Can we have a civil, thoughtful discussion on this?

Discussion in 'Economics & Trade' started by Kode, Jan 11, 2017.

  1. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,309
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well then, I succeeded in creating an "invigorating" thread!

    BTW, I solved my personal issue with lousy American-made appliances by buying a German dishwasher. And what a machine! It's smooth, so quiet you almost can't hear it run, it opens itself when it's done, it's easy and logical to load with plenty of room, it closes like a Rolls Royce door closes: you just press it to the closed position and it latches. Oh, it's a Miele.
     
  2. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    None of the links you provided show a need new laws to incentivize creation of a worker-controlled co-op. The only difference between them and a traditional corporation would be the fact that the investors would also be the employees performing the labours, and there would be no need for government to create any new laws to accomplish that.

    A traditional corporation might be created by 20 persons investing capital and hiring 500 employees to produce a product.
    A worker-controlled co-op could be created by the 500 persons who would ultimately be the employees investing the same amount of capital and producing the same product.
    In the first case 20 persons are risking their capital, while in the latter 500 persons are risking their capital.
    If for example the business required $10,000,000 to start, the 20 investors in the first example might each put up $500,000 while the risk of the employees hired would only be the longevity of their employment should the business fail, while the 20 investors may not like the loss, it was an acceptable/affordable risk.
    In the second example the employee/investors might each put up $20,000 by taking on a second mortgage or risking the entire savings and failure of the business result in a devastating loss.

    In both cases, how the profits/losses are distributed/shared and/or affect the operation of the business are determined as they should be, by the investors whose capital was risked.
     
  3. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are there no worker-owned co-ops making dish washers?
    Miele ownership:
    Miele and Zinkann families
    (approx. 51% and 49% respectively;
    currently 56 family shareholders)
     
  4. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,309
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Then why do you suppose states are creating legislation to address and regulate the formation of co-ops? Are they all wasting their time in your expert opinion?
     
  5. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think you answered your first question.
    I have no problem with politicians wasting their time, only with their wasting of taxpayers money.

    There is NOTHING stopping or impeding the creation of worker owned/operated co-ops that doesn't apply to the creation of a private owned and operated business. Both require the taking of an initial capital risk, based on the idea/concept of producing something which will result in satisfying a consumer need/want adequate to produce a return of capital greater than that which was risked initially.

    The only reason government might want to become involved by creating new laws applicable to co-ops, in my expert opinion of course, would be so that government could collectivize the costs of failures. We have too much of that already.
     
  6. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,309
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, given my experience of you and who you are, I'm sure not going to consider the least thing you say about the subject to be worthy of serious consideration. You haven't explored the subject and so you have no idea of the obstacles and challenges, let alone the importance of making such a change in our economy. I therefore take your input much like I take Trump's input on how to meet and greet women. It's BS.
     
  7. Roon

    Roon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,431
    Likes Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So instead of making a counter argument you just attack the poster.

    Cool story.
     
  8. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,309
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Some posts just aren't worthy of anything more than telling the poster who he is.
     
  9. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    you have learned 62 times that Hitler was for big govt while I"m libertarian which is for tiny govt. Will you need the 101 times before you can grasp it?
     
  10. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    spoken with all the intelligence of a typical liberal who cant grasp that both sides think that of the other and thus ad hominem would be standard not democratic debate.
     
  11. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    sure there is, they don't work. Companies are free to do what they want as regards management and ownership structure; if co-ops worked to any degree every company would be one by now and crushing the competition which didn't follow suit. An advocate for co-op's is simply advertising that he lacks the IQ to understand how capitalism and freedom works.
     
  12. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    only because liberal states like to get their noses in everything and collect taxes from everywhere. So now we have learned that there are no co op's because they are an idiotic way to organize a business that will fail, and that you need special lawyers to help you follow govt rules as you fail and all parties are treated fairly as the co op fails.
     
  13. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ???China just switched to capitalism and eliminated 40% of all the poverty on the planet. Eliminating poverty is good not bad and indicates that capitalism is more miraculous than ever. This is logic a child can understand but not a liberal.
     
