GOP: Libertarians not wanted

[ZiprHead]

I don't recall reading about who cleaned the toilets.

And it's ridicule, not hate.

If only all the "bosses" would just go away. That's exactly what we need.

I think I can live without the Donald Trumps and Koch brothers of this world.

There were bosses in the books too, as well as menial laborers, but don't let that interfere with your Three Minutes Hate.

Perhaps you'd like to answer my query instead of taking pot shots at someone else making commentary on it?

If all the rich people who think they are smarter than everyone else leave and form their own conclave, who does their menial labor?

 

[Emily Lake]

If all the rich people who think they are smarter than everyone else leave and form their own conclave, who does their menial labor?

It has been a long time since I read that work of fiction, but I believe they did their own menial labor.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The issue is that these systems don't grow, shrink, change very quickly. There is a reason we use a a representative government instead of a direct democracy to run our government. The command structure has it's benefits and it's drawbacks, and so does a democratically controlled group.

Very small businesses (say 1 to 25 employees) are likely able to gain consensus and respond quickly enough for most needs, with everyone directly involved. That covers a lot of your mom & pops and your fast food franchises and such.

Slightly larger businesses would need to make a choice. Not all businesses are fast paced industries; most retail isn't. For those that are, they would need to either accept that they're going to be slower to respond to market... or they would need to approach it with a workgroup splinter style approach. Just because it's employee-owned doesn't mean it can't still have specialized groups for specified types of decisions.

At the very least, you could have an employee elected board of directors, or the executive positions could be nominated and elected by employee vote. So the decision-making would still be representative, but the ownership and the leadership would still be at the behest of the employees, and perhaps for specified terms.

Nobody says there's only one way to solve this problem. We're speaking hypothetically. Let's design the options that would be most acceptable to as many of us as possible. Even if we never get it off the ground... we can't come up with a potential solution if we never even entertain the possibility that some alternative exists.

And a good limit for direct democracy is about 150 people. However that has to be somewhat of a tight knit group. The fundamental isn't the issue, any business can have democracy in the workplace. Some have tried it directly. Some companies are better than others at getting employee buy in. The days of the workers having no say in the company isn't true any more.

 

[untermensche]

I still don't personally want to be an owner, because I don't want the income fluctuation. I don't want the risk. That's an entirely different issue than that of response time and decision-making capacity, however. So let's set aside risk appetite for the moment and discuss ways that an organization might be structured to maximize democratic say in a business without jeopardizing response time, and with as little risk of gridlock as possible. We're smart, I bet we can come up with something. More than one something probably.

You don't want to be a capitalist owner.

Shared ownership in a society of primarily shared ownership is not the same thing.

Capitalism is a system to maximize individual wealth. This is achieved through schemes to take from workers. The focus of a worker owned and controlled system will not be on schemes to take as much as possible from workers. It will be based on schemes to give workers as much as possible.

 

[Emily Lake]

I still don't personally want to be an owner, because I don't want the income fluctuation. I don't want the risk. That's an entirely different issue than that of response time and decision-making capacity, however. So let's set aside risk appetite for the moment and discuss ways that an organization might be structured to maximize democratic say in a business without jeopardizing response time, and with as little risk of gridlock as possible. We're smart, I bet we can come up with something. More than one something probably.

You don't want to be a capitalist owner.

Shared ownership in a society of primarily shared ownership is not the same thing.

Capitalism is a system to maximize individual wealth. This is achieved through schemes to take from workers. The focus of a worker owned and controlled system will not be on schemes to take as much as possible from workers. It will be based on schemes to give workers as much as possible.

I don't care what you believe the focus will be, untermensche. My concerns are not with the focus. My concerns are with risk.

Owners have a financial stake in the company. Their incomes rise and fall with the profitability of the company. When the company does well, their incomes are high. When the company does poorly, their incomes are lower. I don't want that uncertainty. I want a stable, certain income. I want the same amount in every paycheck.

I don't want the cashflow risk.

