation must cause? Why hasn't a lack of competition lead to falling standards?

Secondly, why assume that popular ownership of the means of production would mean no competition? The British company John Lewis for example (which also owns the supermarket chain Waitrose) is a partnership owned by a trust on behalf of its employees (partners) without public share ownership. In terms of "competitiveness", it has the second largest market share in UK department store retailers and the seventh largest in groceries, despite having no publicly owned shares. How is this even possible? Surely any employee owned business is doomed to devolve into sprawling bureaucracy! Surely such an endeavour would immediately become corrupt at once as the foul tendrils of commusatanism leaked into our world from the Stalin dimension.

I mean, it's funny because the actual USSR had a hypercompetitive, corporatist economy. Bureaus or industries would compete so fiercely with each other for resources or recognition that they'd end up with targets or promises which simply weren't realistic and could only be satisfied through cheating or manipulation. If competition really were the economy boosting magic bullet which neoliberals and self-appointed defenders of capitalism seem to think it is, we'd all be living in the Soviet Union by now. We aren't, because "competition" often just isn't a very efficient way to do things and can just as easily incentivize doing things badly as doing them well.

If you want to give me an example, show me a case of a country nationalized everything without killing itself some time later, having few nationalized services is not proof because it's still in a realm of bureaucratic sanity.

Okay, a single example that I have no context of and don't know its inner working, how is the share of the company works? What are the jobs there? Regardless, if it was so successful, surely there are hundreds of businesses like that, especially in hi tech?

The USSR with its extremely corrupt government, inability to escape and secret police. Surely a thing comparable to the modern west.

Seems to be a pretty American-centric question. Politics in Australia is pretty much business as usual, so I'm not mad about that (I have pretty low expectations for the competence of politicians). I look on the state of the US with a degree of bemusement, and reflect that I'm glad I live where I do.

inu-kun:

Seanchaidh:

Why wouldn't workers want to pay workers (including engineers)? Especially when they wouldn't have to be lining the pockets of a parasitic ownership class?

If the cleaners owned the company as much as the engineers do you think they'd agree to have a fraction of the engineers salary?

Why are you under the impression that the only way to pay engineers more is to take from the custodial staff? We've got millions of dollars spent on CEOs and stock buybacks and dividends, so what makes you think we can't pay workers more? The reason we don't is not because we can't or because it would somehow sink a multinational corporation, it's because the owners don't want to let go of one red cent more than they absolutely must.

inu-kun:
If you want to give me an example, show me a case of a country natiolizing everything without killing itself some time later, having natiolized service is not proof because it's still in a realm of bureaucratic sanity.

Umm.. Soviet Union, again.

The soviet economy was partly privatised from the 1980s onwards. Coincidentally, at the same time its economy and status as a world superpower was beginning to decline., Coincidence? Well, yes, it's totally a coincidence, but if I wanted to engage in the simplistic ideological slap fight you're trying to have I could pretend it wasn't..

Of course, back here in real life there are advantages and disadvantages to nationalisation, and indeed to different methods of nationalization. There are also, of course, forms of collective ownership which don't rely on nationalization at all, such as corporatism or syndicalism. But god forbid we allow any form of nuance into the struggle against Commulism.

inu-kun:
Okay, a single example that I have no context of and don't know its inner working, how is the share of the company works?

There are no publicly held shares. Instead, the company is "owned" by a trust, an organisation which manages it on behalf of the employees (who are called partners). Partners do not own shares in the company in the traditional sense (they can't sell their stake in the company, or keep it after they leave) but they are otherwise similar to shareholders. They have a voice in how the company is run, and the professional management is ultimately responsible to them (although since management are employees, they are also partners themselves).

inu-kun:
Regardless, if it was so successful, surely there are hundreds of businesses like that, especially in hi tech.

Not particularly many, although employee-owned businesses do make up about 2% of the UK economy.

But the reason isn't that they're not successful, the reason is that rich people, amazingly, usually prefer to make loads of money for doing nothing.

John Lewis (the founder of the company) was a complete asshole who had a reputation for arbitrarily firing his employees and otherwise treating them like shit. Naturally, he became incredibly rich as people who fuck over their employees tend to do, and naturally, he wanted to pass this wealth on to his children so he brought his two sons into business with him.

For context, these three people (two of whom were only there because they had probably resulted from the sperm of the third) were, between them, paid a salary equal to every single other person who worked in what was now a nationwide chain, in addition to owning 100% of the shares, because yay fucking capitalism. Fortunately, neither of them liked their father very much (he was, after all, an asshole) so when he died one son left the business after selling his shares to the other (whose name was also John Lewis). John Lewis Jr. then made what is, in capitalist terms, a very bad and irrational decision, because he believed that it wasn't fair that he or anyone else should be able to make vast sums of money simply because they already had vast sums of money and/or because the sperm which created them was donated by an asshole, so he created a trust to administer his own shares (all the shares, at this point) on behalf of his employees. He remained a very, very rich man and, as chairman of the company, continued to be paid a large salary, but it was purely his own voluntary generosity which resulted in this system.

