I really don’t even understand what you think your point is here. It was obvious your question was a gotcha but I don’t get it.
Trying to understand the mechanics of whatever it is you are proposing.
Workers own businesses or at least a much higher percentage than they do now, does this include current existing businesses or just new ones? If it’s a new one, who and what form supplies the capital to manufacture inventory, hire new workers, etc ahead of actual earnings?
If it’s an existing one, are we transferring equity from current shareholders to the workers or recapitalizing the business in some fashion as to not dilute/steal from the existing shareholders? Where does that money come from?
Ok, I see. So if you’re talking about compensating regular people that used money they earned to become shareholders, I’d be open to some kind of compensation. If you’re talking about giving Bezos 200 billion to compensate him for value he stole from labor, then no.
Currently co ops use member investment as capital. They also have a hard time working with banks, despite co ops being a model that’s proven to work, because they are not capitalist in a capitalist system. So in a future theoretical version, if everyone was a co op then that would obviously change.
Basically you are advocating for ending private investment in business. The threat of quasi-nationalizing of business investments will dry that market up very quickly. Banks will help fill the gap a bit through debt, but your anger will just get transferred to them.
Your co op may be able to function as you describe, but it will come at the expense of general output. You need capital to build large scale anything to maintain and grow output. Less capital equals less upside on output.
I’ve done audits on a few ESOPs (essentially coops), they are all under capitalized, and the ones that have enough cash have huge bank loans. Every time an employee leaves for a new job or retires, the existing members have to buy back that employees equity shares themselves or get bank loans to buy them back. Wages can grow as giving a small raise is seen as better than losing employees and having to buy them out. But it all gets done through debt as there is never enough free capital to invest in growth. Death spiral.
Oh no, I’d view nationalizing the banks as a necessity.
The studies show they have higher productivity, more stability and room for growth. I can’t speak to the ones you specifically dealt with but on the whole they’re finding success and not at all a death spiral.
Growth would not look the same as it does for capitalism but is that a bad thing? I think if you’re looking back at how growth worked, capitalism looks strong, but if you’re looking at where we are now that system has led to mega corporations and destroying small businesses.
I really don’t even understand what you think your point is here. It was obvious your question was a gotcha but I don’t get it.
Trying to understand the mechanics of whatever it is you are proposing.
Workers own businesses or at least a much higher percentage than they do now, does this include current existing businesses or just new ones? If it’s a new one, who and what form supplies the capital to manufacture inventory, hire new workers, etc ahead of actual earnings?
If it’s an existing one, are we transferring equity from current shareholders to the workers or recapitalizing the business in some fashion as to not dilute/steal from the existing shareholders? Where does that money come from?
Ok, I see. So if you’re talking about compensating regular people that used money they earned to become shareholders, I’d be open to some kind of compensation. If you’re talking about giving Bezos 200 billion to compensate him for value he stole from labor, then no.
Currently co ops use member investment as capital. They also have a hard time working with banks, despite co ops being a model that’s proven to work, because they are not capitalist in a capitalist system. So in a future theoretical version, if everyone was a co op then that would obviously change.
Basically you are advocating for ending private investment in business. The threat of quasi-nationalizing of business investments will dry that market up very quickly. Banks will help fill the gap a bit through debt, but your anger will just get transferred to them.
Your co op may be able to function as you describe, but it will come at the expense of general output. You need capital to build large scale anything to maintain and grow output. Less capital equals less upside on output.
I’ve done audits on a few ESOPs (essentially coops), they are all under capitalized, and the ones that have enough cash have huge bank loans. Every time an employee leaves for a new job or retires, the existing members have to buy back that employees equity shares themselves or get bank loans to buy them back. Wages can grow as giving a small raise is seen as better than losing employees and having to buy them out. But it all gets done through debt as there is never enough free capital to invest in growth. Death spiral.
Oh no, I’d view nationalizing the banks as a necessity.
The studies show they have higher productivity, more stability and room for growth. I can’t speak to the ones you specifically dealt with but on the whole they’re finding success and not at all a death spiral.
Growth would not look the same as it does for capitalism but is that a bad thing? I think if you’re looking back at how growth worked, capitalism looks strong, but if you’re looking at where we are now that system has led to mega corporations and destroying small businesses.
Yes! Letting the Government run all Banks!!! What could go wrong????
