Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And you've proved, yet again, you're neither.Chomsky along with Professors Wolff and Alperovitz believe worker-owned enterprises represent a viable alternative to today's socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor model:
"In, I guess it was 1977, as part of this change in socioeconomic policy, the US Steel Corporation decided to close down its operations in Youngstown, Ohio.
"Youngstown is a steel town that was built by, and around the steel industry.
"The working people and the community were extensively involved in steel production and everything that flows off of it, and manufacturing plants spawn all sorts of other things, so it was a steel town.
"US Steel decided to sell it off, kill the town.
"Instead of just giving up, the workers in the communities who are called the stakeholders offered to buy the plant and run it themselves.
"That couldve been done; with enough public support, it couldve happened.
"These were not public issues at the time. It did go to court. The union took the case to court to try to get the right to do it; they lost in the court. But they couldve won, and it couldve been carried forward.
"Well, so it was a kind of defeat, but like a lot of defeats, it wasnt the end of the story: it was the basis of moving on to something else.
"And what it spawned was a lot of much-smaller-scale efforts to establish worker-owned enterprises. A lot of its called the Cleveland Model, a lot of them around Cleveland and other parts of Ohio, which are not huge enterprises, but theres a lot of them.
"Alperovitz, in his book, reviews all of this; you can look at it for details.."
Noam Chomsky on "America Beyond Capitalism" - Gar Alperovitz
But *WHY* did US Steel sell off the factory? Answer? Because it was not making a profit.
If the Unions had bought the plant, can kept the same wage/cost structure, they would not have made a profit either. Socializing something, doesn't magically change the economic math.
This is yet another example, of dozens, where Noam Chomsky proves once again, he's a great linguist, and a terrible economist.
Neither are you particularly knowledgeable about worker owned enterprises, like Mondragon, which doesn't pay management at a rate of hundreds of times the average worker.
If you are going to criticize my sources, give me a good reason to believe you possess the necessary intellectual qualifications to make an informed opinion.
'Tuned out better for Wall Street.Chomsky along with Professors Wolff and Alperovitz believe worker-owned enterprises represent a viable alternative to today's socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor model:Yes yes. Early on he wrote about this revolution showing how damn insightful he was:
For society to achieve emancipation for all it must be done by
"One particular class must be a class that rouses universal reprobation and incorporates all deficiencies: one particular social sphere must be regarded as the notorious crime of the whole society, so that liberation of this sphere appears as universal self-liberation. So that one class par excellence may appear as the class of the liberation, another class must conversely be the manifest class of oppression." Early Texts, 126
My fear is that climate change has already progressed beyond reparation. This change is based in geological time and so humans are so imperceptive regarding the change. Only when shit blows up in our face and massive famine will we finally realize the revolution that should have taken place long before. I suspect revolution will happen in 50-100 years because change won't come otherwise. Chomsky notes that change in policy etc. are not gifts from above but result from mass pressure. Any thoughts or articles you know of on this topic?
"In, I guess it was 1977, as part of this change in socioeconomic policy, the US Steel Corporation decided to close down its operations in Youngstown, Ohio.
"Youngstown is a steel town that was built by, and around the steel industry.
"The working people and the community were extensively involved in steel production and everything that flows off of it, and manufacturing plants spawn all sorts of other things, so it was a steel town.
"US Steel decided to sell it off, kill the town.
"Instead of just giving up, the workers in the communities who are called the stakeholders offered to buy the plant and run it themselves.
"That couldve been done; with enough public support, it couldve happened.
"These were not public issues at the time. It did go to court. The union took the case to court to try to get the right to do it; they lost in the court. But they couldve won, and it couldve been carried forward.
"Well, so it was a kind of defeat, but like a lot of defeats, it wasnt the end of the story: it was the basis of moving on to something else.
"And what it spawned was a lot of much-smaller-scale efforts to establish worker-owned enterprises. A lot of its called the Cleveland Model, a lot of them around Cleveland and other parts of Ohio, which are not huge enterprises, but theres a lot of them.
"Alperovitz, in his book, reviews all of this; you can look at it for details.."
Noam Chomsky on "America Beyond Capitalism" - Gar Alperovitz
United Airlines was worker owned.
How'd that turn out?
And you've proved, yet again, you're neither.Chomsky along with Professors Wolff and Alperovitz believe worker-owned enterprises represent a viable alternative to today's socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor model:
"In, I guess it was 1977, as part of this change in socioeconomic policy, the US Steel Corporation decided to close down its operations in Youngstown, Ohio.