  14. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,309
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.n...performance_of_worker_coops_12.pdf?1494436936

    https://usworker.coop/member-directory/

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_worker_cooperatives

    And why worker cooperatives?
    • Local Ownership. Typical large corporations are owned by shareholders who do not live in the communities in which the business operates or from where it sources its products. These shareholders are usually less concerned about maintaining healthy workplaces and making sure the business does not harm its community than the worker-owners of a local cooperative business.

    • Increased Job Security in Economic Downturns. In economic downturns, most corporations are narrowly focused on maintaining value for their shareholders, rather than maintaining employment for their workers. By contrast, because worker-owners call the shots in their cooperative, they value preserving jobs foremost, rather than maintaining shareholder value. Because they have increased job security as owners of the business, they can also plan for the long-term and invest in the continued health of their business and their community.

    • Worker Health and Happiness. Because workers have an ownership stake in the cooperative business, they can make business decisions that directly promote and support worker health and happiness. Even the most benevolent owner/employer is unlikely to make business decisions that benefit workers if such decisions have a negative impact on profit. Conversely, worker-owners are interested in generating a profit, but also invested in ensuring that they work in a healthy environment, characterized by job stability, fair wages and benefits, and safe business practices.

    • Environmental Responsibility. The people who own and run worker cooperatives also tend to live, work, and play in the neighborhood where the business is located. Because worker cooperatives are deeply rooted in the local community, they are less inclined to engage in environmentally destructive business practices than companies controlled by outside investors. Using toxic chemicals, squandering natural resources, or damaging open spaces would have a negative impact on the very people in control of the business, as well as on their families, friends, and neighbors.

    • Contribution to Community. Worker cooperatives help build community wealth through local ownership. Workers who own their jobs have a direct stake in the local environment, and the power to decide to do business in a way that creates community benefit. Worker cooperatives are likely to form relationships with other local businesses, hire local workers, and reinvest their profits back into the neighborhood.
    http://www.co-oplaw.org/co-op-basics/types/worker-cooperatives/

    All the above shows you just how correct my judgement of you and your participation and knowledge of this was.
     
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2017
  15. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,309
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You fail. See my above post #1064.

    You speak with confidence about something you know so little about. Is it that you don't know how little you know, or is it that you hope to snow everyone?
     
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2017
  16. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    if a business could get ahead by encouraging more and more worker participation and ownership it would. It always fails so they don't do it. Case closed.
     
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2017
  17. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We hope. But the more extreme the greed and rapacity of the privileged, the more extreme the reaction is likely to be. Rob people of the fruits of their labor by force of privilege, and they will quite understandably think it's OK to rob you by plain force.
     
  18. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, that's objectively false. They have no way to own it. They just use it. Sometimes they try to stop others from using it, but they have to do that themselves, which is not ownership.
    Except that unlike natural law, it's objectively false.
    Just as slavery seemed natural until a couple hundred years ago.
     
  19. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is the landowners who are committing the crime, as proved by the death toll they exact: 12M-15M/yr.
     
  20. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's enough to make depriving them of access to those resources a violation of their rights.
    They need to REMOVE them in order to make them a product of labor rather than a natural resource, and thus rightly own them.
    See above for what I said.
    Land of reduced elevation.
     
  21. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    12 million dead a year??? where exactly????
     
  22. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's syndicalism. Socialism is COLLECTIVE ownership of the means of production (land and capital).
     
  23. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Worldwide in capitalist countries.
     
  24. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, China is not capitalist because the land is still all publicly owned -- state owned.
    No, the landowner privilege and parasitism required by capitalism keeps people poor, as in Pakistan, the Philippines, Guatemala, Bangladesh, Honduras, India, etc. It is only by rejecting both socialism (by establishing private ownership of the products of labor) and capitalism (by NOT permitting private ownership of land) that China has raised hundreds of millions out of poverty. If China can stop landholders from taking over and enslaving everyone else, they will leave the capitalist world in the dust.
     
  25. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113

    animals and humans originally had no way to buy land with money of course but they nevertheless took possession of it just the same to live,sleep, hunt gather etc. When others encroached they killed them or drove them off as a natural matter of survival. Modern man simply has a more peaceful way to manage the natural procession of land that always existed. In fact, private land is natural for humans and our animal ancestors. Today, private land is the primary source of capital on earth. When men own land each can secure a loan against that capital and thus economic growth, unleashed by the participation of each individual, is possible on a scale that otherwise would be impossible.
     

Share This Page