"throw capitalism at it" ad absurdum

[coloradoatheist]

And we've asked you to prove your point. Go out and start another Mondago with 50,000 people and let us know how it goes.

It is there, thriving.

It is not figment of the imagination.

You are a child refusing to see what is clearly in front of you.

Damaged by an immoral system.

And yet you have refused over the years to go create one yourself. You are the one deluded into thinking it's easy and efficient.

 

[KeepTalking]

It is there, thriving.

It is not figment of the imagination.

You are a child refusing to see what is clearly in front of you.

Damaged by an immoral system.

And yet you have refused over the years to go create one yourself. You are the one deluded into thinking it's easy and efficient.

You did? Can you provide a reference in the form of a link, or post number?

Regardless, that is an unreasonable request. A reasonable request would be to ask for an example of a successful large scale, long running business that is a co-op. That is exactly what unter did, and it should have been good enough to show his point as valid.

 

[coloradoatheist]

And yet you have refused over the years to go create one yourself. You are the one deluded into thinking it's easy and efficient.

You did? Can you provide a reference in the form of a link, or post number?

Regardless, that is an unreasonable request. A reasonable request would be to ask for an example of a successful large scale, long running business that is a co-op. That is exactly what unter did, and it should have been good enough to show his point as valid.

He has argued they are more efficient numerous times. Being able to start one is very much a sign of efficiency.

 

[KeepTalking]

You did? Can you provide a reference in the form of a link, or post number?

Regardless, that is an unreasonable request. A reasonable request would be to ask for an example of a successful large scale, long running business that is a co-op. That is exactly what unter did, and it should have been good enough to show his point as valid.

He has argued they are more efficient numerous times. Being able to start one is very much a sign of efficiency.

So, you are not able to produce that link, or post number?

Also, I don't recall him saying that they are more efficient, so much as decrying the inefficiency of a top-down dictatorial style of running a business. I don't actually agree with unter on that, but that is what I see as his argument in this thread. If I am wrong on that, I am sure someone will provide me with a link, quote, or post number.

 

[Elixir]

And we've asked you to prove your point. Go out and start another Mondago with 50,000 people and let us know how it goes.

It is there, thriving.

A little wikification:

The Mondragon Corporation is a corporation and federation of worker cooperatives based in the Basque region of Spain. ... <snip>
With big changes on the horizon like Spain's joining the European Economic Community, scheduled for 1986, it was decided to take an important step in the organisational area by setting up the Mondragon Co-operative Group in 1984, the forerunner to the current corporation.
On 16 October 2013, Fagor filed for bankruptcy under Spanish law in order to renegotiate €1,1 billion of debt, after suffering heavy losses during the eurocrisis and as a consequence of poor financial management, putting 5,600 employees at risk of losing their jobs. This was followed by the bankruptcy of the whole Fagor group on 6 November 2013. On July 2013, Fagor was bought by Catalan company Cata for €42.5 million. Cata pledged to create 705 direct jobs in the Basque Country as well as ensuring the continuity of the brand names Fagor, Edesa, Aspes, and Splendid.

At Mondragon, there are agreed-upon wage ratios between executive work and field or factory work which earns a minimum wage. These ratios range from 3:1 to 9:1 in different cooperatives and average 5:1.
That is, the general manager of an average Mondragon cooperative earns no more than 5 times as much as the theoretical minimum wage paid in their cooperative.

Sounds little different from any small business corporation that doesn't describe itself as a co-op. It is obviously beset by many of the same challenges that face any corporation, and requires management, which if not executed well, will result in the loss of jobs for the "slaves".
Yup, sounds like mine... except I'd love to earn 9 times as much as my lowest paid employee. Heck - 5x sounds pretty good.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The efficiency that a top down organization has is the following

1) It can start easily
2) It can grow easily
3) It can shift major directions quickly
4) It can shrink quickly if needed
5) And it can go out of business easily
6) It can make decisions very quickly and operate on them


The downside is that the other type of efficiency is that it has a harder time producing the most output per person because it will not have full buyin.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

I don't want to give you my best example of long running low profile scam which I have been semi-famously following for 10 years. But I can give you more high profile case of cold-fusion scam run by Andrea Rossi, also other energy related scams - BlackLight.

It's interesting. What is it selling and who is actually buying it?

- - - Updated - - -

The government runs one of the biggest ones with Social Security.

I heard people say that and disagree.

Not to get sidetracked, but the program is stealing from one group of people to give money to another group of people in return that a later date some other group will be stolen from.

That's one of the dumber ways I've ever heard to frame social security.

 

[coloradoatheist]

It's interesting. What is it selling and who is actually buying it?

- - - Updated - - -

The government runs one of the biggest ones with Social Security.

I heard people say that and disagree.

Not to get sidetracked, but the program is stealing from one group of people to give money to another group of people in return that a later date some other group will be stolen from.

That's one of the dumber ways I've ever heard to frame social security.