"Youngstown is a steel town that was built by, and around the steel industry.
"The working people and the community were extensively involved in steel production and everything that flows off of it, and manufacturing plants spawn all sorts of other things, so it was a steel town.
"US Steel decided to sell it off, kill the town.
"Instead of just giving up, the workers in the communities — who are called the stakeholders — offered to buy the plant and run it themselves.
"That could’ve been done; with enough public support, it could’ve happened.
"These were not public issues at the time. It did go to court. The union took the case to court to try to get the right to do it; they lost in the court. But they could’ve won, and it could’ve been carried forward.
"Well, so it was a kind of defeat, but like a lot of defeats, it wasn’t the end of the story: it was the basis of moving on to something else.
"And what it spawned was a lot of much-smaller-scale efforts to establish worker-owned enterprises. A lot of it’s called the Cleveland Model, a lot of them around Cleveland and other parts of Ohio, which are not huge enterprises, but there’s a lot of them.
"Alperovitz, in his book, reviews all of this; you can look at it for details.."
Noam Chomsky on "America Beyond Capitalism" - Gar Alperovitz
But *WHY* did US Steel sell off the factory? Answer? Because it was not making a profit.
If the Unions had bought the plant, can kept the same wage/cost structure, they would not have made a profit either. Socializing something, doesn't magically change the economic math.
This is yet another example, of dozens, where Noam Chomsky proves once again, he's a great linguist, and a terrible economist.
Neither are you particularly knowledgeable about worker owned enterprises, like Mondragon, which doesn't pay management at a rate of hundreds of times the average worker.
If you are going to criticize my sources, give me a good reason to believe you possess the necessary intellectual qualifications to make an informed opinion.
Employee stock ownership plan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaESOPs in the United States
An employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) is a defined contribution plan, a form of retirement plan as defined by 4975(e)(7)of IRS codes, which became a qualified retirement plan in 1974[14][15] It is one of the methods of employee participation in corporate ownership.[16]
ESOPs are regulated by Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), a federal law that sets minimum standards for investment plans in private industry.[16] Internal Revenue Code section 404(a)(3) provides for an annual limit on the amount of deductible contributions an employer can make to a tax-qualified stock bonus or profit-sharing plan of 25 percent of the compensation otherwise paid or accrued during the year to the employees who benefit under the plan.[citation needed]
The Oakland, California-based think tank National Center for Employee Ownership estimates that there are approximately 11,300 employee stock ownership plans for over 13 million employees in the United States.[17][18][19] Notable U.S. employee-owned corporations include the 150,000 employee supermarket chain Publix Supermarkets, McCarthy Building Company, and photography studio company Lifetouch. Today, most private U.S. companies that are operating as ESOPs are structured as S corporation ESOPs (S ESOPs).
History
In the mid-19th century, as the United States transitioned to an industrial economy, national corporations like Procter & Gamble, Railway Express, Sears & Roebuck, and others recognized that someone could work for the companies for 20 plus years, reach an old age, and then have no income after they could no longer work. The leaders of those 19th-century companies decided to set aside stock in the company that would be given to the employee when she or he retired.
In the early 20th century, when the United States sanctioned an income tax on all citizens, one of the biggest debates was about how to treat stock set aside for an employee by her employer under the new U.S. income tax laws.
ESOPs were developed as a way to encourage capital expansion and economic equality. Many of the early proponents of ESOPs believed that capitalism’s viability depended upon continued growth, and that there was no better way for economies to grow than by distributing the benefits of that growth to the workforce.[20]
In 1956, Louis Kelso invented the first ESOP, which allowed the employees of Peninsula Newspapers to buy out the company founders.[21] Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Russell Long, a Democrat from Louisiana, helped develop tax policy for ESOPs within the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), calling it one of his most important accomplishments in his career.[22] ESOPs also attracted interest of Republican leaders including Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, and Gerald Ford, and Ronald Reagan.[23]
In 2001, the United States Congress enacted Internal Revenue Code section 409(p), which effectively requires that S ESOP benefits be shared equitably by investors and workers. This ensures that the ESOP includes everyone from the receptionist to the CFO.[24]
Rules
To establish an ESOP in the United States, a firm sets up a trust and makes tax-deductible contributions to it. Each plan is different, though typically plans include all full-time employees with a year or more of service. The ESOP can be funded by tax-deductible corporate contributions to the ESOP.
