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.
Have you ever had a friend who has lived in a shelter? I have. I think if you had, you would not be talking this way about a fellow human being. Society, as a general rule, shies away from the types of things you have said above. As a matter of fact, I frequently think they go too far the other way, with assisted suicide being illegal in most parts of the world. The U.S. has only 4 U.S. states where assisted suicide is definitely allowed:
Assisted suicide in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
No, I've never had anyone I consider a friend. Having a 'friend' in a shelter wouldn't change my mind, anyway. I apply the same standards to every human being, if they fail those standards it's their own fault. Failing is always your own fault, and it's always up to yourself to rise above that failure.
Too far in the other way being the government giving any form of hand outs to failures.
In employee run companies, there aren't 2 sides. The union -is- the company: it owns it, fills out the admin positions and the lower run positions. There is no other side. The idea is to have it like a family, where everyone cares about what happens to everyone.
Like I said before, that's not someone running their own business, that's giving a Union management positions, while they're not actually qualified for it, and that would drive businesses out of the Nation.
Staying afloat is a measure of success, but I agree that unions don't actually need anything more then that. The problem is that, unlike executives, most employees own little if any stock in the companies they work for. In worker owned companies, workers own the majority of the stocks, so the incentive to do well is high, along with the disincentive to do poorly (as their stocks would plunge if they did).
That's not expansion, that's just not failing. That means it would be creating few, if any, jobs. That makes it harder for other people to find jobs. It also creates less profit for the owner.
I'm advocating that those doing the work own the businesses. If they weren't qualified for the work, the companies would tank whether or not they were employee owned.
You're advocating taking ownership away from the people who created the business to start with, and giving ownership to unqualified people. That's an inherently stupid concept, and would result in an inefficiently run business, creating fewer jobs, and less profit.
https://www.nceo.org/articles/employee-ownership-100No, this isn't about ditching management and replacing them with union representatives, this is about the whole company caring about all the employees, not having a company divided between the 'managers' and the 'managed'. It's already been done by a fair amount of companies:
The Employee Ownership 100: America's Largest Majority Employee-Owned Companies
Incentives do motivate people, yes, but as with Union Labor in any case, they don't care as long as they can keep their own positions and profit. That's why Unions demand high pay and barely work.I don't follow your reasoning. I think you would agree that incentives to do well energize people to do well. This is extending this beyond 'management' to encompass the 'managed' as well.
If that were the case, it wouldn't be someone's business to own. They would not be a business owner. I don't think anyone builds a business thinking "Gee, I wanna share this with a bunch of random people and be unable to make executive decisions." No, I don't think someone who builds their own business should have to consult people before doing what they please with it, that's so many different levels of silly, I can't even give you a number. Business owners build their business to control for themselves and make a profit, not so some slimy Socialist(s) can force them to share parts of it, or all of it.Nothing so simple as that. I'm thinking it should be a gradual process, with many employees buying into a share of the companies/corporations they work for. I think that -all- shares should be voting shares when it comes to electing the board of directors. I think it's high time that more business become democratic.
Before I begin, I'd like to say that while I've posted in many online forums over the years, I've never started a thread of this nature anywhere. It was something that definitely interested me, but not to the extent that I thought I should start a thread about it. That has now changed. I began to seriously get engaged in a thread discussing this subject, even though the thread itself had nothing to do with the economy. I think it's high time I transfer it over to one that does.
So now, for my politics: I am generally left wing, though I also believe in the market, so long as it is properly regulated. I think one of the biggest problem that economies today face is the double whammy of the rapacious nature of many corporations, and the way money is created. For those who are unfamiliar with how money is created, I invite you to take a look at the following 45 minute animated documentary on the subject:
I think it's fair to say that I'm a Berniecrat, despite the fact that I'm Canadian and so would never have been able to vote for him. I think he generally had the right idea on how to turn things around. What I'd like to discuss here, in a constructive way, is what people here think of Bernie's policy platform, and why. As I mentioned, I had previously been discussing the subject of how to efficiently run an economy in a thread that really had nothing to do with this, so I'll now be replying to those who I was discussing things with over there into this thread instead.