I really don’t even understand what you think your point is here. It was obvious your question was a gotcha but I don’t get it.
Trying to understand the mechanics of whatever it is you are proposing.
Workers own businesses or at least a much higher percentage than they do now, does this include current existing businesses or just new ones? If it’s a new one, who and what form supplies the capital to manufacture inventory, hire new workers, etc ahead of actual earnings?
If it’s an existing one, are we transferring equity from current shareholders to the workers or recapitalizing the business in some fashion as to not dilute/steal from the existing shareholders? Where does that money come from?
Ok, I see. So if you’re talking about compensating regular people that used money they earned to become shareholders, I’d be open to some kind of compensation. If you’re talking about giving Bezos 200 billion to compensate him for value he stole from labor, then no.
Currently co ops use member investment as capital. They also have a hard time working with banks, despite co ops being a model that’s proven to work, because they are not capitalist in a capitalist system. So in a future theoretical version, if everyone was a co op then that would obviously change.
Basically you are advocating for ending private investment in business. The threat of quasi-nationalizing of business investments will dry that market up very quickly. Banks will help fill the gap a bit through debt, but your anger will just get transferred to them.
Your co op may be able to function as you describe, but it will come at the expense of general output. You need capital to build large scale anything to maintain and grow output. Less capital equals less upside on output.
I’ve done audits on a few ESOPs (essentially coops), they are all under capitalized, and the ones that have enough cash have huge bank loans. Every time an employee leaves for a new job or retires, the existing members have to buy back that employees equity shares themselves or get bank loans to buy them back. Wages can grow as giving a small raise is seen as better than losing employees and having to buy them out. But it all gets done through debt as there is never enough free capital to invest in growth. Death spiral.
Oh no, I’d view nationalizing the banks as a necessity.
The studies show they have higher productivity, more stability and room for growth. I can’t speak to the ones you specifically dealt with but on the whole they’re finding success and not at all a death spiral.
Growth would not look the same as it does for capitalism but is that a bad thing? I think if you’re looking back at how growth worked, capitalism looks strong, but if you’re looking at where we are now that system has led to mega corporations and destroying small businesses.
Yes! Letting the Government run all Banks!!! What could go wrong????
As opposed to the way we currently do things where nothing ever goes wrong? 2008 ring a bell?
This value for labor thing is killing me. Most people have no value. Likely negative value. In this fags world these people would be drowned like the spartans did to retarded babies.
I really don’t even understand what you think your point is here. It was obvious your question was a gotcha but I don’t get it.
Trying to understand the mechanics of whatever it is you are proposing.
Workers own businesses or at least a much higher percentage than they do now, does this include current existing businesses or just new ones? If it’s a new one, who and what form supplies the capital to manufacture inventory, hire new workers, etc ahead of actual earnings?
If it’s an existing one, are we transferring equity from current shareholders to the workers or recapitalizing the business in some fashion as to not dilute/steal from the existing shareholders? Where does that money come from?
Ok, I see. So if you’re talking about compensating regular people that used money they earned to become shareholders, I’d be open to some kind of compensation. If you’re talking about giving Bezos 200 billion to compensate him for value he stole from labor, then no.
Currently co ops use member investment as capital. They also have a hard time working with banks, despite co ops being a model that’s proven to work, because they are not capitalist in a capitalist system. So in a future theoretical version, if everyone was a co op then that would obviously change.
Basically you are advocating for ending private investment in business. The threat of quasi-nationalizing of business investments will dry that market up very quickly. Banks will help fill the gap a bit through debt, but your anger will just get transferred to them.
Your co op may be able to function as you describe, but it will come at the expense of general output. You need capital to build large scale anything to maintain and grow output. Less capital equals less upside on output.
I’ve done audits on a few ESOPs (essentially coops), they are all under capitalized, and the ones that have enough cash have huge bank loans. Every time an employee leaves for a new job or retires, the existing members have to buy back that employees equity shares themselves or get bank loans to buy them back. Wages can grow as giving a small raise is seen as better than losing employees and having to buy them out. But it all gets done through debt as there is never enough free capital to invest in growth. Death spiral.
Oh no, I’d view nationalizing the banks as a necessity.
The studies show they have higher productivity, more stability and room for growth. I can’t speak to the ones you specifically dealt with but on the whole they’re finding success and not at all a death spiral.