That is why so few such enterprises exist, because under capitalism there is no incentive towards generosity or altruism, which is fundamentally the problem with capitalism. It's why it doesn't work, and why it has never actually worked in any society without the need for constant moderation and opposition. Capitalism is not about "liberty" or "competition" or any of the nonsense neoliberals ascribe to it, it's about maximizing the imbalance of power between those who provide capital to a business and those who provide labour. It's about getting as much of the latter for as little of the former as possible. That's the only thing anyone's free to do, and the only thing anyone competes over. There's no rational reason for anyone who has the power to change that to want to do so. Fortunately, there are a few irrational reasons, like being a decent human being, or actually caring about someone outside of your immediate family.

I'm all but completely resigned rather than angry at this point. I realized way back when I was first taught the concept of politics back in school that there isn't a single politician at any level of the government from rock bottom to the president of the USA that gives a damn about us. I realized that not a single politician cares what the American people want or even about improving the country as a whole as is their jobs but only about screwing over the American people to line their pockets as much as they can, screwing over the political party they don't happen to be a part of as much as they can, destroying everything the other party accomplished even if it's unanimously good for the country, and running for reelection. The entire system is designed to weed out anyone who actually cares about American and about doing their job long before they could get into a position where they could actually do anything. What I've seen of politics since as more than supported those realizations.

What really pisses me off these days is how ignorant people are willfully or not about how powerless they really are to do anything about our government, and in particular how little it actually matters who they vote for. It's not like the Democrats are great, the Republicans are great, the other political parties have an equal enough chance of victory and we just have to figure out who is slightly better than the others, quite the opposite. With every election on every level it's either if you vote for the Democrat, they'll screw us, if you vote for the Republican, they'll screw us, if you vote for a third party it's a wasted vote anyway as every other party doesn't have a chance in hell of getting into office and most likely any of them would screw us even if by some miracle actually they managed to get into any position. At best it's like choosing between Adolf Hitler and the Devil, sure one might be clearly the lesser of the two evils even if it's only from a certain point of view but that doesn't mean that they're still not utterly horrible and evil. At worst it like choosing between a guy who rapes cats and a guy who rapes dogs, the only difference between them is the kind of screwing being done, not the magnitude.

Mothro:

erttheking:
[quote="Mothro" post="528.1030918.24180026"]After Trump was elected I remember it was said that people were tired of the far left and that pushed them toward Trump. So while Trump is pissing people off, they were pissed off before the election too.

So people who felt alienated by the state of the country decided to elect someone who would alienate everyone else. On top of being the biggest man child we've ever had as president, and while they regularly ignore the shit he spews on a regular basis.

Great response there. When's that wall going up again?

So do you dispute anything I said or are you just rambling?

More like I just really don't feel sympathy for these people for being angry. Mainly because they seem more interested in spiting others above all others.

Seanchaidh:

inu-kun:

Seanchaidh:

Why wouldn't workers want to pay workers (including engineers)? Especially when they wouldn't have to be lining the pockets of a parasitic ownership class?

If the cleaners owned the company as much as the engineers do you think they'd agree to have a fraction of the engineers salary?

Why are you under the impression that the only way to pay engineers more is to take from the custodial staff? We've got millions of dollars spent on CEOs and stock buybacks and dividends, so what makes you think we can't pay workers more? The reason we don't is not because we can't or because it would somehow sink a multinational corporation, it's because the owners don't want to let go of one red cent more than they absolutely must.

Because money is finite? Not to mention that a lot of time the owners of the company want money back for their investments, as well as higher need of qualifications and time spent as pay rises.

evilthecat:

inu-kun:
If you want to give me an example, show me a case of a country natiolizing everything without killing itself some time later, having natiolized service is not proof because it's still in a realm of bureaucratic sanity.

Umm.. Soviet Union, again.

The soviet economy was partly privatised from the 1980s onwards. Coincidentally, at the same time its economy and status as a world superpower was beginning to decline., Coincidence? Well, yes, it's totally a coincidence, but if I wanted to engage in the simplistic ideological slap fight you're trying to have I could pretend it wasn't..

Of course, back here in real life there are advantages and disadvantages to nationalisation, and indeed to different methods of nationalization. There are also, of course, forms of collective ownership which don't rely on nationalization at all, such as corporatism or syndicalism. But god forbid we allow any form of nuance into the struggle against Commulism.