 

[untermensche]

I don't care what you believe the focus will be, untermensche. My concerns are not with the focus. My concerns are with risk.

Owners have a financial stake in the company. Their incomes rise and fall with the profitability of the company. When the company does well, their incomes are high. When the company does poorly, their incomes are lower. I don't want that uncertainty. I want a stable, certain income. I want the same amount in every paycheck.

I don't want the cashflow risk.

You have more risk now. Since you make less and can be put out of work on the whims of others.

 

[Emily Lake]

You have more risk now. Since you make less and can be put out of work on the whims of others.

I personally make a comfortable amount, and since I have a relatively rare skill set that is in demand, the likelihood of me being put out of work is very low. I also do excellent work, always meet my deadlines, and my customers are always satisfied. I'm extremely unlikely to end up on the chopping block. So I'd rather have a stable, steady income. I do recognize, however, that I am not representative of the average worker in that respect.

But my personal circumstance are a bit beside the point, as you're conflating two things. You're saying that I have less income now - in doing so you're talking about average income. I'm talking about cash-flow.

For example, let's say that I make 1000 per month now, steady and stable, and I have bills and expenses that cost 900 each month, so I've got a tight budget. That leaves me 100 per month to put in savings or spend on frivolous stuff, my choice. But it's stable, so I can get by.

Now let's say that under your scenario, I make on average 1100 per month... but that it comes in as 1100 in the first month, then 600 for the next five months, then 1100 for several months, then 3600 in the last month. Things for me seem good that first month... but the next five are devastating - I'm 300 in the hole each month, for a total of 1500 behind my expenses. Depending on the circumstances, I could lose my car, my house, my credit goes down the drain.

I don't want the cash-flow risk; lots of people don't want the cash-flow risk. The likelihood of losing their jobs is relatively low. The likelihood of their income fluctuating when it's tied to profit is very high. So unless you can guarantee that the income is going to be very, very much higher than it is currently, I suspect there are a lot of people who aren't going to be willing to take on that risk.

 

[untermensche]

You have more risk now. Since you make less and can be put out of work on the whims of others.

I make a comfortable amount, and since I have a relatively rare skill set that is in demand, the likelihood of me being put out of work is very low. I also do excellent work, always meet my deadlines, and my customers are always satisfied. I'm extremely unlikely to end up on the chopping block. So I'd rather have a stable, steady income.

Then you would have more in the system I propose.

You would also have the ability to have more control over your economic life.

The ability to have more control over one's life is not something you normally hear people complain about.

Some of your fears of risk come from the capitalist system you exit in. If you live in the US you live in a place with a crappy safety net. And this is purposeful. It is the way the masters like it, and if they had more power they would make it worse. What I would like is to give them less power.

 

[Emily Lake]

Then you would have more in the system I propose.

My apologies, untermensche, I edited to add more and missed you in timing. Please see above for my additional comments with respect to cash-flow risk.

You would also have the ability to have more control over your economic life.

The ability to have more control over one's life is not something you normally hear people complain about.

Some of your fears of risk come from the capitalist system you exit in. If you live in the US you live in a place with a crappy safety net. And this is purposeful. It is the way the masters like it, and if they had more power they would make it worse. What I would like is to give them less power.

I understand that this is your view on the topic, and I believe it reflects your ideology. I have no objection to you holding that ideology, but please be aware that I do not hold the same set of beliefs. I have no inherent dislike of capitalism, nor any particular love of it. I think that there are aspects of free markets that have benefits, and aspects of regulated systems that have benefits. I think that employee-owned businesses are right for some people and some businesses, but that there are situations that benefit from having an unequal distribution of wealth in the hands of a few people willing to invest in innovation. I'm a fan of whatever works pragmatically to make a stable and equitable system that is solvent and self-sustaining. For me, that usually implies leaving morality out of the equation... but including ethics .

 

[dismal]

You would also have the ability to have more control over your economic life.

The ability to have more control over one's life is not something you normally hear people complain about.

Well, unless you check out one of our threads on Payday loans.