Growth would not look the same as it does for capitalism but is that a bad thing? I think if you’re looking back at how growth worked, capitalism looks strong, but if you’re looking at where we are now that system has led to mega corporations and destroying small businesses.
You’re calling for existing equity to be taken too. I’m sure that will go well.
ESOPs can work here and there, it just takes much longer for them without a source of meaningful capital. Which means less output for the general economy as the ramp up occurs. The ones that work are generally very niche as they get slaughtered where there is free competition in competitive markets.
Growth equals more output and buying power, so yes, less growth is a bad thing.
I really don’t even understand what you think your point is here. It was obvious your question was a gotcha but I don’t get it.
Trying to understand the mechanics of whatever it is you are proposing.
Workers own businesses or at least a much higher percentage than they do now, does this include current existing businesses or just new ones? If it’s a new one, who and what form supplies the capital to manufacture inventory, hire new workers, etc ahead of actual earnings?
If it’s an existing one, are we transferring equity from current shareholders to the workers or recapitalizing the business in some fashion as to not dilute/steal from the existing shareholders? Where does that money come from?
Ok, I see. So if you’re talking about compensating regular people that used money they earned to become shareholders, I’d be open to some kind of compensation. If you’re talking about giving Bezos 200 billion to compensate him for value he stole from labor, then no.
Currently co ops use member investment as capital. They also have a hard time working with banks, despite co ops being a model that’s proven to work, because they are not capitalist in a capitalist system. So in a future theoretical version, if everyone was a co op then that would obviously change.
Basically you are advocating for ending private investment in business. The threat of quasi-nationalizing of business investments will dry that market up very quickly. Banks will help fill the gap a bit through debt, but your anger will just get transferred to them.
Your co op may be able to function as you describe, but it will come at the expense of general output. You need capital to build large scale anything to maintain and grow output. Less capital equals less upside on output.
I’ve done audits on a few ESOPs (essentially coops), they are all under capitalized, and the ones that have enough cash have huge bank loans. Every time an employee leaves for a new job or retires, the existing members have to buy back that employees equity shares themselves or get bank loans to buy them back. Wages can grow as giving a small raise is seen as better than losing employees and having to buy them out. But it all gets done through debt as there is never enough free capital to invest in growth. Death spiral.
Oh no, I’d view nationalizing the banks as a necessity.
The studies show they have higher productivity, more stability and room for growth. I can’t speak to the ones you specifically dealt with but on the whole they’re finding success and not at all a death spiral.
Growth would not look the same as it does for capitalism but is that a bad thing? I think if you’re looking back at how growth worked, capitalism looks strong, but if you’re looking at where we are now that system has led to mega corporations and destroying small businesses.
Yes! Letting the Government run all Banks!!! What could go wrong????
As opposed to the way we currently do things where nothing ever goes wrong? 2008 ring a bell?
It was the Government, Democrats to be exact that repealed Dodd-Frank to allow the House of Cards to tumble.
In a corrupt Government, the last thing you want is them picking winners and losers and controlling who gets capital and who doesn’t.
Please provide a precedent that says it’s a good idea to let the Government control all of the Banks.
Something of scale that was once private but now ran by Government to the benefit of the masses.
I really don’t even understand what you think your point is here. It was obvious your question was a gotcha but I don’t get it.
Trying to understand the mechanics of whatever it is you are proposing.
Workers own businesses or at least a much higher percentage than they do now, does this include current existing businesses or just new ones? If it’s a new one, who and what form supplies the capital to manufacture inventory, hire new workers, etc ahead of actual earnings?
If it’s an existing one, are we transferring equity from current shareholders to the workers or recapitalizing the business in some fashion as to not dilute/steal from the existing shareholders? Where does that money come from?
Ok, I see. So if you’re talking about compensating regular people that used money they earned to become shareholders, I’d be open to some kind of compensation. If you’re talking about giving Bezos 200 billion to compensate him for value he stole from labor, then no.
Currently co ops use member investment as capital. They also have a hard time working with banks, despite co ops being a model that’s proven to work, because they are not capitalist in a capitalist system. So in a future theoretical version, if everyone was a co op then that would obviously change.
Basically you are advocating for ending private investment in business. The threat of quasi-nationalizing of business investments will dry that market up very quickly. Banks will help fill the gap a bit through debt, but your anger will just get transferred to them.