It's a coincidence if you completely ignore the fact the life in Soviet Russia was complete shite and it crushing down was inevitable. Also if you want to argue about alternatives show it is actually feasible.

inu-kun:
Okay, a single example that I have no context of and don't know its inner working, how is the share of the company works?

There are no publicly held shares. Instead, the company is "owned" by a trust, an organisation which manages it on behalf of the employees (who are called partners). Partners do not own shares in the company in the traditional sense (they can't sell their stake in the company, or keep it after they leave) but they are otherwise similar to shareholders. They have a voice in how the company is run, and the professional management is ultimately responsible to them (although since management are employees, they are also partners themselves).

Still raises the question of how much voice the employees actually have, or is it mainly run by a few on the commitee, regardless, I'm not exactly impressed by the sophistication of running a department store.

inu-kun:
Regardless, if it was so successful, surely there are hundreds of businesses like that, especially in hi tech.

Not particularly many, although employee-owned businesses do make up about 2% of the UK economy.

But the reason isn't that they're not successful, the reason is that rich people, amazingly, usually prefer to make loads of money for doing nothing.

John Lewis (the founder of the company) was a complete asshole who had a reputation for arbitrarily firing his employees and otherwise treating them like shit. Naturally, he became incredibly rich as people who fuck over their employees tend to do, and naturally, he wanted to pass this wealth on to his children so he brought his two sons into business with him.

For context, these three people (two of whom were only there because they had probably resulted from the sperm of the third) were, between them, paid a salary equal to every single other person who worked in what was now a nationwide chain, in addition to owning 100% of the shares, because yay fucking capitalism. Fortunately, neither of them liked their father very much (he was, after all, an asshole) so when he died one son left the business after selling his shares to the other (whose name was also John Lewis). John Lewis Jr. then made what is, in capitalist terms, a very bad and irrational decision, because he believed that it wasn't fair that he or anyone else should be able to make vast sums of money simply because they already had vast sums of money and/or because the sperm which created them was donated by an asshole, so he created a trust to administer his own shares (all the shares, at this point) on behalf of his employees. He remained a very, very rich man and, as chairman of the company, continued to be paid a large salary, but it was purely his own voluntary generosity which resulted in this system.

That is why so few such enterprises exist, because under capitalism there is no incentive towards generosity or altruism, which is fundamentally the problem with capitalism. It's why it doesn't work, and why it has never actually worked in any society without the need for constant moderation and opposition. Capitalism is not about "liberty" or "competition" or any of the nonsense neoliberals ascribe to it, it's about maximizing the imbalance of power between those who provide capital to a business and those who provide labour. It's about getting as much of the latter for as little of the former as possible. That's the only thing anyone's free to do, and the only thing anyone competes over. There's no rational reason for anyone who has the power to change that to want to do so. Fortunately, there are a few irrational reasons, like being a decent human being, or actually caring about someone outside of your immediate family.

More like capitalism being the natural state of humanity, like investing for the next generation and getting returns on investments.

Heck, the entire story of the department store is only because a guy beforehand invested in creating it and his children being butthurt and giving it to others rather than "a brave group of employees investing and creating a business together". When you have actual real life examples of entire systems being built on ideas rather than "proof of concept" only possible due to capitalism maybe we'll have a conversation rather than a dream.

evilthecat:
snip

Actually I have even better rebuttal about the idea of shared ownership through your example:
1) It doesn't fix social injustice, just alters it-The example you gave is about a company being owned by its workers, but not all companies are multi billion businesses. While Coca Cola company can give every one of its workers 100k$, Pepsi can only give 10k$, so rather than make everything equal we have a caste system based on where you work (which is dystopian as shit).

2) It can't be managed correctly: Let's say we have an hi tech company, every worker gets a say on decisions carried out. So if the company wants to decide on technological decisions for the next deveolpement should the janitors and secreteries have a say on it despite knowing nothing on the subject? (sounds familiar?).
Of course you can have a small amount of people in charge of carrying out decisions chosen by the workers but that will give power to populists who have no actual management or skills whatsoever (sounds familiar?).

inu-kun:
It's a coincidence if you completely ignore the fact the life in Soviet Russia was complete shite and it crushing down was inevitable.

Shite compared to what?

I'm pretty sure working in a sweatshop in Southeast Asia is pretty shite too. Tell me, when can we expect global capitalism to collapse because of that?

inu-kun:
Still raises the question of how much voice the employees actually have, or is it mainly run by a few on the commitee, regardless, I'm not exactly impressed by the sophistication of running a department store.

Well, this may be some radical, mind-blowing thinking, but I would guess that it's mainly run by the people whose job is to run it, because who runs a company is irrelevant and has no bearing on what we're actually talking about, which is who owns a company, or in whose interests is the company run.

