A World Without Capitalism and Tradable Shares?

[Andylusion]

f not capitalism and free markets then what?

My link is a four-minute read

Opinion | A world without capitalism is not too hard to envision

"Imagine that shares resemble electoral votes, which can be neither bought nor sold.

"Like students who receive a library card upon registration, new staff receive a single share granting a single vote to be cast in all-shareholder ballots deciding every matter of the corporation, from management and planning issues to the distribution of net revenues and bonuses.

"Suddenly, the profit-wage distinction makes no sense and corporations are cut down to size, boosting market competition

"When a baby is born, the central bank automatically grants her or him a trust fund (or personal capital account) that is periodically topped up with a universal basic dividend.

"When the child becomes a teenager, the central bank throws in a free checking account.

"Workers move freely from company to company, carrying with them their trust-fund capital, which they may lend to the company they work in or to others.

"Because there are no equities to turbocharge with massive fictitious capital, finance becomes delightfully boring—and stable.

"States drop all personal and sales taxes, instead taxing only corporate revenues, land, and activities detrimental to the commons."

Imagine that shares resemble electoral votes, which can be neither bought nor sold.

How would a company ever exist to begin with, without the money to buy the property, build the buildings, buy or have built the machinery, and setup all the work stations?

Where does that money come from? Because the typical way to getting that capital, is by selling shares of the company, but you just said they can't be bought or sold, thus no one would have any reason to give money to a company.

When a baby is born, the central bank automatically grants her or him a trust fund (or personal capital account) that is periodically topped up with a universal basic dividend.

Why would I work, if I'm going to get paid to stay home?

Workers move freely from company to company, carrying with them their trust-fund capital, which they may lend to the company they work in or to others.

Why would I do that? Why wouldn't I use the money myself?

Because there are no equities to turbocharge with massive fictitious capital, finance becomes delightfully boring—and stable.

Well that's true, that if you destroy the banking system, the banking system won't have any problems. I agree with that.

But that would also ignore the fact that you will harm the reallocation of resources. Meaning, that one thing banks do, is move resources from investors to producers.

For example, the whole reason mortgage backed securities exist, is because government created securities to sell, which then allows banks to gain capital to make mortgages.

If you eliminate that system, which is what you are suggesting, the result would be far fewer mortgages. Which means people will not afford homes. Are you ok with that? Only the rich and wealthy will be able to afford homes, because no banks are going to be giving mortgages to people. Is that what you want?

"States drop all personal and sales taxes, instead taxing only corporate revenues, land, and activities detrimental to the commons."

Not possible. Total corporate profits for 2019, were roughly $2.13 Trillion dollars. Even if you taxed corporations 100%, you would not even have enough money for Medicare and Social Security.

Further, with high taxes would cause most companies to move money out of the country.

So the more you rely exclusively on corporations for tax revenue, the less corporate tax revenue that you will have.

By the way, you realize that every single corporation could be taken private. How would fund the government, when all the corporations disappear?

"States drop all personal and sales taxes, instead taxing only corporate revenues, land, and activities detrimental to the commons."

Not possible. Total corporate profits for 2019, were roughly $2.13 Trillion dollars. Even if you taxed corporations 100%, you would not even have enough money for Medicare and Social Security.

He wants to tax revenues (sales).

Which is even less possible. If you taxed revenues, most companies would be bankrupt in a year, and that would be the end of that source of tax revenue.

I want him to explain the difference between a corporate revenue tax and a sales tax, in reality.

I think the difference is, that every business who was not covered under the corporate revenue tax, would be able to under cut the prices of US based companies that could not compete.

So US companies would all vanish. This would cause a depression of apocalyptic levels, because at the same time that prices were going up, employment and wages would be declining.

It would be pretty much what we have watched in Venezuela.

 

[georgephillip]

Capitalism is simply that natural order that results when people are left alone to pursue their own aims.

Capitalism is the direct descendant of slavery and feudalism.
Slavery divided society into two groups: masters & slaves.
Feudalism had its lords and serfs.
Capitalism gives us owners and employees.
See the connection?
Of course not.
You haven't left slavery yet.

 

[dblack]

Imagine that shares resemble electoral votes, which can be neither bought nor sold.

How would a company ever exist to begin with, without the money to buy the property, build the buildings, buy or have built the machinery, and setup all the work stations?

This is achieved through a process known as Marxist hand-waving, as foretold.

 

[dblack]

"Workers move freely from company to company ...

Huh? How does this work? Are companies obligated to take on employees who want to "freely" move from company to company? Are they allowed to reject some and accept others? Are people required to work? So many questions. So few answers.