Your co op may be able to function as you describe, but it will come at the expense of general output. You need capital to build large scale anything to maintain and grow output. Less capital equals less upside on output.
I’ve done audits on a few ESOPs (essentially coops), they are all under capitalized, and the ones that have enough cash have huge bank loans. Every time an employee leaves for a new job or retires, the existing members have to buy back that employees equity shares themselves or get bank loans to buy them back. Wages can grow as giving a small raise is seen as better than losing employees and having to buy them out. But it all gets done through debt as there is never enough free capital to invest in growth. Death spiral.
Oh no, I’d view nationalizing the banks as a necessity.
The studies show they have higher productivity, more stability and room for growth. I can’t speak to the ones you specifically dealt with but on the whole they’re finding success and not at all a death spiral.
Growth would not look the same as it does for capitalism but is that a bad thing? I think if you’re looking back at how growth worked, capitalism looks strong, but if you’re looking at where we are now that system has led to mega corporations and destroying small businesses.
You’re calling for existing equity to be taken too. I’m sure that will go well.
ESOPs can work here and there, it just takes much longer for them without a source of meaningful capital. Which means less output for the general economy as the ramp up occurs. The ones that work are generally very niche as they get slaughtered where there is free competition in competitive markets.
Growth equals more output and buying power, so yes, less growth is a bad thing.
To be clear, even in my wildest dreams this isn’t happening anytime soon. I’m sure it would not go well now, the job is to give it a chance to go well then.
The capitalist demand for never ending growth is one of the most destructive forces in our world. It’s why imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism. At some point, your market runs out of ways to screw labor and consumers to continue “growing” and you need to invade other markets to abuse their labor and market. It’s why we have more slaves today than at any time in human history. It’s why our capitalist government is so keen to go to war. It’s one of the reasons socialism “always” fails.
Less growth is a bad thing in a capitalist economy that demands never ending growth. It is not true, it’s just the way the system functions and it is a fatal flaw.
I really don’t even understand what you think your point is here. It was obvious your question was a gotcha but I don’t get it.
Trying to understand the mechanics of whatever it is you are proposing.
Workers own businesses or at least a much higher percentage than they do now, does this include current existing businesses or just new ones? If it’s a new one, who and what form supplies the capital to manufacture inventory, hire new workers, etc ahead of actual earnings?
If it’s an existing one, are we transferring equity from current shareholders to the workers or recapitalizing the business in some fashion as to not dilute/steal from the existing shareholders? Where does that money come from?
Ok, I see. So if you’re talking about compensating regular people that used money they earned to become shareholders, I’d be open to some kind of compensation. If you’re talking about giving Bezos 200 billion to compensate him for value he stole from labor, then no.
Currently co ops use member investment as capital. They also have a hard time working with banks, despite co ops being a model that’s proven to work, because they are not capitalist in a capitalist system. So in a future theoretical version, if everyone was a co op then that would obviously change.
Basically you are advocating for ending private investment in business. The threat of quasi-nationalizing of business investments will dry that market up very quickly. Banks will help fill the gap a bit through debt, but your anger will just get transferred to them.
Your co op may be able to function as you describe, but it will come at the expense of general output. You need capital to build large scale anything to maintain and grow output. Less capital equals less upside on output.
I’ve done audits on a few ESOPs (essentially coops), they are all under capitalized, and the ones that have enough cash have huge bank loans. Every time an employee leaves for a new job or retires, the existing members have to buy back that employees equity shares themselves or get bank loans to buy them back. Wages can grow as giving a small raise is seen as better than losing employees and having to buy them out. But it all gets done through debt as there is never enough free capital to invest in growth. Death spiral.
Oh no, I’d view nationalizing the banks as a necessity.
The studies show they have higher productivity, more stability and room for growth. I can’t speak to the ones you specifically dealt with but on the whole they’re finding success and not at all a death spiral.
Growth would not look the same as it does for capitalism but is that a bad thing? I think if you’re looking back at how growth worked, capitalism looks strong, but if you’re looking at where we are now that system has led to mega corporations and destroying small businesses.
You’re calling for existing equity to be taken too. I’m sure that will go well.