Again, in a company with publicly traded shares, all shareholders have a say in how the company is run because it's their company. It doesn't mean they run the company, it doesn't mean they're required to have any particular talent or knowledge of business in order to experience growth on their investment or to claim dividends from the company's profits. Rather it's a reflection that the people who do run the company, the professional managers whom the company employs as salaried workers, are working for the shareholders.

And if the "sophistication" of running a large corporation doesn't impress you, what exactly would? Like, what level of hypothetical managerial sophistication or competence do you think can only be achieved by relying on shareholders, who as mentioned do not actually need to possess any competence or knowledge whatsoever regarding the businesses they invest in?

Like, even in the Soviet Union, the only real difference was to replace shareholding with local government, who would award the most "competitive" enterprises with capital directly.. and even if we accept your point that this system is vulnerable to corruption, and that government officials might have used this capital to benefit themselves rather than to choose the best option for everyone, then that simply means that they were behaving like shareholders, who also make capital investments solely to benefit themselves. In capitalist economies, of course, we don't call this "corruption" (just as the soviet union preferred not to call it "competition"). Functionally, however, once you strip out that we expect shareholders to operate in their own interests even if its socially damaging or harmful to others while we don't expect that of government officials, it's the same thing.

It's like making killing people legal, and then bragging that there's no murder in your country.

inu-kun:
More like capitalism being the natural state of humanity, like investing for the next generation and getting returns on investments.

Okay, so why did it take literally thousands of years for capitalist economies to emerge? Why did people write long winded political essays about how letting those dirty, money-grubbing bourgoise have any power was a terrible idea and would inevitably lead to unstable, broken states (because, you know, name a bourgoise-dominated government, or any government not based on aristocratic rule, before the late 18th century which didn't collapse or get overthrown).

The aristocracy didn't rule because they made investments. They ruled, generally, because they were a military elite who could murder anyone who got uppity ideas about commoners governing themselves. They ruled because if the government didn't bow to their whims enough they could get a bunch of dudes with pointy sticks and go and murder the government. For literally millennia, this was the "natural state of humanity", noone gave two shits about those city dwelling losers or their investments, because anyone who had a problem with them could stab them and take their money. It took building a whole new kind of society to change that, and yet capitalism is the natural state of humanity now. Uh huh, sure.

inu-kun:
Heck, the entire story of the department store is only because a guy beforehand invested in creating it and his children being butthurt and giving it to others rather than "a brave group of employees investing and creating a business together".

Did you completely miss the point I was making.

Yeah, that's the story, because the point of the story is that capitalism only rewards horrible people. Capitalism doesn't give no shits about how "brave" you are, or how competent you are. If you are a group of employees, you won't have the opportunity to invest because you're shit. You're worthless. Your entire existence is based on selling labour, i.e. the thing which capitalism is based on systematically devaluing to the point of meaninglessness.

The only way any kind of fair or altruistic endeavour can come about within capitalism is because..

a) Rich people (the only people who matter) occasionally have moments of altruism or compassion which even they are punished for having.
b) People proactively resist the impact of capitalism through unionization, revolution or other means of redressing the deliberate devaluation of labour under capitalism, and face the risk of violent suppression.

inu-kun:
When you have actual real life examples of entire systems being built on ideas rather than "proof of concept" only possible due to capitalism maybe we'll have a conversation rather than a dream.

image

Tell you what, when you have actual real life examples of entire systems being built on capitalism without also eliciting such extremes of selfishness and cruelty that they demand regular dissent or action by workers to assert basic rights or to secure basic human treatment, or which don't result in a simple race to abuse or exploit people to the maximum degree possible, then maybe we'll have a conversation rather than a dream..

inu-kun:
It doesn't fix social injustice, just alters it-The example you gave is about a company being owned by its workers, but not all companies are multi billion businesses. While Coca Cola company can give every one of its workers 100k$, Pepsi can only give 10k$, so rather than make everything equal we have a caste system based on where you work (which is dystopian as shit).

It's kind of funny that you don't see this argument for what it is..

I mean, let's say all companies are owned by shareholders. If Coca Cola is reporting billions in profit, and Pepsi isn't, then those shareholders who invested in Coca Cola are going to be making more fat moneys than those who invested in Pepsi. Thus, Coca Cola will find it easy to attract more investment and will be rewarded for its performance..

This is a little thing we like to call competition.

Now, are you saying that you're fine with competition when it comes to attracting capital investment, but not when it comes to attracting labour? Is it right that an investor who put their money into Pepsi might want to sell their shares and buy up shares in Coca Cola because they're doing better, and yet wrong that employee Dave who works for Pepsi might want to go and work for Coca Cola because they can afford to offer better rewards to him for his labour? Why is one of these things unfair and the other not? Could it be because in one case the companies are competing to see who can most benefit someone who is already wealthy, who already has capital to invest, while in the other they're competing to benefit someone who is only capable of providing them with dedication, skills and knowledge, rather than actual important things, like infusions of cold hard cash..

inu-kun:
It can't be managed correctly: Let's say we have an hi tech company, every worker gets a say on decisions carried out. So if the company wants to decide on technological decisions for the next deveolpement should the janitors and secreteries have a say on it despite knowing nothing on the subject? (sounds familiar?).