 

[georgephillip]

Biden has only been in office for a week, numskull. He has already destroyed 75,000 jobs.

Link?

 

[bripat9643]

Do you propose to make selling your shares illegal?

I think it has more to do with re-defining corporate ownership:

Opinion | A world without capitalism is not too hard to envision

Opinion | A world without capitalism is not too hard to envision

You mean redefining ownership as non-ownership. That's called communism.

"Unless we are willing to ban tradable shares, we will make no appreciable difference to the distribution of wealth and power today.

"To imagine what transcending capitalism might mean in practice requires rethinking the ownership of corporations.

"Imagine that shares resemble electoral votes, which can be neither bought nor sold.

"Like students who receive a library card upon registration, new staff receive a single share granting a single vote to be cast in all-shareholder ballots deciding every matter of the corporation, from management and planning issues to the distribution of net revenues and bonuses."

You will "transcend" gravity before you transcend capitalism. Your scheme would mean the collapse of civilization. Anything you can't sell has no value. What would be the point of these shares?

 

[bripat9643]

"Workers move freely from company to company ...

Huh? How does this work? Are companies obligated to take on employees who want to "freely" move from company to company? Are they allowed to reject some and accept others? Are people required to work? So many questions. So few answers.

Communists never have any answers.

 

[bripat9643]

You are confused.

Were the Nazis Socialists? | Britannica

Your link:

"Were the Nazis socialists? No, not in any meaningful way, and certainly not after 1934. But to address this canard fully, one must begin with the birth of the party.

"In 1919 a Munich locksmith named Anton Drexler founded the Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (DAP; German Workers’ Party).

"Political parties were still a relatively new phenomenon in Germany, and the DAP—renamed the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP; National Socialist German Workers’ Party, or Nazi Party) in 1920—was one of several fringe players vying for influence in the early years of the Weimar Republic."

Socialism was viewed as an alternative to child labor, mega-monopolies, and imperialism by millions of productive workers around the globe at the time Nazis came into existence; their party would have been born dead if it hadn't included the word "socialism."

Are you saying NAZI socialism was a fraud? I've got news for you, moron: all socialism is fraud.

 

[bripat9643]

The allure of the one world government is just that...an allure, that will destroy mankind. There is nothing peaceful that will occur in the new world govt although the deception and delusion among millions will be a profound sight to behold among the destruction and carnage.

Not at all.
In fact, there always has been a need for a single global government.
There has to be things like global laws to prevent war crimes, allow for transportation rules like ships passing on the right, health standards against pandemics, currency exchange, extradition of international fugitives, prevention of international pollution, etc.
It is just that it is foolish for anyone to assume a global government would change anything relating to matters internal to individual nations.

There has never been a need for global government. That's the last thing we need. For the same reason, we also don't need a national government.

 

[bripat9643]

It worked in the Soviet Union, eh comrade?

Socialism worked well enough in the Soviet Union to win WWII and put the first human being into space.

Are you disappointed?

Both Germany and the USSR were socialist states. And before war broke out between the USSR and Germany on 22 June 1941, Mr. Hitler and Mr. Stalin were BFF's.

Germany was not socialist.

Nazi Germany was socialist.

The Soviet Union didn't stand a change without hundreds of billions in U.S. Aid. Do you know how many trucks, tanks, planes we sent them? Tons of steel, copper, aluminum, rubber, yada, yada yada?

FACT CHECK: Were Nazis Socialists? (snopes.com)

Above all, the Nazis were German white nationalists. What they stood for was the ascendancy of the “Aryan” race and the German nation, by any means necessary. Despite co-opting the name, some of the rhetoric, and even some of the precepts of socialism, Hitler and party did so with utter cynicism, and with vastly different goals. The claim that the Nazis actually were leftists or socialists in any generally accepted sense of those terms flies in the face of historical reality.

You leftwing sources have zero credibility. The theory that the NAZIs were lying about being socialists is just too absurd for mere words to describe. "Nationalism" and socialicism are two separate things. The theory that you can't be a nationalist if you are a socialist is pure idiocy. None of the standard leftwing areguments hold water. they are all easily exploded.

All you morons live in fantasy land. Sure you believe dems are all lizard people too. haha

Where's the "fantasy?"

Just about everything you moron righties believe in.

So you think the Nazis almost took over the whole planet with a socialist economy? You are promoting socialism now I guess.

Socialism is great for building tanks, bombers and battleship.

Oh really? So a socialist economy is so strong it can power a giant army like the Nazi's had? You are a good spokesman for socialism.

Their army wasn't that big, especially when it came to tanks, ships and other war material. Germany just had very good generals. Stalin executed all his best generals.

