Not for me. Bottom line, your socialist shithole offers me nothing that I can’t get for myself, and a lot less, actually.Higher cost of capital tho
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.
Not for me. Bottom line, your socialist shithole offers me nothing that I can’t get for myself, and a lot less, actually.Higher cost of capital tho
That’s it? That’s all you’ve got? You’re a committed socialist, obviously much more familiar with its nuances than I. Surely you can explain in simple language how socialism offers greater prosperity to a hard worker over an indifferent one.Mistaken Dan.
Who is to say for certainNot for me. Bottom line, your socialist shithole offers me nothing that I can’t get for myself, and a lot less, actually.
Explaining socialism to a hard headed (no offense) libertarian on a Saturday night is a little bit of a pearls before swine situationThat’s it? That’s all you’ve got? You’re a committed socialist, obviously much more familiar with its nuances than I. Surely you can explain in simple language how socialism offers greater prosperity to a hard worker over an indifferent one.
Hard headed libertarian is a close description, but I think “ham fisted libertarian” is closer to the mark.Explaining socialism to a hard headed (no offense) libertarian on a Saturday night is a little bit of a pearls before swine situation
Look. We get it. You’re an under achieving, unambitious slacker. The board tells me you have a PhD in Econ. With that on your resume, you could be a principal in the consulting wing of a Big 6 firm, or perhaps the remnants of Arthur Andersen, or a second-tier firm like Grant Thornton (any of those qualify as “not too shabby”). A high level staff position at any major bank or investment firm is also an option. Seriously, Rose State? I can see where socialism might benefit someone like you.Explaining socialism to a hard headed (no offense) libertarian on a Saturday night is a little bit of a pearls before swine situation
I am a patriot and the United States' destiny is the be the Vanguard standard bearer for socialism. You can leave when we succeed.
Socialism seeks to end the alienation of labor from the fruits of it's labor. Remember socialism isn't 100% taxes and redistribution it's democratic ownership and control of the means of production.Hard headed libertarian is a close description, but I think “ham fisted libertarian” is closer to the mark.
Be that as it may, consider you’re explaining to @Syskatine how socialism benefits hard workers better than indifferent ones. Leave me out of it. I am sincerely asking the question, not trying to “gotcha” at all. I’m 74 years old and this is the first time I’ve heard that socialism strives to have different outcomes for different workers. I am honestly curious.
LolLook. We get it. You’re an under achieving, unambitious slacker. The board tells me you have a PhD in Econ. With that on your resume, you could be a principal in the consulting wing of a Big 6 firm, or perhaps the remnants of Arthur Andersen, or a second-tier firm like Grant Thornton (any of those qualify as “not too shabby”). A high level staff position at any major bank or investment firm is also an option. Seriously, Rose State? I can see where socialism might benefit someone like you.
Okay, but what does “democratic ownership and control” mean? Take me through how that would work.Socialism seeks to end the alienation of labor from the fruits of it's labor. Remember socialism isn't 100% taxes and redistribution it's democratic ownership and control of the means of production.
First ABC would be rolled up as part of a larger organization. Some executives would become redundant and be encouraged to take on more productive careers. The remaining management would then report to a board of directors appointed by a democratically elected commission responsible for the whatever sector of the economy ABC operates in. Any surplus created by ABC is now spent on ABC capex, higher wages or redirected to capex elsewhere in the economy which will produce goods the workers will benefit from.Okay, but what does “democratic ownership and control” mean? Take me through how that would work.
Let’s say ABC Tool Company currently has 100 employees working two shifts in the plant with 4 shift leaders and 6 executives in the office (the ones making key decisions about things like production quotas, wages, etc.), and 8 secretaries/clerical help. ABC Tool Company is owned by the Smith family. It was founded in 1886 and has been in continuous operation ever since.
Socialists assume control of the government, the government confiscates the company and establishes socialist ownership and control. How would things be different for the employees, executives included, and what becomes of the Smith family? Please show how the theory of democratic ownership and control would work for ABC Tool Company.
Nothing could possibly go wrong there...The remaining management would then report to a board of directors appointed by a democratically elected commission responsible for the whatever sector of the economy
You might be surprised to find out how corporations workNothing could possibly go wrong there...
