Unfettered Capitalism

[Indeependent]

Socialism involves workers self management of the enterprise. If this isnt present, then its something other than socialism.

Worker self-directed enterprises bring democracy to the place where most adults spend one-third of their productive years.

Democratizing the Workplace through “Worker Self-Directed Enterprises”

"Long-term capitalist development is the major force behind the change towards a significant (or prevalent) WSDE sector.

"The development has four key features:

"(a) its tendency towards deepening gaps between the rich and the poor,

"(b) its instability (business cycles),

"(c) its environmental unsustainability, and

"(d) the stark contradiction between capitalism and workplace democracy.

"The biggest obstacle to transition to economies with significant or prevailing WSDE sectors is political and ideological opposition; fears about undertaking transition to WSDE sectors are often expressed as disbelief in their feasibility."

No one stops individuals from joining together and forming their own business entity.

 

[georgephillip]

Socialism is government control over the means of production.

That is one definition of socialism that's at least a century out of style; here's another:

Socialism is where workers control their workplaces democratically as opposed to capitalism's top-down, dictatorial management style.

Mondragon Corporation - Wikipedia

 

[georgephillip]

Insider trading is now a lot more serious than low level, non violent drug offenses. Unless you're a Democrat

Insider trading is also one small part of white collar crime which is far more costly to society than its street cousin:

 

[georgephillip]

His products are more in demand than those of the countries listed.

Fuck off, Troll.

 

[georgephillip]

unlike workers which contribute almost everything to reaching quarterly expectations.

For which they receive compensation.

What do shareholders contribute?

 

[kaz]

What's your solution?

Repeal selected aspects of deregulation:

Stock Buybacks Were Once Illegal. Why Are They Legal Now?

"Buybacks were illegal throughout most of the 20th century because they were considered a form of stock market manipulation.

"But in 1982, the Securities and Exchange Commission passed rule 10b-18, which created a legal process for buybacks and opened the floodgates for companies to start repurchasing their stock en masse.

"The SEC's decision to make this shift came against the backdrop of President Ronald Reagan's era of deregulation and coincided with the rise of 'free market' economists preaching a new type of social responsibility for business: increasing profits."

I agree that Trump is the anti-Reagan.
But Trump has an R next to his name and thus you hate him.
All entities since Reagan have dropped the ball concerning nationalistic concerns, but aren’t you all for Globalism and Open Borders?

Leftists are certainly globalists and always have been, but the open borders thing is more recent. Traditional socialists were not for unlimited immigration because that would have diluted the plunder when they raid the treasury themselves. Even they knew that cradle to grave AND unlimited immigration would bankrupt them.

Bernie for example is a more traditional socialist who isn't for unfettered illegal immigration. The Democrat neocons who have taken over the Democrat party are really a new breed in both wanting to loot the treasury and dilute it with unlimited illegal immigration at the same time. But they clearly need voters now and are motivated by that.

The interesting thing will be since they will ultimately win is once they have redesigned and control the system to ensure they never lose another election if they will suddenly realize that they will bankrupt themselves and change back to traditional immigration or continue to dilute their plunder. They are ideologues, it could go either way

As an ex software developer I was screwed already under Reagan.
GW killed us once and for all.
I honestly see the only difference between the parties is that the Ds will give welfare and their morals are literally in the toilet.

Certain jobs went offshore then, but if you had general IT skills, then there were endless more opportunities opening up. I've certainly made a good living in IT and I started under Reagan. Did you look at retraining and changing your IT focus to different platforms or industry focus?

 

[kaz]

Socialism is government control over the means of production.

That is one definition of socialism that's at least a century out of style; here's another:

Socialism is where workers control their workplaces democratically as opposed to capitalism's top-down, dictatorial management style.
View attachment 385958
Mondragon Corporation - Wikipedia

The only place that has ever happened is on a Kibbutz.

And there aren't multiple definitions. Social is central economic planning.

As for your definition. So do it. If it's better, you can destroy us. But of course you can't, so you want government to outlaw anything else, which is ... government control. We're back to the only definition.