ESOPs can work here and there, it just takes much longer for them without a source of meaningful capital. Which means less output for the general economy as the ramp up occurs. The ones that work are generally very niche as they get slaughtered where there is free competition in competitive markets.
Growth equals more output and buying power, so yes, less growth is a bad thing.
To be clear, even in my wildest dreams this isn’t happening anytime soon. I’m sure it would not go well now, the job is to give it a chance to go well then.
The capitalist demand for never ending growth is one of the most destructive forces in our world. It’s why imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism. At some point, your market runs out of ways to screw labor and consumers to continue “growing” and you need to invade other markets to abuse their labor and market. It’s why we have more slaves today than at any time in human history. It’s why our capitalist government is so keen to go to war. It’s one of the reasons socialism “always” fails.
Less growth is a bad thing in a capitalist economy that demands never ending growth. It is not true, it’s just the way the system functions and it is a fatal flaw.
Again please note a system of scale that the Government has seized and run to create a benefit for the masses.
And all of your slaves toil in Socialist, Authoritarian regimes.
I really don’t even understand what you think your point is here. It was obvious your question was a gotcha but I don’t get it.
Trying to understand the mechanics of whatever it is you are proposing.
Workers own businesses or at least a much higher percentage than they do now, does this include current existing businesses or just new ones? If it’s a new one, who and what form supplies the capital to manufacture inventory, hire new workers, etc ahead of actual earnings?
If it’s an existing one, are we transferring equity from current shareholders to the workers or recapitalizing the business in some fashion as to not dilute/steal from the existing shareholders? Where does that money come from?
Ok, I see. So if you’re talking about compensating regular people that used money they earned to become shareholders, I’d be open to some kind of compensation. If you’re talking about giving Bezos 200 billion to compensate him for value he stole from labor, then no.
Currently co ops use member investment as capital. They also have a hard time working with banks, despite co ops being a model that’s proven to work, because they are not capitalist in a capitalist system. So in a future theoretical version, if everyone was a co op then that would obviously change.
Basically you are advocating for ending private investment in business. The threat of quasi-nationalizing of business investments will dry that market up very quickly. Banks will help fill the gap a bit through debt, but your anger will just get transferred to them.
Your co op may be able to function as you describe, but it will come at the expense of general output. You need capital to build large scale anything to maintain and grow output. Less capital equals less upside on output.
I’ve done audits on a few ESOPs (essentially coops), they are all under capitalized, and the ones that have enough cash have huge bank loans. Every time an employee leaves for a new job or retires, the existing members have to buy back that employees equity shares themselves or get bank loans to buy them back. Wages can grow as giving a small raise is seen as better than losing employees and having to buy them out. But it all gets done through debt as there is never enough free capital to invest in growth. Death spiral.
That's been my experience with both co-ops and ESOPs. Neither are risk takers and there is a huge pressure for distributions to the co-op members and to the ESOP worker/owner. Neither are very successful despite being generally free from federal and state corporate income tax due to huge tax advantages. They have a tough time raising equity capital and end up highly leveraged. Amazon doesn't pay dividends. It just grows as it invades slow to change markets.
I really don’t even understand what you think your point is here. It was obvious your question was a gotcha but I don’t get it.
Trying to understand the mechanics of whatever it is you are proposing.
Workers own businesses or at least a much higher percentage than they do now, does this include current existing businesses or just new ones? If it’s a new one, who and what form supplies the capital to manufacture inventory, hire new workers, etc ahead of actual earnings?
If it’s an existing one, are we transferring equity from current shareholders to the workers or recapitalizing the business in some fashion as to not dilute/steal from the existing shareholders? Where does that money come from?
Ok, I see. So if you’re talking about compensating regular people that used money they earned to become shareholders, I’d be open to some kind of compensation. If you’re talking about giving Bezos 200 billion to compensate him for value he stole from labor, then no.
Currently co ops use member investment as capital. They also have a hard time working with banks, despite co ops being a model that’s proven to work, because they are not capitalist in a capitalist system. So in a future theoretical version, if everyone was a co op then that would obviously change.
Basically you are advocating for ending private investment in business. The threat of quasi-nationalizing of business investments will dry that market up very quickly. Banks will help fill the gap a bit through debt, but your anger will just get transferred to them.
Your co op may be able to function as you describe, but it will come at the expense of general output. You need capital to build large scale anything to maintain and grow output. Less capital equals less upside on output.