Discretionary annual cash contributions are deductible for up to 55 percent of the pay of plan participants and are used to buy shares from selling owners. Alternatively, the ESOP can borrow money to buy shares, with the company making tax-deductible contributions to the plan to enable it to repay the loan. Contributions to repay principal are deductible for up to 25 percent of the payroll of plan participants; interest is always deductible. Dividends can be paid to the ESOP to increase this amount over 25 percent. Sellers to an ESOP in a closely held company can defer taxation on the proceeds by reinvesting in other securities. In S corporations, to the extent the ESOP owns shares, that percentage of the company's profits are not taxed: 100 percent ESOPs pay no federal income tax, but the profit distribution to the participants is taxed, just as in any S corporation. Employees do not pay taxes on the contributions until they receive a distribution from the plan when they leave the company; taxes can be deferred by the departing employee by rolling the amount over into an Individual Retirement Account (IRA).
ESOP accounts vest over time, typically following one of two formulas: in the first, vesting starts at two years and completes at year six; in the second, participants becomes 100 percent vested after four years. When employees leave the company, they receive their vested ESOP shares, which the company or the ESOP buys back at an appraised fair market value. ESOP participants are required by law to be allowed to vote their allocated shares at least on major issues, such as closing or selling the company, but are not required to be able to vote on other issues, such as choosing the boards.
Forms
Like other tax-qualified deferred compensation plans, ESOPs must not discriminate in their operations in favor of highly compensated employees, officers, or owners. In an ESOP, a company sets up an employee benefit trust, which it funds by contributing cash to buy company stock, contributing shares directly, or having the trust borrow money to buy stock, with the company making contributions to the plan to enable it to repay the loan. Generally, at least all full-time employees with a year or more of service are in the plan.
No other nation[according to whom?] in the world has laws that sanction an arrangement that is the same as the U.S. ESOP. The ESOP model is tied to the unique U.S. system encouraging private retirement savings plans, and tax policies which reflect that goal.
S Corporation ESOP
Most private U.S. companies operating as an ESOP are structured as S corporation ESOPs (S ESOPs). The United States Congress established S ESOPs in 1998, to encourage and expand retirement savings by giving millions more American workers the opportunity to have equity in the companies where they work.
Pro-ESOP advocates credit S ESOPs with providing retirement security, job stability and worker retention, due to claimed culture, stability and productivity gains associated with employee-ownership. A study of a cross-section of Subchapter S firms with an Employee Stock Ownership Plan shows that S ESOP companies performed better in 2008 compared to non-S ESOP firms, paid their workers higher wages on average than other firms in the same industries, contributed more to their workers’ retirement security, and hired workers when the overall U.S. economy was pitched downward and non-S ESOP employers were cutting jobs.[25] Scholars estimate that annual contributions to employees of S ESOPs total around $14 billion.[20] Critics say, however, that such studies fail to control for factors other than the existence of the ESOP, such as participatory management strategies, worker education, and pre-ESOP growth trends in individual companies. They maintain that no studies have shown that the presence of an ESOP itself causes any positive effects for companies or workers.[26]:27;[27] One study estimates that the net U.S. economic benefit from S ESOP savings, job stability and productivity totals $33 billion per year.[20]
A study released in July 2012 found that S corporations with private employee stock ownership plans added jobs over the last decade more quickly than the overall private sector.[28]
A 2013 study found that in 2010, 2,643 S ESOPs directly employed 470,000 workers and supported an additional 940,000 jobs, paid $29 billion in labor income to their own employees, with $48 billion in additional income for supported jobs, and tax revenue initiated by S ESOPs amounted to $11 billion for state and local governments and $16 billion for the federal government. Further, the study found that total output was equivalent to 1.7 percent of 2010 U.S. GDP. $93 billion (or 0.6 percent of GDP) came directly from S ESOPs, while output in supported industries totaled $153 billion (or 1.1 percent of GDP).[29]
Advantages and disadvantages to employees
In a U.S. ESOP, just as in every other form of qualified pension plan, employees do not pay taxes on the contributions until they receive a distribution from the plan when they leave the company. They can roll the amount over into an IRA, as can participants in any qualified plan. There is no requirement that a private sector employer provide retirement savings plans for employees.