Again, let's say we have a technology company with shareholders. Should those shareholders have a say in technological decisions for the next development despite knowing nothing on the subject?

You're right, it does sound familiar, because it's exactly how companies already work only instead of working to benefit the people who provide them with labour (and those other trivial things, like dedication, skills and specialist knowledge) they only work to benefit the people who provide them with capital investment.

In reality, of course, while shareholders hypothetically could determine every aspect of how a company is run (it is, after all, their company) they generally leave those decisions to salaried professionals who are hired specifically because they have the right technical knowledge, because shareholders have a strong financial stake in the company they have invested in succeeding.

Employee owners, or partners, or syndici wouldn't necessarily be any different, only in this case the person who does know what they're doing also has a financial stake in the company/partnership/syndicate, rather than just working for the sake of people who happen to have more money than them.

I don't know.

It doesn't affect me as someone not living in the States, but Uygur and Kulinski stepping down as leaders of the Justice Democrats has me seriously grinding my teeth in annoyance, I'm kind of doubting the future of the movement now.

In Canada, same old same old. The Libs are corrupt, the Tories try to desperately blame everything on the Libs hoping that something'll stick, the NDP still wishes it had a Layton-Broadbent-Douglasesque figure to take over, and the Bloc is slowly dying. Will probably vote for Singh or Ouellet in the next federal elections, fully knowing it won't change much. Thank you, lack of electoral reforms.

inu-kun:

Seanchaidh:

inu-kun:

If the cleaners owned the company as much as the engineers do you think they'd agree to have a fraction of the engineers salary?

Why are you under the impression that the only way to pay engineers more is to take from the custodial staff? We've got millions of dollars spent on CEOs and stock buybacks and dividends, so what makes you think we can't pay workers more? The reason we don't is not because we can't or because it would somehow sink a multinational corporation, it's because the owners don't want to let go of one red cent more than they absolutely must.

Because money is finite? Not to mention that a lot of time the owners of the company want money back for their investments, as well as higher need of qualifications and time spent as pay rises.

Money may be finite from the perspective of a company, but that doesn't mean that the only way to pay engineers is to take from janitors. They have the other things I mentioned-- stock buybacks and dividends which needn't exist or, in the case of worker-ownership would enrich, among other people, the engineers anyway.

NemotheElvenPanda:

McElroy:
I'm getting angrier and angrier towards globalism. Social media and mainstream media are introducing globalist crap into our culture non-stop.

Globalist crap? What do you mean by that exactly?

Seems like I accidentally got this thread into economy, but that's not what I meant.

But yes, I'm a Finn and I like my country's culture - I even prefer it over others in most cases. Finnish culture won't survive globalism without some preservation and I feel that it's failing as more and more stuff gets picked up.

One of my biggest peeves, a sure-fire way to get me pissed-off, is the devolution of our language into some half-assed Finglish. We no longer translate movie titles or superheroes, not even cartoons meant for kids. Young people don't read books and don't give a rat's ass that their vocabulary has to take English words and expressions to fill in the blanks. Celebrities that do this have become too numerous for the mainstream media to ridicule them (which they definitely used to do ten years ago) and so they have mostly joined in. Growing immigrant population certainly contributes, but it's not their fault - I blame Finns for giving too much compromise.

Next, yes indeed, immigrants from Muslim countries are definitely a negative impact into our culture. Some things like halal meat and circumcision are correctly forbidden, but we still get crap like Islam-based antisemitism, harmful cultural views towards alcohol, nudity, sex, and gender equality. We don't need more people here that follow religious norms. Not Muslim, Hindu, or even Christian ones, but Christianity gets some leeway as it is a basis of our culture - and its influence is indeed diminishing rather naturally imo. I know that in some places the Church can be bigoted and even incite hatred in its members, but in my experience that's not the case here at all.

"Global" concepts of racism have no place here either. Finns are not intolerant if they don't smile at you in the subway (yet according to a survey we are). We never smile in the subway! Nor is there institutional racism if we expect you to learn our language when applying for a job. And so on and so forth. In order to appease this newfound political correctness we now have laws that make racism towards Finns a "strong opinion", while objectivity towards Somalis or Islam is racist slander and inciting hatred.