If your definition worked, it would work under capitalism. It would never work under socialism because government wouldn't ever yield control

 

[kaz]

Insider trading is now a lot more serious than low level, non violent drug offenses. Unless you're a Democrat

Insider trading is also one small part of white collar crime which is far more costly to society than its street cousin:

Alas, government is so wonderful, they only care about us. If we would only let them run every aspect of our life we would be sooo much better off, all of us.

I mean capitalism is about people and people are flawed. So capitalism always fails.

Not like government, government isn't run by fallible people, it's run by ...

... hey wait, I think I just found a flaw in your plan

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If Nassau County and/or the Town Of Hempstead owned all business, everyone not related to a politician would be on welfare.

What if the workers of those communities you mentioned owned all the businesses and all businesses were operated democratically?
Episode 10 – Worker Self-Directed Enterprises and Socialism (w/ Dr. Richard Wolff)

Worker Self-Directed Enterprises: The Cure for Capitalism - Resilience

"It does not take a barricade-building socialist to recognize that our daily lives are not imbued with democratic notions and activities.

"We all know at the end of the day that our workplaces are dictatorships where a certain person, or group of persons, usually disconnected from the actual operation of the enterprise, run them with iron fists.

"If you step out of line, your punishment is the loss of your job, which pays the wage that provides for the means to live.

"There is a democracy deficit at work, and that deficit spreads to legislatures locally, nationally, and even internationally.

What if the workers of those communities you mentioned owned all the businesses

You'd better save your money and start buying shares.

"If you step out of line, your punishment is the loss of your job, which pays the wage that provides for the means to live.

Yup. Welcome to adulthood. You can't stomp your foot and hold your breath and get your way.
At least the workmen's council can't vote to have you shot instead of fired, eh tovarisch?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What's your solution?

Repeal selected aspects of deregulation:

Stock Buybacks Were Once Illegal. Why Are They Legal Now?

"Buybacks were illegal throughout most of the 20th century because they were considered a form of stock market manipulation.

"But in 1982, the Securities and Exchange Commission passed rule 10b-18, which created a legal process for buybacks and opened the floodgates for companies to start repurchasing their stock en masse.

"The SEC's decision to make this shift came against the backdrop of President Ronald Reagan's era of deregulation and coincided with the rise of 'free market' economists preaching a new type of social responsibility for business: increasing profits."

"Buybacks were illegal throughout most of the 20th century because they were considered a form of stock market manipulation.

If companies were constantly buying and issuing shares, that might be an issue.

"But in 1982, the Securities and Exchange Commission passed rule 10b-18, which created a legal process for buybacks and opened the floodgates for companies to start repurchasing their stock en masse.

Yup. Freedom to spend their own money, awful, just awful.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

His products are more in demand than those of the countries listed.

Fuck off, Troll.

Laughing at the idiot.

 

[bripat9643]

This is how stupid Democrats are.

You don't want businesses to have to compete for your business. Too risky, they would take advantage of you.

So you want government to eliminate competition and force us all to have the same thing.

Talk about "unaccountable."

The funny part being you proved the point that people use terms they don't understand.

Occupied: I want ONE choice, I don't want some unaccountable choice ...

You mean the Sherman anti-Trust Act came into law due to commies? Who knew?
Talking of stupid....

Stupid is that you somehow got the Sherman anti-Trust act out of my post. That was stupid

Right..."You don't want businesses to have to compete for your business."..sounds like that well-known commie outfit Standard Oil...
Moron....

Standard oil lowered the price of Kerosene, its principle product, every year.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

unlike workers which contribute almost everything to reaching quarterly expectations.

For which they receive compensation.

What do shareholders contribute?

They own the company. What else do they need to contribute?
If the workers want to own the company, they can buy all the shares.

 

[kaz]

This is how stupid Democrats are.

You don't want businesses to have to compete for your business. Too risky, they would take advantage of you.

So you want government to eliminate competition and force us all to have the same thing.

Talk about "unaccountable."