Some studies conclude that employee ownership appears to increase production and profitability, and improve employees' dedication and sense of ownership.[30][31][32][33][34] ESOP advocates maintain that the key variable in securing these claimed benefits is to combine an ESOP with a high degree of worker involvement in work-level decisions (employee teams, for instance). Employee stock ownership can increase the employees' financial risk if the company does poorly,[35] The data from ESOPs in the United States show that ESOP participants have three times the total retirement assets (including 401(k) plans) as comparable employees in non-ESOP companies and have diversified holdings at least as large.[36]
ESOPS, by definition, concentrate workers' retirement savings in the stock of a single company. Such concentration is contrary to the central principle of modern investment theory, which is that investors should diversify their investments across many companies, industries, geographic locations, etc.[26]:8–11[37] Moreover, ESOPs concentrate workers' retirement savings in the stock of the same company on which they depend for their wages and current benefits, such as health insurance, worsening the non-diversification problem.[37]:8–11 High-profile examples illustrate the problem. Employees at companies such as Enron and WorldCom lost much of their retirement savings by over-investing in company stock in their 401(k) plans, though these specific companies were not employee-owned. Enron, Polaroid and United Airlines, all of which had ESOPs when they went bankrupt, were C corporations. Most S corporation ESOPs offer their employees at least one qualified retirement savings plan like a 401(k) in addition to the ESOP, allowing for greater diversification of assets. Studies in Massachusetts, Ohio, and Washington state show that, on average, employees participating in the main form of employee ownership have considerably more in retirement assets than comparable employees in non-ESOP firms. The most comprehensive of the studies, a report on all ESOP firms in Washington state, found that the retirement assets were about three times as great, and the diversified portion of employee retirement plans was about the same as the total retirement assets of comparable employees in equivalent non-ESOP firms. The Washington study, however, showed that ESOP participants still had about 60% of their retirement savings invested in employer stock. Wages in ESOP firms were also 5 percent to 12 percent higher. National data from Joseph Blasi and Douglas Kruse at Rutgers shows that ESOP companies are more successful than comparable firms and, perhaps as a result, were more likely to offer additional diversified retirement plans alongside their ESOPs.
Opponents to ESOP have criticized these pro-ESOP claims, that many of the studies are conducted or sponsored by ESOP advocacy organizations and criticizing the methodologies used.[37][38] Critics argue that pro-ESOP studies did not establish that ESOPs results in higher productivity and wages. ESOP advocates agree that an ESOP alone cannot produce such effects; instead, the ESOP must be combined with worker empowerment through participatory management and other techniques. Critics point out that no study has separated the effects of those techniques from the effects of an ESOP; that is, no study shows that innovative management cannot produce the same (claimed) effects without an ESOP. [26]:36
In some circumstances, ESOP plans were designed that disproportionately benefit employees who enrolled earlier, by accruing more shares to early employees. Newer employees even at stable and mature ESOP companies can have limited opportunity to participate in the program, as a large portion of the shares may have already been allocated to longstanding employees.[39]
Pro-ESOP advocates often maintain that employee ownership in 401(k) plans, as opposed to ESOPs, is problematic. About 17 percent of total 401(k) assets are invested in company stock—more in those companies that offer it as an option (although many do not). Pro-ESOP advocates concede that this may be an excessive concentration in a plan specifically meant to be for retirement security. In contrast, they maintain that it may not be a serious problem for an ESOP or other options, which they say are meant as wealth building tools, preferably to exist alongside other plans. Nonetheless, ESOPs are regulated as retirement plans, and they are presented to employees as retirement plans—just as 401(k) plans are.
Conflicts of interest
Because ESOPs are the only retirement plans allowed by law to borrow money, they can be attractive to company owners and managers as instruments of corporate finance and succession.[26]:14–16 An ESOP formed using a loan, called a "leveraged ESOP," can provide a tax-advantaged means for the company to raise capital.[26]:14–15 According to a pro-ESOP organization, at least 75 percent of ESOPs are, or were at some time, leveraged. According to citing ESOP Association statistics as cited in[26]:14–16. In addition, ESOPs can be attractive instruments of corporate succession, allowing a retiring shareholder to diversify his or her company of stock while deferring capital gains taxes indefinitely.[40]
Company insiders face additional conflicts of interest in connection with an ESOP's purchase of company stock, which most often features company insiders as sellers, and in connection with decisions about how to vote the shares of stock held by the ESOP but not yet allocated to participants' accounts.[26]:16–19 In a leveraged ESOP, such unallocated shares often far outnumber allocated shares, for many years after the leveraged transaction.[26
Mondragon cooperatives are not part of Spain's government.And you've proved, yet again, you're neither.But *WHY* did US Steel sell off the factory? Answer? Because it was not making a profit.
If the Unions had bought the plant, can kept the same wage/cost structure, they would not have made a profit either. Socializing something, doesn't magically change the economic math.
This is yet another example, of dozens, where Noam Chomsky proves once again, he's a great linguist, and a terrible economist.
Neither are you particularly knowledgeable about worker owned enterprises, like Mondragon, which doesn't pay management at a rate of hundreds of times the average worker.