In those we assume people are too stupid to make the decisions that affect their economic lives.

 

[untermensche]

I understand that this is your view on the topic, and I believe it reflects your ideology.

It is not ideology to say the US has one of the weakest safety nets in the industrial world. It is not ideology to say this is purposeful. It is not ideology to say it is because of the desires of the opulent minority.

It is ideology to say that democracy is preferable to dictatorship.

Do you disagree with this ideology?

 

[untermensche]

You would also have the ability to have more control over your economic life.

The ability to have more control over one's life is not something you normally hear people complain about.

Well, unless you check out one of our threads on Payday loans.

In those we assume people are too stupid to make the decisions that affect their economic lives.

People can be caught in the trap of usury.

Especially if they live in a place where dictatorship is the primary model for economic activity.

You can't use the failures of modern capitalism to condemn democratic control in the workplace.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

You would also have the ability to have more control over your economic life.

The ability to have more control over one's life is not something you normally hear people complain about.

Well, unless you check out one of our threads on Payday loans.

In those we assume people are too stupid to make the decisions that affect their economic lives.

Don't confuse stupidity with desperation.


And please do not grow so desperate you can no longer tell the difference.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

You have more risk now. Since you make less and can be put out of work on the whims of others.

I personally make a comfortable amount, and since I have a relatively rare skill set that is in demand, the likelihood of me being put out of work is very low. I also do excellent work, always meet my deadlines, and my customers are always satisfied. I'm extremely unlikely to end up on the chopping block. So I'd rather have a stable, steady income. I do recognize, however, that I am not representative of the average worker in that respect.

But my personal circumstance are a bit beside the point, as you're conflating two things. You're saying that I have less income now - in doing so you're talking about average income. I'm talking about cash-flow.

For example, let's say that I make 1000 per month now, steady and stable, and I have bills and expenses that cost 900 each month, so I've got a tight budget. That leaves me 100 per month to put in savings or spend on frivolous stuff, my choice. But it's stable, so I can get by.

Now let's say that under your scenario, I make on average 1100 per month... but that it comes in as 1100 in the first month, then 600 for the next five months, then 1100 for several months, then 3600 in the last month. Things for me seem good that first month... but the next five are devastating - I'm 300 in the hole each month, for a total of 1500 behind my expenses. Depending on the circumstances, I could lose my car, my house, my credit goes down the drain.

I don't want the cash-flow risk; lots of people don't want the cash-flow risk. The likelihood of losing their jobs is relatively low. The likelihood of their income fluctuating when it's tied to profit is very high. So unless you can guarantee that the income is going to be very, very much higher than it is currently, I suspect there are a lot of people who aren't going to be willing to take on that risk.

Emily you seem like a nice person, so I'm saying this to you in the spirit of goodwill.

Keep your resume up to date.

Companies will take a temporary cut in efficiency to make a bigger cut in labor costs. Just like you learned your skill set, so have others who will work for less or bring other benefits to the table.

And who they can't find, companies will train.

I have heard those same words you typed too many times just before pink slips went out. I would hate to see that happen to you.

 

[dismal]

Well, unless you check out one of our threads on Payday loans.

In those we assume people are too stupid to make the decisions that affect their economic lives.

People can be caught in the trap of usury.

Especially if they live in a place where dictatorship is the primary model for economic activity.

You can't use the failures of modern capitalism to condemn democratic control in the workplace.

As an educated and experienced financial professional I don't want to work somewhere where my vote on financial matters is equal to that of someone who takes out a bunch of payday loans.

I'm sure you, as a big believer in economic freedom of choice and control over my economic life, support me in this, my personal choice.

 

[untermensche]

People can be caught in the trap of usury.

Especially if they live in a place where dictatorship is the primary model for economic activity.

You can't use the failures of modern capitalism to condemn democratic control in the workplace.

As an educated and experienced financial professional I don't want to work somewhere where my vote on financial matters is equal to that of someone who takes out a bunch of payday loans.