The funny part being you proved the point that people use terms they don't understand.

Occupied: I want ONE choice, I don't want some unaccountable choice ...

You mean the Sherman anti-Trust Act came into law due to commies? Who knew?
Talking of stupid....

Stupid is that you somehow got the Sherman anti-Trust act out of my post. That was stupid

Right..."You don't want businesses to have to compete for your business."..sounds like that well-known commie outfit Standard Oil...
Moron....

Standard oil lowered the price of Kerosene, its principle product, every year.

Standard Oil was dominant at the time, but the idea they could have maintained a monopoly is absurd. What they controlled were a tiny, tiny fraction of today's productive fields. Free markets would have worked fine.

Only government can create a sustainable artificial monopoly. Exactly what the Kiwi Marxist Dr. Grump is advocating.

Ma Bell was a monopoly as long as government eliminated it's competition, then it fell apart.

Microsoft's monopoly was never government protected and wasn't sustainable either.

Something like 11 of the first 13 Dow Transportation stocks were railroads. Technology changes. Being a railroad monopoly now wouldn't get you shit. Landlines are basically gone. I haven't had one in 15 years

 

[bripat9643]

Socialism is government control over the means of production.

That is one definition of socialism that's at least a century out of style; here's another:

Socialism is where workers control their workplaces democratically as opposed to capitalism's top-down, dictatorial management style.
View attachment 385958
Mondragon Corporation - Wikipedia

Truth is always "out of style" with socialists. The reality is, whenever you look at their agenda, what you see is government control of the economy.

 

[kaz]

unlike workers which contribute almost everything to reaching quarterly expectations.

For which they receive compensation.

What do shareholders contribute?

They own the company. What else do they need to contribute?
If the workers want to own the company, they can buy all the shares.

Yes, it's the irony of George's argument. In socialism, government would never cede control to anyone, so his worker owned utopia would never happen.

In capitalism, he can start it up now and eat us capitalists for lunch. He can get together a bunch of self organizing people and if they do the job better than us, they put us out of business.

Or as you said, they can buy the shares of their company.

You can do what you want in capitalism. If his ideas were good rather than butt stupid I'd do it. Capitalists want to succeed. But companies are full of people like George who are pie in the sky and lazy as shit and his company would go nowhere

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You can do what you want in capitalism. If his ideas were good rather than butt stupid I'd do it. Capitalists want to succeed. But companies are full of people like George who are pie in the sky and lazy as shit and his company would go nowhere

And that's why he's old, poor and miserable.
No fault of his own, of course, it was The Man done him wrong.

 

[kaz]

You can do what you want in capitalism. If his ideas were good rather than butt stupid I'd do it. Capitalists want to succeed. But companies are full of people like George who are pie in the sky and lazy as shit and his company would go nowhere

And that's why he's old, poor and miserable.
No fault of his own, of course, it was The Man done him wrong.

George would call in every other day saying he had a demonstration to go to and he can't come in to work.

Other people wouldn't come in because they had to take care of the kids while their wives work and actually earn a living.

The rest would play cards all day

 

[georgephillip]

Democratic socialism is just mob rule. Voting doesn't justify armed robbery

Democratic socialism means the government makes decisions based on the welfare of a majority of its citizens instead of the richest ten percent of its voters.
Democratic Socialism vs. Unfettered Capitalism: There is Absolutely NO Comparison (+3K Views) - munKNEE.com

Democratic socialism - Wikipedia.

"Democratic socialism is defined as having a socialist economy in which the means of production are socially and collectively owned or controlled,[2] alongside a democratic political system of government."

 

[Dr Grump]

My God government schools are apparently as bad in New Zealand as they are here. Sorry, guy. Try reading my post again. Read slower and try to sound it out if you have to. Or maybe you're right and you're a moron. Companies have to compete with other companies for your business. Government eliminates its competition. And you think people work harder when they aren't accountable. You're not a functioning adult

And in unfettered capitalism you have a similar thing except monopolies are eliminating competition...Why do you think the Sherman Act came into being.