It's just transferring money from one group of people to another group based on the idea that someone's mistake of looking short term instead of long term.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Dictatorship is bad because there are no choices.

In the business world that isn't the case. If you don't like McDonalds, go to Jack in the Box.

The competition between businesses eliminates most of the problem of the dictatorial nature of the business structure while retaining the efficiency that a dictatorship brings. (You have it backwards--a dictatorship is more efficient than a democracy.)

No. Dictatorship is inherently immoral in whatever form it takes.

It is the reduction of one human to the tool of another. It is a violation of human dignity and freedom.

Besides the fact that it is incredibly inefficient and an extreme waste of human intellectual capital.

So you've never had a baby? Parent + baby = dictatorship.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Your illusions do not match up with reality.

1) Businesses do not start out with bank loans. It's always either personal assets or loans from friends.

2) While I have not been privy to the start of any of the businesses I have seen how the operate. The boss is always highly involved, probably working the longest hours. Bank loans only exist when secured by substantial physical assets. (Land, heavy machinery, vehicles.)

So are all con-men. They have to be acting full time.

I don't see the connection.

You are taking it on faith that all businessmen are evil so what we say just goes in one ear and out the other if it doesn't match your ideas.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

This and things like it are the future or there is no future.

Capitalism leads to destruction and collapse.

Note that that article has a content warning on it.

 

[untermensche]

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

This and things like it are the future or there is no future.

Capitalism leads to destruction and collapse.

Note that that article has a content warning on it.

The warning is that it was written by people who know what is going on. They are close to the thing they are writing about.

A lot better than being totally ignorant of the situation, like most here.

This is a huge functioning cooperative run on democratic, not top down dictatorial, guidelines. 75,000 people.

It is large enough that any conceivable human activity could be carried out by it or by another company organized along the same lines.

This argument that cooperatives don't work on the large scale is just a lie told by dictators or supporters of dictatorship.

 

[untermensche]

No. Dictatorship is inherently immoral in whatever form it takes.

It is the reduction of one human to the tool of another. It is a violation of human dignity and freedom.

Besides the fact that it is incredibly inefficient and an extreme waste of human intellectual capital.

So you've never had a baby? Parent + baby = dictatorship.

All relationships are judged individually.

They are not all the same thing. Having no ability to discriminate between very different cases is no argument.

With a child you are dealing with someone that has undeveloped faculties. So they have to be told what to do many times.

But workers are not children and ordering them around in a top down dictatorship is immoral. Are you a child? Do you want to be treated as one?

It is forcing adults to be as if children. It is denying them full human expression at the workplace. Not only immoral but incredibly wasteful.

 

[iolo]

I think the tacit proposal is to not let anyone have enough money to be an investor, and thereby everyone will be wealthy enough to underwrite their own ventures. Put two or three of them together and they could start a space exploration company, build interstate highways or whatever they want.

The infinite wisdom of the government will decide every project and decide what every workers best interest is.

You really don't understand anything, do you? The government - any government - is the central committee of the ruling class, and serves its interest. The vast working majority won't need one after the first few years, while they are re-educating the invincibly selfish and the deeply brainwashed to behave like normal people.

 

[iolo]

So are all con-men. They have to be acting full time.

I don't see the connection.

You are taking it on faith that all businessmen are evil so what we say just goes in one ear and out the other if it doesn't match your ideas.

What you forget is that these people own all the means of propaganda and have been brainwashing you since you were born. Try to think out where profit comes from! God doesn't send it down like manna, you know. I don't go in for terms like 'evil' - capitalism didn't intentionally slaughter all those Russians, Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals and so on - it was just a means to protect their profits, as will be the destruction of the world unless we stop it pretty fast.

 

[Canard DuJour]

But that was never the objection. "He" in your scenario is a merchant doing a load of legwork and admin. The objection arises when "he" hasn't the money to pay the various workers - including himself - and must approach an additional actor - called a capitalist - who stumps up money, does no work, and whose cut depends on how little the others will accept.

Hm. So, changing the scenario a little to account for your objection - the guy who conducted these transactions didn't have the upfront money to buy the leather or pay the cobbler or drivers, so he asked a wealthy person for a loan to make these transactions possible. It is your opinion that the lender did absolutely nothing.

He needn't do anything because it's all been done, per your specification. It's my opinion that his cut depends on how little the others will accept.

According to what I read here, the investor or lender just throws money at projects and reaps rewards for doing so. Of course if a project fails, they do not get a return on their money. They only get paid back if the project succeeds. It might be in their best interest to actually take the time to learn about the business models they are investing in, to take the time to analyze the risk of failure and the potential margin of success. They might need to take some time to say "I see a flaw with your business model here, at this step, you might want to address this in order to make your endeavor more successful."

None of that is work though.

All they are doing is soaking the person doing the actual work.

If they fund a venture because they think the risk/reward ratio is favorable, they are villains. And if they fail to fund a venture because they think the risk/reward ratio is unfavorable, they are villains. So they are villains whether they fund ventures or not.