I didn't say anything about ditching or dividing, you're talking about forcing a business owner to either put unqualified people in management positions with them, or just generally sharing management with unqualified people. It doesn't matter how many different ways you try to explain this, sharing a business with what's basically a Union is a terrible idea.
Considering the United States is better, even with our garbage president, not really.I didn't say anything about ditching or dividing, you're talking about forcing a business owner to either put unqualified people in management positions with them, or just generally sharing management with unqualified people. It doesn't matter how many different ways you try to explain this, sharing a business with what's basically a Union is a terrible idea.
It seems to be working in Germany .
Mitbestimmungsgesetz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You bring up a very good point, one that I'm not sure the article I was quoting brings up. Namely, that most money is concentrated in the hands of the very wealthy. Bernie puts it quite well:
“We live in the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, but that reality means little because almost all of that wealth is controlled by a tiny handful of individuals. There is something profoundly wrong when the top one-tenth of 1 percent owns almost as much as the bottom 90 percent, and when 99 percent of all new income goes to the top 1 percent. There is something profoundly wrong when one family owns more wealth than the bottom 130 million Americans. This type of immoral, unsustainable economy is not what America is supposed to be about. This has got to change, and together we will change it.”
Source: 10 Ways That Bernie Sanders Has Described Democratic Socialism That Prove It Isn't a Radical Idea at All
And businesses being rich is a problem how?
They earned it.
[/quote]People will always be poor, and it's their own faults.
Also, Climate Change is a myth.
Our country isn't a Democracy.
I also already told you that the employees feed the business' expansion, and that's why they pay them what's needed by default.
You can say it all you like, but it doesn't mean it's true.
Oh, so I guess before minimum wage, everyone got paid a penny per day, right?
Just like businesses have to compete to earn consumers, they have to compete for employees. If an employee isn't paid enough, they'll seek employment elsewhere.
That's in addition to the fact that employers MUST pay their employees enough, or nobody can afford their goods and services.
All people who earn money have jobs,
What businesses today need is money in the present, not in the future. How much do you know about the 2008 stock crash? It was financed by Wall Street, using bad loans as collateral. Then, when it became obvious that their loans had been made to people who couldn't possibly pay them at the interest rates they were at (if at all), the government bails them out, meaning that -all- taxpayers foot the bill for the banks malfeasance. Here is a trailer to a documentary on the subject of the 2008 market crash that you may be interested in taking a look at:
I don't agree with Federal Aid, that means I don't agree with bailouts or subsidies, either. I don't agree with individual OR corporate welfare.The president warned those banks, and they chose to ignore him, and because of that this issue happened. They should have let the Wall Street fail.
Who generally finances politicians' campaigns? Who lobbies them? The general population or the rich?
Certain corporations, but as I detailed before, they can't be prevented from doing that.
Considering the United States is better, even with our garbage president, not really.I didn't say anything about ditching or dividing, you're talking about forcing a business owner to either put unqualified people in management positions with them, or just generally sharing management with unqualified people. It doesn't matter how many different ways you try to explain this, sharing a business with what's basically a Union is a terrible idea.
It seems to be working in Germany .
Mitbestimmungsgesetz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In my opinion, to answer the question OP original stated, the most EFFICIENT way to run an economy is through almost pure capitalism. If you understand supply and demand it is almost irrefutable to try to say anything but pure free markets create the most EFFICIENT means of an economy. I think the reason this scares peoples is because pure capitalism is quite literally survival of the fittest, and slavery for those who can't think of a way to rise up. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that pure capitalism is practical in all cases. There are regulations in certain industries such as child labor, indentured servitude, and other markets for a variety of factors, mostly good ones.
Child labor creates issues where the child is unaware of the potential risks, as are parents. They are typically also desperate which makes their decision making process unreasonable, and unjust. Indentured servitude is much the same way along with others. Even with pure capitalism, it should theoretically sort these issues out over time, such as giving consumers choices about where to employ their children, and the companies that are providing the most unsuitable conditions for children (mining) would eventually be forced to abandon such a tactic as consumers boycott them, and other options for child labor arrive that provide more suitable conditions. There is a flip side to child labor in many poorer countries that isn't being discussed, and that is some of these citizens are quite literally so poor they NEED their children to make some income to help the family.
