Are Leftists ACTUALLY Interested in Unifying With Conservatives?

TheKobeStopper said:

Kaepsknee said:

TheKobeStopper said:

Bob_C said:

TheKobeStopper said:

Bob_C said:

TheKobeStopper said:

Bob_C said:

I guess it appears then. Or is it taken?

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?

TheKobeStopper said:

RaceBannon said:

I like building on the foundation we have.

I understand. I just think the building is collapsing.

Fenderbender123 said:

It seems like the left is too content in their interpretation of data. I believe in science, and so do a lot of conservatives, more than they perceive to. But just because studies show that global warming will likely be harmful and that we can curb it with aggressive regulations or that universal health care increases life expectancy by 6 months, doesn't mean that there should be automatica support for these policies. That's only about 10 - 20% of what there is to consider. There is the matter of principal, return on investment, economic impacts, and various other things to consider. That's the problem with the left and why they are so unwilling to compromise. They just can't see past level 1 of considerations.

However, much of the right hasn't done themselves or anyone else any favors in how they choose to combat their disagreements. They allow the left to establish the conditions for victory, and try to beat them at that game. In other words, they play the game as if these studies and stuff are the end game, and proceed to employ arguments as to why the data is wrong. Instead, they need to say "that's fine that your data says this will help. But it's unprincipled to put this burden on _____ because ______." And instead be leaders of promoting change among people individually and voluntarily, or other alternatives. They play the game all wrong, because they're either too lazy or too gutless.

That's what I see as the disconnect between the opposing parties, and the biggest obstacle to overcome in terms of being able to find compromises.