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Yeah. That was probably your same reaction when your folks told you the same thing I just did.
Sounds like someone who has spent too much time in the theoretical world and zero time in the real world.First ABC would be rolled up as part of a larger organization. Some executives would become redundant and be encouraged to take on more productive careers. The remaining management would then report to a board of directors appointed by a democratically elected commission responsible for the whatever sector of the economy ABC operates in. Any surplus created by ABC is now spent on ABC capex, higher wages or redirected to capex elsewhere in the economy which will produce goods the workers will benefit from.
First ABC would be rolled up as part of a larger organization. Some executives would become redundant and be encouraged to take on more productive careers. The remaining management would then report to a board of directors appointed by a democratically elected commission responsible for the whatever sector of the economy ABC operates in. Any surplus created by ABC is now spent on ABC capex, higher wages or redirected to capex elsewhere in the economy which will produce goods the workers will benefit from.
Great questions, Dan.I appreciate the reply, but it is mostly mumbo jumbo generic blather (no offense).
What would that “larger organization” be, and why would it be necessary?
What would the “encouragement” for redundant executives consist of? Who would determine which executives are redundant, and who determines what makes some of their existing jobs at ABC unproductive?
Who democratically elects the board of directors to whom the new management would report? Exactly what power does this board hold over ABC’s new management?
Does the board hire and fire the new management? The workers on the factory floor? The clerical help? Can the new management hire or fire the factory workers or clerical help? Do board members get paid more than management? Management more than factory workers? Factory workers more than clerical help?
We all know that earnings and losses are easily manipulated to benefit those who do the manipulation. Who oversees the books to make sure any surplus is properly reported? Who decides where the surplus is spent?
Maybe I’m off base, but it seems to me you have devised a system that would be rife with corruption and would easily turn into an overbearing bureaucracy even worse than we have today. Can you allay my fears?
Finally, you left out the part about the Smith family. What becomes of them?
Edit: Oh, I forgot the primary question! Does an indifferent factory worker earn less than a hard worker? How is that consummated? Do all the new execs make the same amount, or are some of them better compensated than others? What would be the criteria?
No offense, but I can’t help but believe you see yourself as a member of the overseeing board in your scheme. That would be a nice gig, one I am sure you would deserve!
I'm well aware how they work. I have ownership in multiple companies across many sectors. How does the government go about getting enough shares of corporations to control them?You might be surprised to find out how corporations work
First ABC would be rolled up as part of a larger organization. Some executives would become redundant and be encouraged to take on more productive careers. The remaining management would then report to a board of directors appointed by a democratically elected commission responsible for the whatever sector of the economy ABC operates in. Any surplus created by ABC is now spent on ABC capex, higher wages or redirected to capex elsewhere in the economy which will produce goods the workers will benefit from.
First ABC would be rolled up as part of a larger organization. Some executives would become redundant and be encouraged to take on more productive careers. The remaining management would then report to a board of directors appointed by a democratically elected commission responsible for the whatever sector of the economy ABC operates in. Any surplus created by ABC is now spent on ABC capex, higher wages or redirected to capex elsewhere in the economy which will produce goods the workers will benefit from.
There are many ways. The most straight forward is expropriation.I'm well aware how they work. I have ownership in multiple companies across many sectors. How does the government go about getting enough shares of corporations to control them?
You may be surprised to learn how corporations are run today.Bahahahaha good one Comrade 07pilt.....we would have dumb*sses who couldn’t make it in the private sector due to lack of intelligence/talent/drive mandating how businesses operate.
Efficiency.I appreciate the reply, but it is mostly mumbo jumbo generic blather (no offense).
What would that “larger organization” be, and why would it be necessary?
Same way this happens today when M&A transactions are made, this isn't ground breaking stuff. Encouragement would be via pink slip and job market prospects.What would the “encouragement” for redundant executives consist of? Who would determine which executives are redundant, and who determines what makes some of their existing jobs at ABC unproductive?
The people of the jurisdiction (national or international depending on how things go) elect the sectoral commission who selects the board of directors. The board of directors would hold the same power over management as a board of directors holds today under modern rules of corporate governance.Who democratically elects the board of directors to whom the new management would report? Exactly what power does this board hold over ABC’s new management?
YesDoes the board hire and fire the new management?