On the flip side, in favor of capitalism, look at what it has brought us. Even the poorest of poor families today, the homeless, and others, have a standard of living that is leaps and bounds what it was even 50 years ago. The internet has prospered, given us quite literally access to the same learning opportunities as anyone who goes to college. There is something to be said with how this marvelous invention, the internet is being used in a society such as the US today. People use it for Facebook, Twitter, etc. These uses provide almost no benefit to society, YET the citizens that have access to the internet DO have the opportunity to learn through Khan academy, numerous articles, journals, and many many other ways. They choose to remain ignorant, and that is mostly their own fault.
To take a look at socialism, and socialism like policies, those are in my mind the LEAST EFFICIENT way to run an economy. The destruction of incentives through free money is a horrible idea. It is worse slavery than even capitalism creates in many scenarios. People who are subjected to this type of indirect servitude become submissive. They don't want to move on to potentially better ideas as they are afraid of losing out on the free goods and services that were provided to them before. That is the free side of socialism, to look at the other side, the government mandated side, it is also highly inefficient. Much more so than any rational free market could be. Where are the incentives for drug companies to produce new medicines, if they know that the government will pay them less than cost to research, develop, and market this new drug? It drives innovation way down as the movers and shakers that actually make things happen in an economy are incentivized to do the exact opposite. Why would I start a business in Socialist Russia when I know for a fact I can make more money doing the same business in America? No rational person is going to opt to do that. It also affects supply and demand in a horrible way, the government mandating creation of houses in an area happens BEFORE the actual market transactions happen. The affect? Either the government produces to little, or too much and creates inefficiency in the supply and demand curve.
I'm not advocating pure capitalism, I am in favor of some regulations, but I hope a few examples I provided might sway opinions on socialism at least. I truly do not understand the liberal fascination with this idea that has become so prevalent as of late. It is horribly ineffective at driving an economy, especially a partly capitalist economy. Do you really think that by artificially letting every student in America go to college for free that there isn't going to be a rubber band effect? It will happen in the form of jobs paying less for students with degrees as everyone has one. It will also mean the less driven, less motivated become the future generation of teachers who in turn create less and less efficient teachings for the students that are supposed to be getting a QUALITY education. There is a cause and effect for everything.
Withn a company competition is a driving force, but also planning and common goals. Many companies invest in trainning for their employees and making sure they are insured.
Scale it up to a country level: you still have competition, but some basic rules and goals must be set in place. In a modern economy education is a must, automation is rolling out industrial jobs faster than ever. As population ages and resources become scarce healthcare and recycling wil become more important.
With the current technology it is easier to set goals, and create incentives towards such goals and have feedback if there is a deviation.
Housing, healthcare and education are all going through bubble stages right now. And while the housing bubble can be traced back to low interest rates, the cases for healthcare and education are completely different.
Other countries with similar level of quality in these areas can achieve similar results with less resources , this should at least hint the fact that there is a market failure.
Who generally finances politicians' campaigns? Who lobbies them? The general population or the rich?
Certain corporations, but as I detailed before, they can't be prevented from doing that.