And then there is feminism, but it's more of a sidenote. I can't get too mad at feminists here because they genuinely have little to do! They do complain, though, and that's often hilarious. I do see the notion of women here needing some sort of artificial boost because of inequality floating around every now and then. You simply shouldn't get fucking brownie points for gender equality anymore! #MeToo was fine, I guess. However, if it results in sexual ethics getting tightened (in law as well as mainstream zeitgeist) then I'll consider it a negative. They indeed have proposed new sexual conduct laws at least in France and Sweden.

Seanchaidh:

Money may be finite from the perspective of a company, but that doesn't mean that the only way to pay engineers is to take from janitors. They have the other things I mentioned-- stock buybacks and dividends which needn't exist or, in the case of worker-ownership would enrich, among other people, the engineers anyway.

And then a business will come that will, in addition, take from the janitors and the engineers will flock to it as it gives better pay.

evilthecat:

inu-kun:
It's a coincidence if you completely ignore the fact the life in Soviet Russia was complete shite and it crushing down was inevitable.

Shite compared to what?

I'm pretty sure working in a sweatshop in Southeast Asia is pretty shite too. Tell me, when can we expect global capitalism to collapse because of that?

Compared to living in the west, so far Capitalism has a better track record. Maybe after it collapses you'll have a point.

inu-kun:
Still raises the question of how much voice the employees actually have, or is it mainly run by a few on the commitee, regardless, I'm not exactly impressed by the sophistication of running a department store.

Well, this may be some radical, mind-blowing thinking, but I would guess that it's mainly run by the people whose job is to run it, because who runs a company is irrelevant and has no bearing on what we're actually talking about, which is who owns a company, or in whose interests is the company run.

Again, in a company with publicly traded shares, all shareholders have a say in how the company is run because it's their company. It doesn't mean they run the company, it doesn't mean they're required to have any particular talent or knowledge of business in order to experience growth on their investment or to claim dividends from the company's profits. Rather it's a reflection that the people who do run the company, the professional managers whom the company employs as salaried workers, are working for the shareholders.

And if the "sophistication" of running a large corporation doesn't impress you, what exactly would? Like, what level of hypothetical managerial sophistication or competence do you think can only be achieved by relying on shareholders, who as mentioned do not actually need to possess any competence or knowledge whatsoever regarding the businesses they invest in?

Like, even in the Soviet Union, the only real difference was to replace shareholding with local government, who would award the most "competitive" enterprises with capital directly.. and even if we accept your point that this system is vulnerable to corruption, and that government officials might have used this capital to benefit themselves rather than to choose the best option for everyone, then that simply means that they were behaving like shareholders, who also make capital investments solely to benefit themselves. In capitalist economies, of course, we don't call this "corruption" (just as the soviet union preferred not to call it "competition"). Functionally, however, once you strip out that we expect shareholders to operate in their own interests even if its socially damaging or harmful to others while we don't expect that of government officials, it's the same thing.

It's like making killing people legal, and then bragging that there's no murder in your country.

And the people who run it will misuse to their own ends because we are talking about humanity in the end, not robots. I'll get back later in the comment about shareholders. And it's not a "corporation", what kind of high tech advances do they pursue? Maybe adding more shelves?!
Excpet in capitalism the businesses that prosper are the ones who appeal to consumers, not the government (hint: it makes things better).

inu-kun:
More like capitalism being the natural state of humanity, like investing for the next generation and getting returns on investments.

Okay, so why did it take literally thousands of years for capitalist economies to emerge? Why did people write long winded political essays about how letting those dirty, money-grubbing bourgoise have any power was a terrible idea and would inevitably lead to unstable, broken states (because, you know, name a bourgoise-dominated government, or any government not based on aristocratic rule, before the late 18th century which didn't collapse or get overthrown).

The aristocracy didn't rule because they made investments. They ruled, generally, because they were a military elite who could murder anyone who got uppity ideas about commoners governing themselves. They ruled because if the government didn't bow to their whims enough they could get a bunch of dudes with pointy sticks and go and murder the government. For literally millennia, this was the "natural state of humanity", noone gave two shits about those city dwelling losers or their investments, because anyone who had a problem with them could stab them and take their money. It took building a whole new kind of society to change that, and yet capitalism is the natural state of humanity now. Uh huh, sure.

Hmmmmm, bartering always existed since the dawn of humanity. It being a global force rather than local is due to stuff like printed currency, banking systems and easy to transport stuff. Also the aristocracy ruled because they had money to pay their soldiers. Common fucking sense.

inu-kun:
Heck, the entire story of the department store is only because a guy beforehand invested in creating it and his children being butthurt and giving it to others rather than "a brave group of employees investing and creating a business together".

Did you completely miss the point I was making.

Yeah, that's the story, because the point of the story is that capitalism only rewards horrible people. Capitalism doesn't give no shits about how "brave" you are, or how competent you are. If you are a group of employees, you won't have the opportunity to invest because you're shit. You're worthless. Your entire existence is based on selling labour, i.e. the thing which capitalism is based on systematically devaluing to the point of meaninglessness.