If you are going to criticize my sources, give me a good reason to believe you possess the necessary intellectual qualifications to make an informed opinion.
If Mondragon is such a stunning success, then why isn't it expanding and taking over the entire Spanish economy? The answer is that its not a good business model. It can't make changes to it's employment without a huge political battle. That's why private enterprises are superior to government run enterprise. If they need to cut staffing they can do it in short order. Government almost never cuts staffing for anything.
Mondragon cooperatives are not part of Spain's government.And you've proved, yet again, you're neither.
Neither are you particularly knowledgeable about worker owned enterprises, like Mondragon, which doesn't pay management at a rate of hundreds of times the average worker.
If you are going to criticize my sources, give me a good reason to believe you possess the necessary intellectual qualifications to make an informed opinion.
If Mondragon is such a stunning success, then why isn't it expanding and taking over the entire Spanish economy? The answer is that its not a good business model. It can't make changes to it's employment without a huge political battle. That's why private enterprises are superior to government run enterprise. If they need to cut staffing they can do it in short order. Government almost never cuts staffing for anything.
"Mondragon co-operatives are united by a humanist concept of business, a philosophy of participation and solidarity, and a shared business culture. The culture is rooted in a shared mission and a number of principles, corporate values and business policies."
They aren't expanding for the same reason Spain has a 26% unemployment rate; global capitalism has wrecked the world economy for all but a fraction of 1% of humanity and their useful idiots
Mondragon Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
'Tuned out better for Wall Street.Chomsky along with Professors Wolff and Alperovitz believe worker-owned enterprises represent a viable alternative to today's socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor model:
"In, I guess it was 1977, as part of this change in socioeconomic policy, the US Steel Corporation decided to close down its operations in Youngstown, Ohio.
"Youngstown is a steel town that was built by, and around the steel industry.
"The working people and the community were extensively involved in steel production and everything that flows off of it, and manufacturing plants spawn all sorts of other things, so it was a steel town.
"US Steel decided to sell it off, kill the town.
"Instead of just giving up, the workers in the communities who are called the stakeholders offered to buy the plant and run it themselves.
"That couldve been done; with enough public support, it couldve happened.
"These were not public issues at the time. It did go to court. The union took the case to court to try to get the right to do it; they lost in the court. But they couldve won, and it couldve been carried forward.
"Well, so it was a kind of defeat, but like a lot of defeats, it wasnt the end of the story: it was the basis of moving on to something else.
"And what it spawned was a lot of much-smaller-scale efforts to establish worker-owned enterprises. A lot of its called the Cleveland Model, a lot of them around Cleveland and other parts of Ohio, which are not huge enterprises, but theres a lot of them.
"Alperovitz, in his book, reviews all of this; you can look at it for details.."
Noam Chomsky on "America Beyond Capitalism" - Gar Alperovitz
United Airlines was worker owned.
How'd that turn out?
Are you surprised?
""In 1994 United's pilots, machinists, bag handlers and non-contract employees agreed to acquire 55% of company stock in exchange for 15% to 25% salary concessions.
"The flight attendants voted to not participate in the deal, and at the beginning some wore buttons saying 'we just work here.'
"The Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) made United the largest employee-owned corporation in the world..."
"The financial outcomes of the ESOP were decidedly uneven for different players.
"As part of ESOP agreement, United CEO Stephen Wolf resigned and took a consulting job with Lazard Freres, the very investment company he had hired to advise United's board during the ESOP buyout process.
"Stewart Oran, the key legal advisor to the pilots' union, received a $5.5 million package to join the management of the new employee-owned company as legal counsel after the ESOP was formed.[25]
"United's unions, having larger voice in running the company, later successfully bargained for significant pay increases, but the effect was only short-term.
"The rank and file employees were locked into their stock, which got wiped out in the eventual bankruptcy.
"It was around this period (in 1993) that United introduced its grey and blue color scheme. It had been criticized that the color scheme blended with the darkness during nighttime operations."
History of United Airlines - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You're a wanna be intellectual.
Your drivel really isn't intelligent.
Why is it so hard for you to discuss ideas
Like the idea we've been genetically modifying our food for ten thousand years?
You ran away from that discussion.
Mondragon cooperatives are not part of Spain's government.And you've proved, yet again, you're neither.
Neither are you particularly knowledgeable about worker owned enterprises, like Mondragon, which doesn't pay management at a rate of hundreds of times the average worker.
If you are going to criticize my sources, give me a good reason to believe you possess the necessary intellectual qualifications to make an informed opinion.