I actually posted a video in the very post you were responding that details how it can be done:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-hanley/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialism_b_9986040.htmlThis isn't about businesses per se; there are some mom and pops businesses that barely make ends meet. What we're talking about here are things like the wealthiest 20% of the population owning 80% of the wealth, and the bottom 40% owning .2% of the wealth. Here's a graphical representation of some different income brackets:
Bernie has another quote which addresses this issue of income disparity and its consequences in the work place and politics:
**“If you have no influence over your own working conditions, what kind of power can you have over the economics and politics of the entire country? Why bother to vote? Why bother to pay attention to politics? And millions don’t. In Vermont and throughout the country, the rich ante up $500 or $5,000 at a fundraising event to support the candidate who will represent their interests. Meanwhile, the majority of the poor and working people don’t even vote. No wonder the rich gets richer and everyone else gets poorer. Are we really living in a democracy?”**
Source: 10 Ways That Bernie Sanders Has Described Democratic Socialism That Prove It Isn't a Radical Idea at All
All is fair in love, war, and business. These people found a way to 'cheat' the system, through the use of the government. It's a smart tactic, almost, since the people proposing Socialism will just destroy the economy and create a nation of lazy people in an effort to stop them, so all the informed people will want to stop those Socialists.In general, I would disagree. Here's an excerpt from a Salon article on the subject:
**But, of course wealth and income inequality weren’t always as bad as they are today. What happened? In a word: cheating. Although many people try to explain rising inequality away by arguing we live in a winner-take-all economy or that inequality is the result of skill-biased technological change, these arguments are bunk. Inequality has been driven by public policy choices that favored the rich, the decline of unionsand the rise of finance. As the chart below shows, tax rates on both income and inheritance were high during the relatively equal ’60s, ’70s and ’80s and then fell dramatically paving the way for the inequality we see today (Chart Source).**
The best way to reduce inequality would be to tax income and wealth. While conservatives often claim that this would reduce economic growth, such claims have very little economic support. For instance, Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez and Stefanie Stantcheva find no correlation between economic growth and tax cuts. Because of this, they find, “the top tax rate could potentially be set as high as 83%.” (Chart Source)
Because you can guide camel to water, but you can't force it to drink. Some worthless people just will not work, and prefer to sit and collect other people's money.First of all, how are you so sure that "people will always be poor"? Secondly, how are you so sure that it's "their own faults"?
We'll leave that for another time, I don't like arguing with you religious types.What draws you to that conclusion?
It never was a democracy, it was never intended to be a democracy. So long as there's representation for anyone who isn't a majority, and constitution, it will never be a Democracy. People calling for a Democracy don't know what one is, and the horrors one would come with. America is a Constitutional Republic, and it should always stay a Constitutional Republic.I agree. What do you think it is? For my part, I believe the U.S. is pretty much an oligarchy, though Bernie and others are trying to change it into a true democracy.
Ofcourse not. Some people got a lot more then that (those in executive positions) and some got around that. The minimum wage was originally established at 25 cents an hour in 1938:
**On Saturday, June 25, 1938, to avoid pocket vetoes 9 days after Congress had adjourned, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed 121 bills. Among these bills was a landmark law in the Nation's social and economic development -- Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA). Against a history of judicial opposition, the depression-born FLSA had survived, not unscathed, more than a year of Congressional altercation. In its final form, the act applied to industries whose combined employment represented only about one-fifth of the labor force. In these industries, it banned oppressive child labor and set the minimum hourly wage at 25 cents, and the maximum workweek at 44 hours.1**
Source: Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938: Maximum Struggle for a Minimum Wage
That's no assumption. The larger a business is, the more employees it needs to run and maintain it. It's not like you can run fifty McDonald's with one employee.There is a hidden assumption in your logic: that business owners need employees as much as employees need money. It's a fatal flaw in your theory. In times when cash is scarce, business owners will lay off employees in order to save on expenditures, but those employees will still need money to simply survive. Given this fact, wealthy business owners can do very well financially when there is an over abundance of labour and a low amount of cash that is being used to hire employees. The same cannot be said for the labour.
Those who literally create and control most of the cash (bank executives and, to a much lesser degree, the government) and those they favour will always be able to afford services. As the wealthy continue to get an ever increasing amount of a nation's wealth, businesses increasingly cater to them simply to survive. Those who can no longer afford their services are left to line up for government supports or, failing that, soup kitchens and begging on the street.
