Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Are Leftists ACTUALLY Interested in Unifying With Conservatives?
Comments
-
Oh no, I’d view nationalizing the banks as a necessity.Bob_C said:
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.TheKobeStopper said:
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.Bob_C said:
Trying to understand the mechanics of whatever it is you are proposing.TheKobeStopper said:
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.Bob_C said:I guess it appears then. Or is it taken?
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?
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.
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.
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????TheKobeStopper said:
Oh no, I’d view nationalizing the banks as a necessity.Bob_C said:
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.TheKobeStopper said:
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.Bob_C said:
Trying to understand the mechanics of whatever it is you are proposing.TheKobeStopper said:
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.Bob_C said:I guess it appears then. Or is it taken?
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?
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.
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.
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.
-
As opposed to the way we currently do things where nothing ever goes wrong? 2008 ring a bell?Kaepsknee said:
Yes! Letting the Government run all Banks!!! What could go wrong????TheKobeStopper said:
Oh no, I’d view nationalizing the banks as a necessity.Bob_C said:
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.TheKobeStopper said:
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.Bob_C said:
Trying to understand the mechanics of whatever it is you are proposing.TheKobeStopper said:
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.Bob_C said:I guess it appears then. Or is it taken?
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?
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.
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.
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. -
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.
-
You’re calling for existing equity to be taken too. I’m sure that will go well.TheKobeStopper said:
Oh no, I’d view nationalizing the banks as a necessity.Bob_C said:
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.TheKobeStopper said:
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.Bob_C said:
Trying to understand the mechanics of whatever it is you are proposing.TheKobeStopper said:
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.Bob_C said:I guess it appears then. Or is it taken?
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?
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.
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.
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. -
It was the Government, Democrats to be exact that repealed Dodd-Frank to allow the House of Cards to tumble.TheKobeStopper said:
As opposed to the way we currently do things where nothing ever goes wrong? 2008 ring a bell?Kaepsknee said:
Yes! Letting the Government run all Banks!!! What could go wrong????TheKobeStopper said:
Oh no, I’d view nationalizing the banks as a necessity.Bob_C said:
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.TheKobeStopper said:
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.Bob_C said:
Trying to understand the mechanics of whatever it is you are proposing.TheKobeStopper said:
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.Bob_C said:I guess it appears then. Or is it taken?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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. -
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.Bob_C said:
You’re calling for existing equity to be taken too. I’m sure that will go well.TheKobeStopper said:
Oh no, I’d view nationalizing the banks as a necessity.Bob_C said:
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.TheKobeStopper said:
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.Bob_C said:
Trying to understand the mechanics of whatever it is you are proposing.TheKobeStopper said:
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.Bob_C said:I guess it appears then. Or is it taken?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 fatal flaw of socialism is the fatal need to kill millions so a no growth economy can starve the survivors
The slaves today are in socialist paradises like China
We should be like them - Joe Biden -
Again please note a system of scale that the Government has seized and run to create a benefit for the masses.TheKobeStopper said:
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.Bob_C said:
You’re calling for existing equity to be taken too. I’m sure that will go well.TheKobeStopper said:
Oh no, I’d view nationalizing the banks as a necessity.Bob_C said:
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.TheKobeStopper said:
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.Bob_C said:
Trying to understand the mechanics of whatever it is you are proposing.TheKobeStopper said:
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.Bob_C said:I guess it appears then. Or is it taken?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
And all of your slaves toil in Socialist, Authoritarian regimes.
But you already know this. -
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.Bob_C said:
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.TheKobeStopper said:
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.Bob_C said:
Trying to understand the mechanics of whatever it is you are proposing.TheKobeStopper said:
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.Bob_C said:I guess it appears then. Or is it taken?
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?
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.
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.