The only way any kind of fair or altruistic endeavour can come about within capitalism is because..

a) Rich people (the only people who matter) occasionally have moments of altruism or compassion which even they are punished for having.
b) People proactively resist the impact of capitalism through unionization, revolution or other means of redressing the deliberate devaluation of labour under capitalism, and face the risk of violent suppression.

Humanity in general awards horrible people, so what's your point? How is pro Capitalism worse than people who try to reinforce Communism despite it killing millions?
Also stop dehumanizing rich people, it's just childish. People can be good or bad despite getting money.

inu-kun:
When you have actual real life examples of entire systems being built on ideas rather than "proof of concept" only possible due to capitalism maybe we'll have a conversation rather than a dream.

image

Tell you what, when you have actual real life examples of entire systems being built on capitalism without also eliciting such extremes of selfishness and cruelty that they demand regular dissent or action by workers to assert basic rights or to secure basic human treatment, or which don't result in a simple race to abuse or exploit people to the maximum degree possible, then maybe we'll have a conversation rather than a dream..

Oh yeah, people in the west are suffering the last decades the cruelest stuff in the entirety of humanity. We wish to live in glorious Soviet Russia with gulags and secret police.
Get real, not a single one of your ideas is new and every time it was attempted it resulted in crimes several magnitudes worse than living in the west.

inu-kun:
It doesn't fix social injustice, just alters it-The example you gave is about a company being owned by its workers, but not all companies are multi billion businesses. While Coca Cola company can give every one of its workers 100k$, Pepsi can only give 10k$, so rather than make everything equal we have a caste system based on where you work (which is dystopian as shit).

It's kind of funny that you don't see this argument for what it is..

I mean, let's say all companies are owned by shareholders. If Coca Cola is reporting billions in profit, and Pepsi isn't, then those shareholders who invested in Coca Cola are going to be making more fat moneys than those who invested in Pepsi. Thus, Coca Cola will find it easy to attract more investment and will be rewarded for its performance..

This is a little thing we like to call competition.

Now, are you saying that you're fine with competition when it comes to attracting capital investment, but not when it comes to attracting labour? Is it right that an investor who put their money into Pepsi might want to sell their shares and buy up shares in Coca Cola because they're doing better, and yet wrong that employee Dave who works for Pepsi might want to go and work for Coca Cola because they can afford to offer better rewards to him for his labour? Why is one of these things unfair and the other not? Could it be because in one case the companies are competing to see who can most benefit someone who is already wealthy, who already has capital to invest, while in the other they're competing to benefit someone who is only capable of providing them with dedication, skills and knowledge, rather than actual important things, like infusions of cold hard cash..

I have absolutely no idea the point you are trying to make, second place is possibe in competition and the investors won't get too much if the stock remains the same, high as it can be. Yet you cannot transport employees infinitely.

inu-kun:
It can't be managed correctly: Let's say we have an hi tech company, every worker gets a say on decisions carried out. So if the company wants to decide on technological decisions for the next deveolpement should the janitors and secreteries have a say on it despite knowing nothing on the subject? (sounds familiar?).

Again, let's say we have a technology company with shareholders. Should those shareholders have a say in technological decisions for the next development despite knowing nothing on the subject?

You're right, it does sound familiar, because it's exactly how companies already work only instead of working to benefit the people who provide them with labour (and those other trivial things, like dedication, skills and specialist knowledge) they only work to benefit the people who provide them with capital investment.

In reality, of course, while shareholders hypothetically could determine every aspect of how a company is run (it is, after all, their company) they generally leave those decisions to salaried professionals who are hired specifically because they have the right technical knowledge, because shareholders have a strong financial stake in the company they have invested in succeeding.

Employee owners, or partners, or syndici wouldn't necessarily be any different, only in this case the person who does know what they're doing also has a financial stake in the company/partnership/syndicate, rather than just working for the sake of people who happen to have more money than them.

Should the workers have a say if the company needs to fire a shitload of them? While shareholders can rest easy since the company is obviously working to get money, workers will make the company work for the sake of the workers and firing themselves is not something they'll do willingly. Meanwhile you cannot fire a shareholder (at least not easiely).

inu-kun:

Seanchaidh:

Money may be finite from the perspective of a company, but that doesn't mean that the only way to pay engineers is to take from janitors. They have the other things I mentioned-- stock buybacks and dividends which needn't exist or, in the case of worker-ownership would enrich, among other people, the engineers anyway.

And then a business will come that will, in addition, take from the janitors and the engineers will flock to it as it gives better pay.