If Mondragon is such a stunning success, then why isn't it expanding and taking over the entire Spanish economy? The answer is that its not a good business model. It can't make changes to it's employment without a huge political battle. That's why private enterprises are superior to government run enterprise. If they need to cut staffing they can do it in short order. Government almost never cuts staffing for anything.
"Mondragon co-operatives are united by a humanist concept of business, a philosophy of participation and solidarity, and a shared business culture. The culture is rooted in a shared mission and a number of principles, corporate values and business policies."
They aren't expanding for the same reason Spain has a 26% unemployment rate; global capitalism has wrecked the world economy for all but a fraction of 1% of humanity and their useful idiots
Mondragon Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
BBC News - Spanish economy: What is to blame for its problems?But the problems faced by Spain's government and its banks are just symptoms. The real issue is the mess that is Spain's economy.
Believe it or not, before 2008 Spain's government was one of the least spendthrift in the eurozone - unlike Greece. Or Germany.
The Spanish government's debts were a mere 36% of its gross domestic product (GDP) (the output of its economy) in 2007, while the German government's were 65%.
What's more, Madrid was in the process of paying its debts off - it earned more in tax revenues than its total spending. In contrast, Berlin regularly broke the maximum annual borrowing level laid down in the Maastricht Treaty of 3% of GDP.
Evidently, this crisis has nothing to do with the recklessness of Spain's government.
Instead, it was other people in Spain who behaved recklessly.
Interest rates fell to historic lows when the euro was launched in 1999. So Spain's banks, property developers and ordinary home-buyers collectively borrowed and fuelled an enormous property bubble.
And you've proved, yet again, you're neither.Chomsky along with Professors Wolff and Alperovitz believe worker-owned enterprises represent a viable alternative to today's socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor model:
"In, I guess it was 1977, as part of this change in socioeconomic policy, the US Steel Corporation decided to close down its operations in Youngstown, Ohio.
"Youngstown is a steel town that was built by, and around the steel industry.
"The working people and the community were extensively involved in steel production and everything that flows off of it, and manufacturing plants spawn all sorts of other things, so it was a steel town.
"US Steel decided to sell it off, kill the town.
"Instead of just giving up, the workers in the communities who are called the stakeholders offered to buy the plant and run it themselves.
"That couldve been done; with enough public support, it couldve happened.
"These were not public issues at the time. It did go to court. The union took the case to court to try to get the right to do it; they lost in the court. But they couldve won, and it couldve been carried forward.
"Well, so it was a kind of defeat, but like a lot of defeats, it wasnt the end of the story: it was the basis of moving on to something else.
"And what it spawned was a lot of much-smaller-scale efforts to establish worker-owned enterprises. A lot of its called the Cleveland Model, a lot of them around Cleveland and other parts of Ohio, which are not huge enterprises, but theres a lot of them.
"Alperovitz, in his book, reviews all of this; you can look at it for details.."
Noam Chomsky on "America Beyond Capitalism" - Gar Alperovitz
But *WHY* did US Steel sell off the factory? Answer? Because it was not making a profit.
If the Unions had bought the plant, can kept the same wage/cost structure, they would not have made a profit either. Socializing something, doesn't magically change the economic math.
This is yet another example, of dozens, where Noam Chomsky proves once again, he's a great linguist, and a terrible economist.
Neither are you particularly knowledgeable about worker owned enterprises, like Mondragon, which doesn't pay management at a rate of hundreds of times the average worker.
If you are going to criticize my sources, give me a good reason to believe you possess the necessary intellectual qualifications to make an informed opinion.
Mondragon - Trouble in workers paradise
NEWS that Spains largest appliance-maker is heading for bankruptcy will not come as a complete shock in the crisis-ridden country. Yet Fagor is a special case. It is part of Mondragon, the worlds biggest group of worker-owned co-operatives.
Fagor has lost money for five years and has run up debts of 850m ($1.2 billion). Its factories all ceased production three weeks ago. (written Nov 9th 2013)
In the past, losses in one part of the group have been covered by the others, but this time Fagors pleas for a 170m lifeline were rejected. Eroski, another co-operative in the Mondragon group and one of Spains largest retailers, is also struggling in the face of stiff competition, and it and two other co-ops vetoed Fagors plan.
This was a blow to Sergio Treviño, Fagors boss since April. He had planned to move the bulk of production to Poland and to turn Fagor into an ordinary company with outside shareholders. Its Polish unit has now filed for creditor protection and the French unit will follow, triggering cross-default clauses in Spain. As we went to press Fagor looked likely to file for bankruptcy imminently.
