Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[McJongJing]

Discuss economics and politics HERE

[Ollistar]

I believe a majority of welfare services should be eradicated.

[McJongJing]

I believe a majority of welfare services should be eradicated.

[RQ]

Here, I disagree on your first point.

Whoever's running the business should be the primary benefactor of the business. Whoever's rendering a service, ie, the workers, should benefact from their services rendered.

Ofcourse the business should benefit the owners. It's arguable that business should benefit society but the main point in socialism is that businesses are be owned by the workers themselves.

The latter still holds all the power because they're key to the operation and have an interest in the continued success of the operation, so they have the leverage to demand what they think is best, but most things are run by an enterprising leader.

The workers don't own all the power. The owners do because they have claim to everything made in their business via the enforcement of private property rights.
This "leverage" to make things better that you talk about is literally what socialism is about, why do you keep disagreeing with me?

Also, with what you're describing, you still acknowledging that there'll be enterprisers and workers, but saying that they're still "equal."

Overall, everything you describe seems to have no sympathy for innovators.

The way enterprises work right now is by maximizing the returns of the shareholders, often times by sacrificing the profit allocated to reinvesting which means that there's less money to spend on things like training, safety and employee benefits.
This would not happen in a socialist system because the workers would be able to decide for themselves which way the money gets allocated, since they actually own part of the company.

And why do you think innovators would be hurt by that sort of system?
True innovation that is good will get support. The only people that would really get negatively affected by socialism are people who are already benefit a lot from capitalism, which is unfortunately not most of the public.
Also reminder that everything I'm talking about is in the context of economics, not necessarily politics.

[ScumbagSoldier]

Here, I disagree on your first point.

Whoever's running the business should be the primary benefactor of the business. Whoever's rendering a service, ie, the workers, should benefact from their services rendered.

Ofcourse the business should benefit the owners. It's arguable that business should benefit society but the main point in socialism is that businesses are be owned by the workers themselves.

The concept of a business being run by the workers isn't foreign to capitalism, it's called an independent business. The problem is, it gets more and more unwieldy the more people you introduce, and works best with a small team, generally where everyone contributes something unique. In large groups, an individual in a position of leadership with the best interest of the project in mind is best.

The latter still holds all the power because they're key to the operation and have an interest in the continued success of the operation, so they have the leverage to demand what they think is best, but most things are run by an enterprising leader.

The workers don't own all the power. The owners do because they have claim to everything made in their business via the enforcement of private property rights.
This "leverage" to make things better that you talk about is literally what socialism is about, why do you keep disagreeing with me?

Are you misunderstanding me? The leverage I'm talking about is economic worth. That doesn't exist in socialism. The owner and the worker both provide for the operation, because the owners provide leadership, infrastructure, and finance, wheras the workers provide labor and expertise in the crafting of the product. In this sense, they form a symbiotic relationship, and both need each other.

Also, with what you're describing, you still acknowledging that there'll be enterprisers and workers, but saying that they're still "equal."

Overall, everything you describe seems to have no sympathy for innovators.

The way enterprises work right now is by maximizing the returns of the shareholders, often times by sacrificing the profit allocated to reinvesting which means that there's less money to spend on things like training, safety and employee benefits.
This would not happen in a socialist system because the workers would be able to decide for themselves which way the money gets allocated, since they actually own part of the company.

Shareholders are contributors to the business, the same as everyone else. I don't necessarily agree that everyone operates this way, and I don't necessarily agree that it's even a good idea, but this is more or less addressed by my previous points. Leverage, man. Leverage.

And why do you think innovators would be hurt by that sort of system?
True innovation that is good will get support. The only people that would really get negatively affected by socialism are people who are already benefit a lot from capitalism, which is unfortunately not most of the public.
Also reminder that everything I'm talking about is in the context of economics, not necessarily politics.

Frankly, I'm not even sure where innovators fit in to that sort of system, so let's start there.

[McJongJing]

Question.
If the workers hold all the shares, then how will start ups work?
Let's say I start up a super risky business. If I fuck up then I lose and go into debt.
A few years later it's a success. How is it fair that the workers suddenly get to own my business?
Fuck you I took on all the risk.

[murasa]

If you want to die for communism then so viet

[McJongJing]

If you want to die for communism then so viet

How did communism go in Vietnam?
I heard they did the usual purges.
I also heard that they had two famines, but that might have been because of things like agent Orange ruining their environment.

[Ming]

If you want to die for communism then so viet

I chuckled.