All people who acquire money are connected to someone who is viewed favourably to some extent by the banks or the government. Failing this, they would be unable to acquire money, unless through robbery. Ethics frequently has little if anything to do with it. I strongly recommend you take a look at the following documentary detailing the morally reprehensible things that many corporations have done and continue to do:
You would use a method so backwards to measure a Nation's success.Considering the United States is better, even with our garbage president, not really.I didn't say anything about ditching or dividing, you're talking about forcing a business owner to either put unqualified people in management positions with them, or just generally sharing management with unqualified people. It doesn't matter how many different ways you try to explain this, sharing a business with what's basically a Union is a terrible idea.
It seems to be working in Germany .
Mitbestimmungsgesetz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Better? Better at what?
I like to use HDI to see if a country is better than other. Germany and the US have similar HDIs.
List of countries by Human Development Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You would use a method so backwards to measure a Nation's success.Considering the United States is better, even with our garbage president, not really.I didn't say anything about ditching or dividing, you're talking about forcing a business owner to either put unqualified people in management positions with them, or just generally sharing management with unqualified people. It doesn't matter how many different ways you try to explain this, sharing a business with what's basically a Union is a terrible idea.
It seems to be working in Germany .
Mitbestimmungsgesetz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Better? Better at what?
I like to use HDI to see if a country is better than other. Germany and the US have similar HDIs.
List of countries by Human Development Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In my opinion, to answer the question OP original stated, the most EFFICIENT way to run an economy is through almost pure capitalism. If you understand supply and demand it is almost irrefutable to try to say anything but pure free markets create the most EFFICIENT means of an economy. I think the reason this scares peoples is because pure capitalism is quite literally survival of the fittest, and slavery for those who can't think of a way to rise up. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that pure capitalism is practical in all cases. There are regulations in certain industries such as child labor, indentured servitude, and other markets for a variety of factors, mostly good ones.
Child labor creates issues where the child is unaware of the potential risks, as are parents. They are typically also desperate which makes their decision making process unreasonable, and unjust. Indentured servitude is much the same way along with others. Even with pure capitalism, it should theoretically sort these issues out over time, such as giving consumers choices about where to employ their children, and the companies that are providing the most unsuitable conditions for children (mining) would eventually be forced to abandon such a tactic as consumers boycott them, and other options for child labor arrive that provide more suitable conditions. There is a flip side to child labor in many poorer countries that isn't being discussed, and that is some of these citizens are quite literally so poor they NEED their children to make some income to help the family.
On the flip side, in favor of capitalism, look at what it has brought us. Even the poorest of poor families today, the homeless, and others, have a standard of living that is leaps and bounds what it was even 50 years ago. The internet has prospered, given us quite literally access to the same learning opportunities as anyone who goes to college. There is something to be said with how this marvelous invention, the internet is being used in a society such as the US today. People use it for Facebook, Twitter, etc. These uses provide almost no benefit to society, YET the citizens that have access to the internet DO have the opportunity to learn through Khan academy, numerous articles, journals, and many many other ways. They choose to remain ignorant, and that is mostly their own fault.
To take a look at socialism, and socialism like policies, those are in my mind the LEAST EFFICIENT way to run an economy. The destruction of incentives through free money is a horrible idea. It is worse slavery than even capitalism creates in many scenarios. People who are subjected to this type of indirect servitude become submissive. They don't want to move on to potentially better ideas as they are afraid of losing out on the free goods and services that were provided to them before. That is the free side of socialism, to look at the other side, the government mandated side, it is also highly inefficient. Much more so than any rational free market could be. Where are the incentives for drug companies to produce new medicines, if they know that the government will pay them less than cost to research, develop, and market this new drug? It drives innovation way down as the movers and shakers that actually make things happen in an economy are incentivized to do the exact opposite. Why would I start a business in Socialist Russia when I know for a fact I can make more money doing the same business in America? No rational person is going to opt to do that. It also affects supply and demand in a horrible way, the government mandating creation of houses in an area happens BEFORE the actual market transactions happen. The affect? Either the government produces to little, or too much and creates inefficiency in the supply and demand curve.