I’ve done audits on a few ESOPs (essentially coops), they are all under capitalized, and the ones that have enough cash have huge bank loans. Every time an employee leaves for a new job or retires, the existing members have to buy back that employees equity shares themselves or get bank loans to buy them back. Wages can grow as giving a small raise is seen as better than losing employees and having to buy them out. But it all gets done through debt as there is never enough free capital to invest in growth. Death spiral.
Oh no, I’d view nationalizing the banks as a necessity.
The studies show they have higher productivity, more stability and room for growth. I can’t speak to the ones you specifically dealt with but on the whole they’re finding success and not at all a death spiral.
Growth would not look the same as it does for capitalism but is that a bad thing? I think if you’re looking back at how growth worked, capitalism looks strong, but if you’re looking at where we are now that system has led to mega corporations and destroying small businesses.
Yes! Letting the Government run all Banks!!! What could go wrong????
As opposed to the way we currently do things where nothing ever goes wrong? 2008 ring a bell?
It was the Government, Democrats to be exact that repealed Dodd-Frank to allow the House of Cards to tumble.
In a corrupt Government, the last thing you want is them picking winners and losers and controlling who gets capital and who doesn’t.
Please provide a precedent that says it’s a good idea to let the Government control all of the Banks.
Something of scale that was once private but now ran by Government to the benefit of the masses.
In a corrupt government, sure. Capitalism and the capitalist are the cause of our corruption.
China has state owned businesses and most other industries are controlled by the CCP. Direct ownership isn't required to be socialist. China is more brokeass broke than the US. It's more of a corrupt socialist theftocracy dependent on intellectual property theft and collusion with power brokers in the US and Europe. Just remember, you voted for the corruption. Playing for the away team.
China has state owned businesses and most other industries are controlled by the CCP. Direct ownership isn't required to be socialist. China is more brokeass broke than the US. It's more of a corrupt socialist theftocracy dependent on intellectual property theft and collusion with power brokers in the US and Europe. Just remember, you voted for the corruption. Playing for the away team.
If the workers don’t own the means of production, it isn’t socialism.
China has state owned businesses and most other industries are controlled by the CCP. Direct ownership isn't required to be socialist. China is more brokeass broke than the US. It's more of a corrupt socialist theftocracy dependent on intellectual property theft and collusion with power brokers in the US and Europe. Just remember, you voted for the corruption. Playing for the away team.
If the workers don’t own the means of production, it isn’t socialism.
Sure. And if a man says he is a woman, then he is a woman. Follow the money. It ain't capitalism when the money is stolen.
China has state owned businesses and most other industries are controlled by the CCP. Direct ownership isn't required to be socialist. China is more brokeass broke than the US. It's more of a corrupt socialist theftocracy dependent on intellectual property theft and collusion with power brokers in the US and Europe. Just remember, you voted for the corruption. Playing for the away team.
If the workers don’t own the means of production, it isn’t socialism.
Sure. And if a man says he is a woman, then he is a woman. Follow the money. It ain't capitalism when the money is stolen.
I know you don’t feel good about your argument because you dragged culture war bullshit into it.
Capitalism is literally stealing from labor. Labor creates value, the capitalist pays labor less than the value created, this is called profit. Just because you give people the illusion of choice doesn’t mean you’re not stealing from them. Do I want to get screwed by this capitalist or that capitalist or starve? Hmmmmm.
You use compromise as a bludgeon to stop progress. You think climate change is a Chinese hoax and now you want to compromise on it? No, you want to suck moderates in to thinking things like universal healthcare and climate change are “extreme” so you can kneecap them with compromise.
Four years ago, on this board, I said even though I didn’t agree with Trump on basically everything I would give him a shot. That’s what unity looks like and look how you guys are acting now. Miss me with this victim complex bullshit.
Keep it up the compromise will be where we leave the lefties when we take the country back. Remember the not so civil war the last time the parties had it out. Stock up on soy you'll need it.
It’s not the democrats still flying the confederate flag.
Another lie. My in-laws were door knocked by the Sons and Daughters of the Confederacy. They were campaigning for Jon Ossoff. The klan has been and continues to be a dem vote.