Fagor, with 5,600 workers, is a relatively small part of the whole. Even so, Mr Treviño warns that its fall will have an uncontrollable domino effect on the rest of the group with major social implications. He believes Fagors liquidation would create a 480m hole at Mondragon, including inter-group loans and payments the groups insurance arm would have to make on Fagor workers unemployment policies. Mondragon has promised to find new jobs or offer early-retirement terms for as many as it can of Fagors Spanish workers, but this is a tall order in a country with 27% unemployment. Besides their jobs, workers stand to lose the money they had invested in the co-op if it is liquidated.
Britains even older co-operative movement (founded in 1844 and nominally owned by its customers rather than its employees) is undergoing a similarly harsh encounter with economic realities. Its banking arm, hit by huge bad debts after taking over another mutual lender, is having to bring in American hedge funds as outside shareholders, because its parent movement was unable to rescue it alone. The co-operative model has its virtues, but there are times when those nasty, money-obsessed capitalists have their uses too.
You're a wanna be intellectual.
Your drivel really isn't intelligent.
I see you backed down from your demonstrably false claim. So now its just your opinion that I'm a wanna-be intellectual. At least you were sensible enough to tacitly recant and that's as best as someone with such hostility will allow. The more you make claims proportional to reality, we can make progress. As long as you're willing to make demonstrably false statements, we can have no intelligent discussion. Is this understood?
Why is it so hard for you to discuss ideas
Like the idea we've been genetically modifying our food for ten thousand years?
You ran away from that discussion.
Whatever you want to call it apparently is factual....so just I've professed to be an intellectual, I've also ran away from discussion. Instead of the outrageous assertion that I've ran away from discussion, why don't you actually refer back to what I said here. Besides, am I suppose to respond to everything you say and if I don't I've ran away from it? That is very childish understanding of human life. I don't live to visit USMB and respond to your demonstrably false claims.
But let me take you up on a serious discussion then if your so confident I ran away. You don't even know Monsanto owns 93% of soybeans (in America). Beyond this, I don't know what your point is. We have not been genetically modifying seeds for 10,000 years in a conscious way. Genetics were not discovered until Mendel in the 1860s. Humans did not even come to genetically modify food until 1980s. "Monsanto was among the first to genetically modify a plant cell, along with three academic teams, which was announced in 1983"
So before any serious discussion you need to do a few things:
1. Tell me how much soybean seeds Monsanto owns and cite sources like I cited the fact that Monsanto owns 93% of soybean seeds in America. What does your source say if it isn't 93%?
2. Look up what genetic modification even is. Define it clearly. Genetic modification has to do with modifying genetics. When humans plant seeds without having spliced, muted, or inerjected genes to create a slightly altered product, then humans are not performing genetic modification. This is what I said was your fault. You did not distinguish between simple human modification of everyday occurrence and the specifics of genetic modification. This is to be expected with someone who has confidence in themselves but lacks any knowledge to back up their demonstrably false claims.
Since I know you will not do even a simple search, I've done one for you:
A simple search reveals genetic modification is "Genetic modification is the use of modern biotechnology techniques to change the genes of an organism, such as a plant or animal." Are you going to tell me humans modification means the same exact thing as genetic modification? I don't doubt humans have modified where, when, and how they plant seeds. But they have not used modern biotechnology and theories of genetics until very recently to enable genetic modification of seeds.
But *WHY* did US Steel sell off the factory? Answer? Because it was not making a profit.
Did Monsanto do it?
Did Monsanto do it?
Can you participate in an active discussion or are you incapable? Demanding me to say Monsanto creates GMO products is equivalent to getting me to say Monsanto is Monsanto. That is not an interesting conversation. The interesting conversation is how is genetic modification done? Through modern biotechnology that came into being around the early 80s. How did humans genetically modify seeds before genetic modification was created? The answer is they didn't. Human modification of seeds through planting in different locations, at different times, under different conditions has been happening for 50,000+ years. However, humans have only been involved in genetic modification since the early 80s.
I know GMO exists. What's your point? Is that what you repeated four times now?
And you've proved, yet again, you're neither.But *WHY* did US Steel sell off the factory? Answer? Because it was not making a profit.
If the Unions had bought the plant, can kept the same wage/cost structure, they would not have made a profit either. Socializing something, doesn't magically change the economic math.
This is yet another example, of dozens, where Noam Chomsky proves once again, he's a great linguist, and a terrible economist.