I'm not advocating pure capitalism, I am in favor of some regulations, but I hope a few examples I provided might sway opinions on socialism at least. I truly do not understand the liberal fascination with this idea that has become so prevalent as of late. It is horribly ineffective at driving an economy, especially a partly capitalist economy. Do you really think that by artificially letting every student in America go to college for free that there isn't going to be a rubber band effect? It will happen in the form of jobs paying less for students with degrees as everyone has one. It will also mean the less driven, less motivated become the future generation of teachers who in turn create less and less efficient teachings for the students that are supposed to be getting a QUALITY education. There is a cause and effect for everything.
Withn a company competition is a driving force, but also planning and common goals. Many companies invest in trainning for their employees and making sure they are insured.
Scale it up to a country level: you still have competition, but some basic rules and goals must be set in place. In a modern economy education is a must, automation is rolling out industrial jobs faster than ever. As population ages and resources become scarce healthcare and recycling wil become more important.
With the current technology it is easier to set goals, and create incentives towards such goals and have feedback if there is a deviation.
Housing, healthcare and education are all going through bubble stages right now. And while the housing bubble can be traced back to low interest rates, the cases for healthcare and education are completely different.
Other countries with similar level of quality in these areas can achieve similar results with less resources , this should at least hint the fact that there is a market failure.
I don't get where you are ascertaining that other countries with similar resources are achieving more with less resources? By all facts I can gather, the US produces more innovation than other countries around the world in drug research. Housing is an artificial bubble created by interest rates, that is correct. Education is a bubble created by easy lending as well, I'd argue there are more college graduates than there should be at this time which is driving down wages. That is the reason many college graduates are forced to work at McDonalds, etc. as the quality employment opportunities are already filled. If interest rates on loans were higher, children would think twice about going to college.
Regarding competition within a company and investment in employees, those are all done for the benefit of the company. It is in the companies best interest to provide healthcare to employees as if they don't (by cutting working hours to less than 30 hours for example), the employees are incentivized to go find work in other companies. So it is really in the companies best interest to provide healthcare to attract the brightest employees. Competition external to the company is a driving force to incentivize the company to innovate quicker through rational thinking causing.... survival of the fittest. I'm not sure why we need to defy evolutionary logic with free money. Let the weak die out through poor willpower, determination, lack of ingenuity and let society progress. The propping up of inefficient people through inefficient use of money will only drain society further.
Except... I don't care about any income disparity, that's just how the world works. If you work hard, you succeed. If you don't, you don't. is that, as someone else said, you can lead someone to water, but you don't make them drink.
We have a better GDP in every area, higher national income, lower population below the poverty line, lower Federal debt, more powerful industry, lower taxes, faster GDP growth rate, lower debt growth rate, higher consumer spending, more economic freedom, a much larger Labor Force, a much larger business registration rate, faster job growth, larger amount of businesses, better share market value, a much larger economy in general, faster economic growth, better business efficiency.You would use a method so backwards to measure a Nation's success.Considering the United States is better, even with our garbage president, not really.I didn't say anything about ditching or dividing, you're talking about forcing a business owner to either put unqualified people in management positions with them, or just generally sharing management with unqualified people. It doesn't matter how many different ways you try to explain this, sharing a business with what's basically a Union is a terrible idea.
It seems to be working in Germany .
Mitbestimmungsgesetz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Better? Better at what?
I like to use HDI to see if a country is better than other. Germany and the US have similar HDIs.
List of countries by Human Development Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That's hardly a statement that can be used to advance the discussion.
What method do you suggest to use? what are your reference to determine the United States is better? Again better at what?
As long as we have businesses, we have jobs. as long as we have jobs, people have money, except lazy people, who don't want jobs, nor work. Going out of our way to help said lazy people only damages the economy, not that we should help them out, anyway.Except... I don't care about any income disparity, that's just how the world works. If you work hard, you succeed. If you don't, you don't. is that, as someone else said, you can lead someone to water, but you don't make them drink.
Nor Louis XVI , nor Nicolas II had any regard for income disparity... and the outcome... indeed ... pretty much how the world works.
Do you have evidence to support that assertion?
Trade Unions / Sweden / Countries / National Industrial Relations / Home - WORKER PARTICIPATION.eu
Details percentage of Union involvement.
About what you'd expect from Regressivism.