I'm sure you, as a big believer in economic freedom of choice and control over my economic life, support me in this, my personal choice.

If you can't convince the person who needs payday loans of the correctness of your position especially since nobody will be making positions against yours then maybe it isn't the person needing the payday loan that is the problem.

 

[SimpleDon]

A response that doesn't answer the question. Was the effective deregulation of the financial markets by the Bush II administration part of the march to the adoption of the libertarian philosophy? Or to put the question in your terms was the absence of regulation over the financial markets part of the libertarian philosophy?

It seems to be a simple question.

And yes, there are good regulations and there are bad ones.

Your point about the gentleman at talk origins escapes me. You have previously told me that libertarians can't be blamed for the actions of the Bush administration because there weren't any real libertarians in it. Is that what you are trying to say here?

You've almost understood the point.

I see two competing theories of regulation, a Republican theory and a Democrat theory. I also see Democrats saying that the Republican theory is deregulation instead of a competing regulation. Much like how Ray Martinez says that Muslims are Atheists. I do not see a deregulation philosophy in the Bush administration, I see a malregulation philosophy in the Bush administration. Any regulation that protects the major players from responsibility for their actions is a malregulation, not a deregulation.

So what you are saying is that libertarians believe that only they want to deregulate and only they can deregulate the economy. That from your viewpoint everyone else is in favor of regulation. That is the Ray Martinez fallacy that you and your fellow libertarians suffer from. That as Ray Martiez views anyone who is not a Christian as an atheist you and your fellow libertarians view anyone who is not a libertarian as being incapable of true deregulation of the economy.

I can't argue with that, if you say so. As they say about addiction, understanding that you have a problem is half way to a cure. You are half way there.

So in your explanation the Republicans aren't really serious about deregulation, they only want to rewrite the existing regulations so that the major players don't have to take responsibility for their actions.

But they lie about wanting to deregulate the economy because ... ?

And Greenspan must have been lying when he said that they didn't act against the banks because he couldn't imagine that the banks would intentionally do what they did, put short term profits ahead of long term stability. He must have been lying when he said that he thought that the financial markets had learned to self-regulate. Search for "Greenspan admits mistakes."

But of course, they weren't lying. And of course, they didn't rewrite the regulations. They can't do that without public notice and public hearings, which didn't happen. Oh, they tried to rewrite other regulations, most notably environmental ones, and they held public hearings at 2 am in small towns to try to change the regulations out of the public eye to effectively rewrite the laws without going to Congress, but the courts stopped them.

The Bush administration didn't rewrite regulations to allow the banks and the financial markets to mishandle the mortgage backed securities, they failed to enforce the regulations that existed and they failed to reign in the abuses that they knew were going on because the FBI and the FDIC among others had told them what was going on.

They did exactly the thing that the libertarians were urging them to do, they were allowing the market to self-regulate. Unless you are prepared to tell me that libertarians would have enforced the regulations, a laughable proposition, then the Bush administration's failure to regulate the various derivatives, which the Fed and the SEC had more than enough legal authority to prevent the banks and the financial markets from abusing, then it stands as a valid test of the failure of deregulation, as does the savings and loan scandal of the 1980's. A test that deregulation failed, that the libertarian idea of a self-regulating market failed. And the failure cost the US trillions of dollars in lost wealth and lost income, a libertarian failure that threw millions out of work and millions out of homes that they wanted to live in.

Continued below

 

[SimpleDon]

Continued from above

Late addition, I just saw it.

Krugman's column today is on this subject of the libertarian fantasy. In fact, that is the title of the article.

In closing he says,

But libertarian visions of an unregulated economy do play a significant role in political debate, so it’s important to understand that these visions are mirages. Of course some government interventions are unnecessary and unwise. But the idea that we have a vastly bigger and more intrusive government than we need is a foolish fantasy.

This would apply to my response to Jason above. While libertarians are few in numbers the libertarian fantasy of excessive government is a widespread one. What is the responsibility of libertarians for the damage that their fantasies cause? Why are we to ignore the failures of the fantasies and why are you willing to ignore them?