Heh, I guess we'd see how well a business can do without building maintenance, then.

inu-kun:
And the people who run it will misuse to their own ends because we are talking about humanity in the end, not robots.

Sure, but the people who run businesses or staff national governments in a capitalist economic system are also humans and not robots..

Again, I don't think you get the fundamental point. You're alleging that bureaucratic systems of management will inevitably produce corruption, when these systems exist in all forms of politics and corporate enterprise. There are always people who run businesses, there are always people who run government departments, there are always people who run local councils, there are always people who run shareholder meetings. The difference between our society and that of the soviet union is that in our society its considered totally acceptable, indeed normal, for people in many of these situations to act purely in their own interests, or even at the expense of other people. We don't consider that to be "corruption", because corruption implies that something has gone wrong, whereas in our society this is literally how things are supposed to work. Again, we live in a society which considers unrestrained selfishness and screwing other people over to get what you want to be appropriate things for a person in a position of economic authority to do.

inu-kun:
And it's not a "corporation", what kind of high tech advances do they pursue? Maybe adding more shelves?!

A corporation is a group of people who can be recognised as a single entity in law. The John Lewis Partnership is a single legal entity. It can be sued or taken to court as if it were a person, for example. That makes it a corporation.

inu-kun:
Hmmmmm, bartering always existed since the dawn of humanity.

So, in a barter system, what is "capital?"

inu-kun:
Also the aristocracy ruled because they had money to pay their soldiers. Common fucking sense.

They didn't pay their soldiers (certainly not in money). For most of history the idea of a professional army who were paid a salary was unthinkable. Also, they had wealth (not money) because they could own land and force people to work on it. They forced people to work on it using, you've guessed it, the threat of violence.

So no, it's not common sense.

inu-kun:
Humanity in general awards horrible people,

What actual evidence do you have for this statement as a universal rule?

Also, I love how you assume I'm arguing for "communism" (which is already meaningless, no "communist" society actually described itself as such) because I've mentioned the USSR a few times, in overwhelmingly negative context. Again, my point from the very beginning has been to oppose the dogmatic ideological statement that popular ownership of the means of production (not the same thing as communism) is automatically less efficient.

Also.. three words..

Congo Free State.

inu-kun:
Also stop dehumanizing rich people, it's just childish. People can be good or bad despite getting money.

That largely depends how you define good or evil. The point, which again you seem to have missed, is that resolving to act in a way which results in fair distribution of resources, or which avoids exploitation, cruelty and mistreatment of others is to be inherently anti-capitalist. Under capitalism, exploitation is elevated to the status of a virtue, it is the mark of a "good" capitalist, and thus a "good" capitalist cannot be a "good" person.

inu-kun:
Oh yeah, people in the west are suffering the last decades the cruelest stuff in the entirety of humanity. We wish to live in glorious Soviet Russia with gulags and secret police.

Where was any of the stuff you own actually made?

Was it all made in "the West?"

Even if we go back to the dawn of capitalism itself, do you think that all the resources which capitalist economies consumed actually came from or were produced in the West?

Also, you do know that forced labour and security services exist in "the West" right..

inu-kun:
Get real, not a single one of your ideas is new and every time it was attempted it resulted in crimes several magnitudes worse than living in the west.

But you're right. Living in the West is pretty great. I mean, have you seen the price of rubber? You can't get deals this good in the USSR..

inu-kun:
I have absolutely no idea the point you are trying to make,

Of course not, but surprisingly, it's actually quite simple.

Firstly, stock prices are a reflection of company performance, which is why people want to invest in successful companies. If Coca Cola is somehow managing to get ten times the ammount of production out of each employee, then this illustrates that they are rather severely outcompeting Pepsi.

Secondly, demand for stock drives up stock prices, so as long as people keep wanting to invest in Coca Cola (i.e. as long as Coca Cola keeps massively outperforming its rivals) the share price will rise. The reverse is true, investors pulling out of Pepsi will flood the market with shares and reduce the share price, making investing in pepsi a bad idea when it is being massively outcompeted.

Thirdly, many companies pay dividends to their shareholders. I.e. some of the money they earn in profit is passed on directly to the shareholders as a way of rewarding them for holding onto their shares and artificially pushing up the share price.

Again, what you're describing is literally competition. Owning parts of some companies is better than others. Your typical shareholder is investing in businesses which they believe will be profitable and grow, not those which will be outperformed and shrink. This means that shares in some companies may be worth more than others. In this case, ownership of Pepsi is worth a lot less than ownership in Coca Cola. This isn't a problem, it's just how competition works. There are winners and losers, and if Coca Cola is producing ten times as much profit from each employee than its rival, then it's winning.

inu-kun:
Should the workers have a say if the company needs to fire a shitload of them?

Should the investors have a say if the company needs to stop paying them dividends, or issue more stock?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here