I will take things that never happened for $1000 please
The United Daughters of the Confederacy routinely canvass rural GA prior to elections just like every other racist dem organization. This is nothing new or surprising. I moved here in 90 and am told that as late as the late 80's the KKK would canvas for dems during elections. That all went away once the Republicans took over the state legislature for the first time in GA since reconstruction. Haven't seen the KKK since.
Its interesting how many things the KKK/UDC and the democratic party still have in common. They hate Jews, Catholics, think people of different skin color are inferior intellectually, force black American children to stay in inferior schools, etc. Very little has changed. Somehow the dem party has gotten black on black crime to do the dirty work while they sit back and do virtually nothing to stop it.
China has state owned businesses and most other industries are controlled by the CCP. Direct ownership isn't required to be socialist. China is more brokeass broke than the US. It's more of a corrupt socialist theftocracy dependent on intellectual property theft and collusion with power brokers in the US and Europe. Just remember, you voted for the corruption. Playing for the away team.
If the workers don’t own the means of production, it isn’t socialism.
Sure. And if a man says he is a woman, then he is a woman. Follow the money. It ain't capitalism when the money is stolen.
I know you don’t feel good about your argument because you dragged culture war bullshit into it.
Capitalism is literally stealing from labor. Labor creates value, the capitalist pays labor less than the value created, this is called profit. Just because you give people the illusion of choice doesn’t mean you’re not stealing from them. Do I want to get screwed by this capitalist or that capitalist or starve? Hmmmmm.
So, why do American workers make so much more than Chinese workers? Don't hurt yourself. There is no inherent value to labor. There is just supply and demand. Labor is just a product. If you want a brain surgeon, his value is more than if you want a person to mow your lawn. When a person trades his labor to his employer he does so because he wants money more than not working. The employer does so because he needs the labor more than money. Both win. Now if you want to increase the supply of labor through open borders, then the laborer will be paid less. When your basic definition of value is nonsensical and you choose to ignore Econ 101 and the protection of property rights then you get Venezuela not Chile. You get South Korea not North Korea. You get number 72 in world per capita income China versus the US.
It's almost like you never received an education and are proudly ignorant. Go see the dazzler and get your hug and a ribbon.
Comments
The studies show they have higher productivity, more stability and room for growth. I can’t speak to the ones you specifically dealt with but on the whole they’re finding success and not at all a death spiral.
Growth would not look the same as it does for capitalism but is that a bad thing? I think if you’re looking back at how growth worked, capitalism looks strong, but if you’re looking at where we are now that system has led to mega corporations and destroying small businesses.
ESOPs can work here and there, it just takes much longer for them without a source of meaningful capital. Which means less output for the general economy as the ramp up occurs. The ones that work are generally very niche as they get slaughtered where there is free competition in competitive markets.
Growth equals more output and buying power, so yes, less growth is a bad thing.
In a corrupt Government, the last thing you want is them picking winners and losers and controlling who gets capital and who doesn’t.
Please provide a precedent that says it’s a good idea to let the Government control all of the Banks.
Something of scale that was once private but now ran by Government to the benefit of the masses.
The capitalist demand for never ending growth is one of the most destructive forces in our world. It’s why imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism. At some point, your market runs out of ways to screw labor and consumers to continue “growing” and you need to invade other markets to abuse their labor and market. It’s why we have more slaves today than at any time in human history. It’s why our capitalist government is so keen to go to war. It’s one of the reasons socialism “always” fails.
Less growth is a bad thing in a capitalist economy that demands never ending growth. It is not true, it’s just the way the system functions and it is a fatal flaw.
The slaves today are in socialist paradises like China
We should be like them - Joe Biden
And all of your slaves toil in Socialist, Authoritarian regimes.
But you already know this.
Capitalism is literally stealing from labor. Labor creates value, the capitalist pays labor less than the value created, this is called profit. Just because you give people the illusion of choice doesn’t mean you’re not stealing from them. Do I want to get screwed by this capitalist or that capitalist or starve? Hmmmmm.
Its interesting how many things the KKK/UDC and the democratic party still have in common. They hate Jews, Catholics, think people of different skin color are inferior intellectually, force black American children to stay in inferior schools, etc. Very little has changed. Somehow the dem party has gotten black on black crime to do the dirty work while they sit back and do virtually nothing to stop it.
It's almost like you never received an education and are proudly ignorant. Go see the dazzler and get your hug and a ribbon.