[RQ]

In large groups, an individual in a position of leadership with the best interest of the project in mind is best.

But it doesn't work this way. The person who gets into the position of leadership (usually CEO) is hired by a board of directors who are pressured by shareholders to make more profit.
The CEO gets paid huge amounts of money to find ways to maximize the profit the company is making. If the economy is having difficulties at the time, one of the first places to cut costs is workers.

Are you misunderstanding me? The leverage I'm talking about is economic worth.

What economic worth is there for poor workers in capitalism?
They're extremely disposable which is why places can afford to have really high turnover rates.

The owner and the worker both provide for the operation, because the owners provide leadership, infrastructure, and finance, wheras the workers provide labor and expertise in the crafting of the product. In this sense, they form a symbiotic relationship, and both need each other.

Yes ofcourse they both need each other, but the workers are fragmented (no unions) and therefore hold a lot less power than their employers who have a larger amount of capital. At which point it's hard to even prosecute them for anything illegal they do in their business.

Shareholders are contributors to the business, the same as everyone else. I don't necessarily agree that everyone operates this way, and I don't necessarily agree that it's even a good idea, but this is more or less addressed by my previous points. Leverage, man. Leverage.

Shareholders are the primary force that influences businesses to take allocate their resources differently. Shareholders have no incentive to maintain good conditions for workers because it's often a deterrent for profit.

Frankly, I'm not even sure where innovators fit in to that sort of system, so let's start there.

Where do innovators fit into the current system?
If you have a good idea you go to a bank or kickstarter or you talk to people with expertise who you know. If your idea is good enough then it gets support and help in funding. This wouldn't change in a more socialist system.

All of this makes me question though, what kind of changes do you advocate for? Because I feel like they would be pretty in-line with socialist policies

[ScumbagSoldier]

Most of these comments have been addressed by my earlier posts, but...

Frankly, I'm not even sure where innovators fit in to that sort of system, so let's start there.

Where do innovators fit into the current system?
If you have a good idea you go to a bank or kickstarter or you talk to people with expertise who you know. If your idea is good enough then it gets support and help in funding. This wouldn't change in a more socialist system.

1. This is a capitalist way of doing things.
2. What happens at step 2? From what I can tell, the innovator, in theory, gets devoured and becomes a faceless pawn of his own creation.

All of this makes me question though, what kind of changes do you advocate for? Because I feel like they would be pretty in-line with socialist policies

1. Government only enforces the law, and stays out of business.
2.A greater promotion of awareness amongst the general public in regards to what their economic worth is, and how it can benefit them, as well as what businesses are acting in their best interest, and what can be done if they are not.
3.A greater emphasis on freelance and self employed work for certain professions, in order to decrease consolidation.

[Ollistar]

I don't think he sounds socialist at all. He sounds way more libertarian.

[RQ]

1. This is a capitalist way of doing things.

How is it exclusively capitalist?
The same sort of thing would happen in a socialistic economic system

2. What happens at step 2? From what I can tell, the innovator, in theory, gets devoured and becomes a faceless pawn of his own creation.

Well they could still have the most shares in the company as well as all the prestige that comes along being an innovator, but why wouldn't they want to find people to work with together to improve their idea?
A lot of start-ups come up like that already, with a group of people who worked on the project together.

1. Government only enforces the law, and stays out of business.

Obviously that'd would be good but capitalism is an avenue for that since it gives wealthy people the ability to send themselves/their kids into positions of power through education and networking

2.A greater promotion of awareness amongst the general public in regards to what their economic worth is, and how it can benefit them, as well as what businesses are acting in their best interest, and what can be done if they are not.

Yep socialism aims to do that

3.A greater emphasis on freelance and self employed work for certain professions, in order to decrease consolidation.

I think freelance work is great but consolidation is a symptom of the competitive nature of capitalism

I don't think he sounds socialist at all. He sounds way more libertarian.

Libertarianism is a political stance, I'm talking about socialism as an economical system. You can be a libertarian and a socialist.

[Ollistar]

Libertarianism is a political stance, I'm talking about socialism as an economical system.

Yeah I suppose a better term would have been like neoliberalism or something?

I've never actually given

You can be a libertarian and a socialist.

any thought but that's really interesting since I'm fairly libertarian and I generally oppose socialism (at least as it's generally presented in the US). I haven't read enough to see if I agree with this stance yet or not. I'll read more and get back to you on that, thanks for the read!

[McJongJing]

MING MING MING MING MING MING MING MING