Yeah they almost defeated Europe and Russia with almost no army. Your stupidity is funny.

That's pretty much the case. Take operation Barberossa, for example. The Germans had 3,500 tanks. The Russians had 20,000 tanks. They also had the T-34 and the KV-1, which were far superior to anything the Germans had.

 

[bripat9643]

I KNOW otherwise. As for the Eastern Front? Winter beat Hitler.
Yes, too many fronts, divided forces, lack of oil. But it was ultimately Winter.

Noam Chomsky has written most US elites believed WWII would end in an European stalemate before Hitler invaded Russia. It seems possible those divisions sacrificed on the Eastern Front would have garrisoned Europe until September 1944 when the V-2 and the Messerschmitt 262 made it possible to cross the English channel?

Anyone who believes anything Noam Chomsky has to say is a certifiable moron.

 

[bripat9643]

Capitalism is simply that natural order that results when people are left alone to pursue their own aims.

Capitalism is the direct descendant of slavery and feudalism.
Slavery divided society into two groups: masters & slaves.
Feudalism had its lords and serfs.
Capitalism gives us owners and employees.
See the connection?
Of course not.
You haven't left slavery yet.

So is socialism, moron.

 

[bripat9643]

Do you propose to make selling your shares illegal?

I think it has more to do with re-defining corporate ownership:

Opinion | A world without capitalism is not too hard to envision

"Unless we are willing to ban tradable shares, we will make no appreciable difference to the distribution of wealth and power today.

"To imagine what transcending capitalism might mean in practice requires rethinking the ownership of corporations.

"Imagine that shares resemble electoral votes, which can be neither bought nor sold.

"Like students who receive a library card upon registration, new staff receive a single share granting a single vote to be cast in all-shareholder ballots deciding every matter of the corporation, from management and planning issues to the distribution of net revenues and bonuses."

Copy and paste for the win!

Do you propose to make selling your shares illegal?

You can't buy them or sell them......or take them with you when you quit.

IN other words, yet. So what value do they have?

 

[Andylusion]

You are confused.

Were the Nazis Socialists? | Britannica

Your link:

"Were the Nazis socialists? No, not in any meaningful way, and certainly not after 1934. But to address this canard fully, one must begin with the birth of the party.

"In 1919 a Munich locksmith named Anton Drexler founded the Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (DAP; German Workers’ Party).

"Political parties were still a relatively new phenomenon in Germany, and the DAP—renamed the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP; National Socialist German Workers’ Party, or Nazi Party) in 1920—was one of several fringe players vying for influence in the early years of the Weimar Republic."

Socialism was viewed as an alternative to child labor, mega-monopolies, and imperialism by millions of productive workers around the globe at the time Nazis came into existence; their party would have been born dead if it hadn't included the word "socialism."

The problem with that claim, is that by the logic of most on the left, socialists were not socialists in any meaningful way either.

But if you compare Nazism, Communism, and Capitalism, Nazis had far more in common with Communists, than with Capitalists.

For example, class warfare. Nazis believed in different classes of people, and sought to bring both together under the control of the Nazi regime. Communists also believed in different classes of people, and sought to bring the workers under the control of the Communists, and purging the bourgeoisie, and slaughtering them.

Both believed in a form of class warfare.

Capitalism does not believe in different classes of people. The current CEO of Walmart, born in Memphis, to a Vietnam veteran, whose first job, was unloading trucks at a distribution center, for a low hourly wage. He worked his way up, and became CEO of Walmart.

There is no us verses them, or class of people. Just like there is no elite government class, when even a bartender can end up in congress.

There is no 'worker class' and 'investor class' and 'government class'.

Similarly, the open and direct belief in forced labor, is wide spread between both Communists and Nazis. While the Nazis believed in the superior race of people, and forced all the lessor races of people. Nazis inherently believed that their own people were special, and would never impose forced labor on them.

Communists on the other hand, openly supported the idea of forcing their own people into forced labor, and did so with joy. Having show trials, and trumped up charges, and rounding up random people for their own benefit, even their own citizens, and sometimes even their closest friends and family, was normal.

One truly sad aspect, is that after the 'liberation' of Germany, where many people in forced labor camps in Germany were released, those that returned to places in the Soviet Union, found themselves sent to Gulags, and lived out their lives still in forced labor.

And contrary to popular opinion, the Soviets had no problem using race as a basis for this too.

Antisemitism in the Soviet Union - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The only difference between the anti-jewish persecution in Germany, and the anti-jewish persecution by the Soviets, was only that the Germans said what they were doing more openly. The soviets, while saying they were against racism, openly practiced it, with a campaign against "Rootless cosmopolitan".