No, No, Yes.The workers on the factory floor? The clerical help? Can the new management hire or fire the factory workers or clerical help?
DependsDo board members get paid more than management?
DependsManagement more than factory workers?
DependsFactory workers more than clerical help?
books are overseen by management and auditors. Management in consultation with the board determines how it is spent.We all know that earnings and losses are easily manipulated to benefit those who do the manipulation. Who oversees the books to make sure any surplus is properly reported? Who decides where the surplus is spent?
You may be surprised to learn how modern corporations are governed.Maybe I’m off base, but it seems to me you have devised a system that would be rife with corruption and would easily turn into an overbearing bureaucracy even worse than we have today.
Yes, go look at any proxy statement.Can you allay my fears?
They become workers.Finally, you left out the part about the Smith family. What becomes of them?
Depends on management. The same way it is consummated today. Execs have different compensations. Board discretion.Edit: Oh, I forgot the primary question! Does an indifferent factory worker earn less than a hard worker? How is that consummated? Do all the new execs make the same amount, or are some of them better compensated than others? What would be the criteria?
Dan, it is very hard to become a board member of a consequential corporation in today's world, and it would be even harder after consolidation.No offense, but I can’t help but believe you see yourself as a member of the overseeing board in your scheme. That would be a nice gig, one I am sure you would deserve!
I’m well aware of how they run. My brother-in-law is a Vice President for Crane Corporation.You may be surprised to learn how corporations are run today.
Ahhh, yes, the government forcing people to give up property...There are many ways. The most straight forward is expropriation.
Under pure socialism no. In a mixed economy that leans heavily socialist, yes.Another series of questions about life under socialism. I hope you’ll indulge me.
Under socialism do individuals invest in startup companies? If the answer is yes,
In a mixed economy their own labor, state venture fund, pooled worker resources.where do they get the money to invest?
In a mixed economy they exit via acquisition.And how do they recoup their investment?
In a mixed economy yes.Are they allowed a return greater than they invested?
Under pure socialism yesFrom the beginning is the startup placed under the umbrella of a larger organization with a board that oversees operations similar to the ABC Tool Company?
Imagine working at a corporation and inventing something. Basically that. The only difference is there is no surplus that is paid to capital.What role does the inventor with the vision for the startup get to play? How is he compensated?
What happens to management today if they back a failed startup?Does the startup have to obtain permission from an agency before it can launch? What happens to members of the agency that gives permission to launch if the startup fails miserably?
Dan, I spend far more time studying the rules of the game we are playing rather than the rules of the game I wish we were playing.I assume you have spent years studying all aspects of socialism, so I’m hoping you can answer these questions in language I can understand.
Who does your brother in law report to?I’m well aware of how they run. My brother-in-law is a Vice President for Crane Corporation.
Kind of like “.....but that wasn’t REAL socialism....”Socialism is always gonna work the next time.
How much playing time have you seen, Philip?Dan, I spend far more time studying the rules of the game we are playing rather than the rules of the game I wish we were playing.
Pretty telling that Comrade 07pilt has chosen to ignore this little point.Ahhh, yes, the government forcing people to give up property...
Yep, nothing could go wrong there.
Yes, because it was too insightful.Pretty telling that Comrade 07pilt has chosen to ignore this little point.
Under pure socialism no. In a mixed economy that leans heavily socialist, yes.
In a mixed economy their own labor, state venture fund, pooled worker resources.
In a mixed economy they exit via acquisition.
In a mixed economy yes.
Under pure socialism yes
Imagine working at a corporation and inventing something. Basically that. The only difference is there is no surplus that is paid to capital.
What happens to management today if they back a failed startup?
Dan, I spend far more time studying the rules of the game we are playing rather than the rules of the game I wish we were playing.
@07piltAhhh, yes, the government forcing people to give up property...
Yep, nothing could go wrong there.
I'm ignoring you until you can make a point.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣I'm ignoring you until you can make a point.
Yeah think how capital intensive a law firm is🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Holy shit that's hilarious! Let's get @Syskatine in here to talk about how eager zhe is about surrendering zher business to the "governmentCollective."
Oh, so not all businesses will be government owned? That sounds like it will work out well.Yeah think how capital intensive a law firm is