Neither are you particularly knowledgeable about worker owned enterprises, like Mondragon, which doesn't pay management at a rate of hundreds of times the average worker.
If you are going to criticize my sources, give me a good reason to believe you possess the necessary intellectual qualifications to make an informed opinion.
Thank you. I get to illustrate the difference between you and me, right here right now.
You cited Chomsky, who said "it could have worked", and that was your 'evidence'.
Here's mine.
Mondragon: Trouble in workers? paradise | The Economist
Mondragon - Trouble in workers’ paradise
NEWS that Spain’s largest appliance-maker is heading for bankruptcy will not come as a complete shock in the crisis-ridden country. Yet Fagor is a special case. It is part of Mondragon, the world’s biggest group of worker-owned co-operatives.
Fagor has lost money for five years and has run up debts of €850m ($1.2 billion). Its factories all ceased production three weeks ago. (written Nov 9th 2013)
In the past, losses in one part of the group have been covered by the others, but this time Fagor’s pleas for a €170m lifeline were rejected. Eroski, another co-operative in the Mondragon group and one of Spain’s largest retailers, is also struggling in the face of stiff competition, and it and two other co-ops vetoed Fagor’s plan.
This was a blow to Sergio Treviño, Fagor’s boss since April. He had planned to move the bulk of production to Poland and to turn Fagor into an ordinary company with outside shareholders. Its Polish unit has now filed for creditor protection and the French unit will follow, triggering cross-default clauses in Spain. As we went to press Fagor looked likely to file for bankruptcy imminently.
Fagor, with 5,600 workers, is a relatively small part of the whole. Even so, Mr Treviño warns that its fall “will have an uncontrollable domino effect on the rest of the group with major social implications.” He believes Fagor’s liquidation would create a €480m hole at Mondragon, including inter-group loans and payments the group’s insurance arm would have to make on Fagor workers’ unemployment policies. Mondragon has promised to find new jobs or offer early-retirement terms for as many as it can of Fagor’s Spanish workers, but this is a tall order in a country with 27% unemployment. Besides their jobs, workers stand to lose the money they had invested in the co-op if it is liquidated.
Britain’s even older co-operative movement (founded in 1844 and nominally owned by its customers rather than its employees) is undergoing a similarly harsh encounter with economic realities. Its banking arm, hit by huge bad debts after taking over another mutual lender, is having to bring in American hedge funds as outside shareholders, because its parent movement was unable to rescue it alone. The co-operative model has its virtues, but there are times when those nasty, money-obsessed capitalists have their uses too.
Let's recap shall we?
Spanish co-op Fagor, has been losing money for 5 years. Why didn't they invest to reduce costs, or cut pay enough to be profitable?
Because they were a co-op.
The CEO of Fagor tried to privatize the company, and was veto'd by fellow co-ops. Thus the company closed all operation, and is filing bankruptcy.
Mondragon, the owner of all the co-ops, is now having a crisis, because all the cross-co-op-lending and financing, is going to be crippled by the massive default of Fagor.
Equally, Brittan's Co-op, founded in 1844, is now selling out to evil capitalist American Hedge Funds, in order to avoid bankruptcy.
I know GMO exists. What's your point? Is that what you repeated four times now?
Yes, we've been modifying plant genes for thousands of years.
Long before Monsanto existed.
I know GMO exists. What's your point? Is that what you repeated four times now?
Yes, we've been modifying plant genes for thousands of years.
Long before Monsanto existed.
I know GMO exists. What's your point? Is that what you repeated four times now?
Yes, we've been modifying plant genes for thousands of years.
Long before Monsanto existed.
Here's a classic example of a socialist playing dumb and thinking it's a winning argument.
I know GMO exists. What's your point? Is that what you repeated four times now?
Yes, we've been modifying plant genes for thousands of years.
Long before Monsanto existed.
We did not create GMO plants until early 1980s, according to Monsanto. Monsanto's March into Biotechnology (A) - Harvard Business Review
1983 is 31 years ago.
31 years is not thousands of years.
Therefore we have not created GMO plants for thousands of years.
We have randomly and selectively modified plants for thousands of years and they have modified themselves through mutation. If that's your idea of GMO, you're being silly. The type of modification that's been going on thousands of years does not include the use of biotechnology. We have only been capable of using biotechnology to genetically modify seeds in the last 32 years. I agree with you that we have modified plants in a variety of ways unconscious and conscious ways but we did not use biotechnology. We simply selected a seed over another because it grew faster for example. GMO as used by Monsanto represents the use of genetic engineering through biotechnology to alter specific genes and their function. Humans have not been doing that for thousands of years.