Krugman is a perfect example of the Ray Martinez fallacy.

Thank you, you have provided us with a perfect example of how far a libertarian will go to deflect an question that you don't want to answer.

And that is that libertarians see the government as more intrusive than it is. I would go further and say that the libertarians place the blame for every problem onto the government and have a dangerous, idealized vision of capitalism and the economy that it produces.

The very things that are the basis of the success of capitalism are the very things that if unchecked will destroy the economy, capitalism's ability to innovate and to take risks to make money. These are capitalism's strengths and at the same time they can be the cause of capitalism's self-destruction, if not properly controlled, if not regulated.

I don't see that Krugman's quote is an example of the Ray Martinez fallacy. (I searched for "Ray Martinez fallacy" and you are correct, this guy is has some Internet infamy, so I am willing to accept it as a thing.) Krugman is only stating his opinion, he is not claiming that only his group, whatever group it is, he is a New Keynesian for example, is the only group that is knowledgeable about something, in way that you claim that only libertarians understand true deregulation, for example. I am sure that Krugman would agree that virtually everyone else understands economics to a better degree than an Austrian or a libertarian. This would seem to be if anything, the exact opposite of the Ray Martinez fallacy.

 

[dismal]

As an educated and experienced financial professional I don't want to work somewhere where my vote on financial matters is equal to that of someone who takes out a bunch of payday loans.

I'm sure you, as a big believer in economic freedom of choice and control over my economic life, support me in this, my personal choice.

If you can't convince the person who needs payday loans of the correctness of your position especially since nobody will be making positions against yours then maybe it isn't the person needing the payday loan that is the problem.

It's kind of irrelevant.

Since you, as a big believer in my economic freedom to make my own choices, would most certainly respect my freedom to choose to work in a place where these people would not have a vote.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Very small businesses (say 1 to 25 employees) are likely able to gain consensus and respond quickly enough for most needs, with everyone directly involved. That covers a lot of your mom & pops and your fast food franchises and such.

Slightly larger businesses would need to make a choice. Not all businesses are fast paced industries; most retail isn't. For those that are, they would need to either accept that they're going to be slower to respond to market... or they would need to approach it with a workgroup splinter style approach. Just because it's employee-owned doesn't mean it can't still have specialized groups for specified types of decisions.

At the very least, you could have an employee elected board of directors, or the executive positions could be nominated and elected by employee vote. So the decision-making would still be representative, but the ownership and the leadership would still be at the behest of the employees, and perhaps for specified terms.

Nobody says there's only one way to solve this problem. We're speaking hypothetically. Let's design the options that would be most acceptable to as many of us as possible. Even if we never get it off the ground... we can't come up with a potential solution if we never even entertain the possibility that some alternative exists.

And a good limit for direct democracy is about 150 people. However that has to be somewhat of a tight knit group. The fundamental isn't the issue, any business can have democracy in the workplace. Some have tried it directly. Some companies are better than others at getting employee buy in. The days of the workers having no say in the company isn't true any more.

150 is a pretty large group for a collective. I've found that a smaller "collective" can be effective when the members are very committed, and have equal risk and work ethics. When it's 5 or less, everyone needs to contribute about 20%; there can be fudging depending on how the group interacts and trusts each other. But as it grows, it's gets more difficult to keep everyone motivated. People start wondering why they have to work all day on a Sunday when John is leaving early every Friday. Resents grow. Decision making slows. Jealously grows. In my experience, collectives greater than 5 become problematic.

Secondly, to add to Emily Lake's take, owner's need to be entrepreneurial. In a 10 person collective, 2 guys who just want a pay check can destroy an entity even when the other 8 are extremely motivated entrepeneurials. Untermensche always assumes that everyone wants to be a owner. Like Emily, I have no desire to be an owner. Been there, done that. I want to work 40 hours a week at the highest bidder, and play on the weekends. Funny how people advocating for "democratic workplace" have such dictatorial leanings!