The issue is if they make any profit off their funding. I mean there is a time preference with money, having money to day is better than the promise of having it tomorrow, so there needs to be a reason why some one would part with their money today. A promise of more money tomorrow would do, but that is the essence of sheer evil apparently. It is also the essence of paying someone to do a job, they are selling their labor in the promise of a paycheck at the end of the week - more money later - but we don't count that.

I don't know whether you're just trying to change the subject, but this lot has too little relation to anything I've said. It isn't that capitalists lack some virtue conferred by work, but that they have an incentive to bid workers' wages down. Unchecked, in aggregate, this tends to undermine capitalism itself. They need regulating for their own good.

If we remove profit, what motive is there for investors?

Depends. Capitalist investors? None. A society might invest in, say, a non-profit healthcare system because people value the healthcare in and of itself. Other public goods like lighthouses, motorways, law enforcement, universal education don't directly profit anyone, but facilitate commerce. As the OP notes, there's now a quasi-religious fundamentalism which advocates throwing capitalism at things where market mechanisms aren't possible or aren't likely to benefit consumers.

Especially investors who don't conform to your stereotype of blindly flinging money at ventures that always succeed.

Honestly, wtf are you on about?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The infinite wisdom of the government will decide every project and decide what every workers best interest is.

You really don't understand anything, do you? The government - any government - is the central committee of the ruling class, and serves its interest. The vast working majority won't need one after the first few years, while they are re-educating the invincibly selfish and the deeply brainwashed to behave like normal people.

And once the government is eliminated and we achieve the an-com paradise, the masses will assemble into a *blankout* that will make all the decisions the government used to make. This *blankout* won't actually be a government, because even though it does everything the government does it isn't the government because you say so.

 

[Horatio Parker]

23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism (chapter titles of Ha-Joon Chang's book of the same name. A capitalist BTW.)

Thing 1 There is no such thing as a free market

Thing 2 Companies should not be run in the interest of their owners

Thing 3 Most people in rich countries are paid more than they should be

Thing 4 The washing machine as changed the world more than the internet has

Thing 5 Assume the worst about people and you get the worst

Thing 6 Greater macroeconomic stability has not made the world economy more stable

Thing 7 Free market policies rarely make poor countries rich

Thing 8 Capital has a nationality

Thing 9 We do not live in a post industrial age

Thing 10 The US does not have the highest living standard in the world

Thing 11 Africa is not destined for underdevelopment

Thing 12 Governments can pick winners

Thing 13 Making rich people richer doesn't make the rest of us richer

Thing 14 US managers are over priced

Thing 15 People in poor countries are more entrepreneurial than people in rich countries

Thing 16 We are not smart enough to leave things to the market

Thing 17 More education by itself is not going to make a country richer

Thing 18 What is good for General Motors is not necessarily good for the United States

Thing 19 Despite the fall of communism, we still live in planned economies

Thing 20 Equality of opportunity may not be fair

Thing 21 Big government makes people more open to change

Thing 22 Financial markets need to become less, not more, efficient

Thing 23 Good economic policy does not require good economists

 

[coloradoatheist]

23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism (chapter titles of Ha-Joon Chang's book of the same name. A capitalist BTW.)

Thing 1 There is no such thing as a free market

Thing 2 Companies should not be run in the interest of their owners

Thing 3 Most people in rich countries are paid more than they should be

Thing 4 The washing machine as changed the world more than the internet has

Thing 5 Assume the worst about people and you get the worst

Thing 6 Greater macroeconomic stability has not made the world economy more stable

Thing 7 Free market policies rarely make poor countries rich

Thing 8 Capital has a nationality

Thing 9 We do not live in a post industrial age

Thing 10 The US does not have the highest living standard in the world

Thing 11 Africa is not destined for underdevelopment

Thing 12 Governments can pick winners

Thing 13 Making rich people richer doesn't make the rest of us richer

Thing 14 US managers are over priced

Thing 15 People in poor countries are more entrepreneurial than people in rich countries

Thing 16 We are not smart enough to leave things to the market

Thing 17 More education by itself is not going to make a country richer

Thing 18 What is good for General Motors is not necessarily good for the United States

Thing 19 Despite the fall of communism, we still live in planned economies

Thing 20 Equality of opportunity may not be fair

Thing 21 Big government makes people more open to change

Thing 22 Financial markets need to become less, not more, efficient

Thing 23 Good economic policy does not require good economists

You batted about 5 for 25 there, so about the Mendoza line

 

[coloradoatheist]

The infinite wisdom of the government will decide every project and decide what every workers best interest is.

You really don't understand anything, do you? The government - any government - is the central committee of the ruling class, and serves its interest. The vast working majority won't need one after the first few years, while they are re-educating the invincibly selfish and the deeply brainwashed to behave like normal people.

Thanks for the good laugh. So Pol Pot had it right that most people in the ocuntry should be six feet under and only people that should be alive are the ones who agree with you?