But Capitalism, doesn't care about race. Capitalism is merely the private ownership of the means of production, and distribution.

The only color Capitalism really cares about is Green. If you have the money, and I want to work for it, I don't really care about much else. Nor if you want to buy a product, and have money to buy it, do you care about much else.

This is why you have one of the largest medical companies in the US, Merck, the CEO is a black man. The prior President before Trump, was a black man. Some of the highest paid sports stars, are black men, as well as some of the biggest movie stars, and so on.

In Capitalism, race is entirely irrelevant.

And I could go on. But basically it's this... there are many different flavors of socialism. Hundreds, or possibly thousands. But no version of socialism has much in common with Capitalism, unless you just make up false claims about what Capitalism believes. Which that's normally how people try and equate Capitalism and Nazism. You just attribute to Capitalism, things that no Capitalist or Capitalistic system has ever supported.

 

[Andylusion]

Capitalism is simply that natural order that results when people are left alone to pursue their own aims.

Capitalism is the direct descendant of slavery and feudalism.
Slavery divided society into two groups: masters & slaves.
Feudalism had its lords and serfs.
Capitalism gives us owners and employees.
See the connection?
Of course not.
You haven't left slavery yet.

So does Socialism. Socialism is the direct descendant of slavery and feudalism.
Socialism has society divided into two groups: Masters and slaves. If you doubt that, then you haven't read up on how the entire Soviet system in the 1930s, was built on Gulags.

Capitalism does HAVE owners and employees, that is true. But you can be an owner, or an employee, or both. It's up to you. You can start your own company.

Bezos before he was CEO of Amazon, was an employee at another firm. He quit that job, and started working out of a garage in Seattle.

Same with Warren Buffet, who was making money on a paper route.

Same with Steve Jobs. Same with Chris Gardner from the movie "Pursuit of Happiness".

I know people right now that worked as a cook at a restaurant, and today run their own restaurant.

While "employee" and "employer" exist, they are not classes that you are stuck into. You can move freely between the two at your own discretion.

Under Socialism, if you are born in the lower class, you stay there, and you die there. You never move beyond your class, unless someone on a whim decides to promote you, and that would be a 1 in 10 million chance.

There are stories out of China, where people lived on the farm communes, and it was 4 generations of people, born, lived, died in object poverty, working for the state, with zero chance to do anything else, and no hope for a better future.

 

[Turtlesoup]

As if a mountain of one hundred and twenty million human skulls wasn't enough to convince them trying that particular political ideology (again) was a pretty bad idea . . .

How many human beings has capitalism killed over the past five centuries? How many innocent civilians has the US military murdered, maimed, or displaced since 9/11.
View attachment 451259
Clean your own house first.

Given that the average life expectancy has gone up UNDER CAPITALISM and BECAUSE of it-------------you may want to rethink your attempts at spinning. BECAUSE of capitalism, medical innovation after medical innovation has taken place expanding life and quality of life expectations.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

The Star Trek scenario. Where your basic needs (shelter, food, transportation, medical care) are provided. There is no monetary system. You work for the betterment and advancement of the species and for your own personal knowledge and deed based goals. Sure, I can see it happening....in maybe in thirty or fourty years when we've blown the shit out of the system we have now. It ain't gonna happen in my lifetime. Honestly, why do we keep rolling this stuff over? Our economic system has been a mix of capitalism and socialism for almost a century now. Wanting to fix the ACA, wanting to provide better infrastructure, wanting to provide an equitable tax system, making education more affordable. These can be accomplished within our present system without throwing all the bullshit "ism" and "ist" terms around.

Does this sound possible in your lifetime?

Opinion | A world without capitalism is not too hard to envision

"When a baby is born, the central bank automatically grants her or him a trust fund (or personal capital account) that is periodically topped up with a universal basic dividend.

"When the child becomes a teenager, the central bank throws in a free checking account.

"Workers move freely from company to company, carrying with them their trust-fund capital, which they may lend to the company they work in or to others.

"Because there are no equities to turbocharge with massive fictitious capital, finance becomes delightfully boring—and stable.

"States drop all personal and sales taxes, instead taxing only corporate revenues, land, and activities detrimental to the commons."

Lol holy shit

I only made it this far down the thread
Can you say Hyperinflation....and oh yeah just work where ya want.....that'll work out swell...any ideas on pulling that off ?

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

 

[Mac-7]

My link is a four-minute read

Marxism is a very dumb idea

Russia tried it a failed miserably

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

My link is a four-minute read

Marxism is a very dumb idea

Russia tried it a failed miserably

But George is much smarter than they were. Just ask him.