U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-15-2018, 09:41 PM
 
Location: Ohio
18,096 posts, read 13,289,702 times
Reputation: 13923

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
1. And more

2. Yes, and managing capital is not production.

Managing Capital is a necessary part of production.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
1. I responded to this same argument in the post above

2. I was speaking of control of capital. The shareholders own the capital, and the board manages (there is overlap obviously).

And you totally ignored the reality that the common workers are incapable of making the decisions necessary to effectively run a company. We use people with specialized training to do that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-15-2018, 09:58 PM
 
Location: Manchester NH
6,544 posts, read 1,792,034 times
Reputation: 2079
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Managing Capital is a necessary part of production.





And you totally ignored the reality that the common workers are incapable of making the decisions necessary to effectively run a company. We use people with specialized training to do that.
Again you are talking about role and authority, which is different from managing output. The latter is only necessary to organize a large corporate for profit structure that benefits shareholders, the former is different roles workers play depending on their expertise.

Of course some people know more about one thing than the other, and they may even have to organize production in a certain way, but all workers should democratically have a say what purpose that person should play and who that person is and for what duration of time. Having a Democratic system doesn’t mean that one average joe runs everything, but it does mean there has to be a level of checks and balances to how the operation is handled and it must be based on mutual agreement.

Most people don’t know about foreign policy or state policy, does that mean the citizens should have no say in how government is run and instead we should have a politburo making decisions for us?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2018, 05:03 AM
 
1,160 posts, read 528,622 times
Reputation: 1826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
No, actually it is the only way to allow all people the freedom of movement. Right now only the very well off can pick up and move.

In a free society everyone will have freedom of movement and right to Housing wherever they settle. They could find land and build their own house, occupy a vacant one, or have the local construction union build you one, or pay a bunch of workers to do it for you and direct them around.

Today we have a system where a few own multiple properties and act as land lords while the many do not even have the right to settle into vacant homes (which are just held for investors to make capital off of capital and concentrate more wealth to themselves).

You could also stay at a hotel, but owning more than one house is against natural being as you can’t operate more than one house at a time. If you allow people to practice more power than they are capable of, you lead to an authoritarian model. Instead of trying to eat up property why don’t you make friends with someone who lives by the beach so they can invite you over?
Only the well off can move? That's hilarious. Poor people have been moving for millenia. That's how the North America was settled. Learn some history, dude.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2018, 08:38 AM
 
Location: Manchester NH
6,544 posts, read 1,792,034 times
Reputation: 2079
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRM20 View Post
Only the well off can move? That's hilarious. Poor people have been moving for millenia. That's how the North America was settled. Learn some history, dude.
More lazy insults. In the modern day it’s expensive to pick up everything, and move to a completely new place, you’d need a job, you’d have to find a new house, move your stuff, sign lots of paperwork, etc.

Freedom of movement doesn’t just mean go from one area to a poorer one, it means people are allowed to move where they want if there is space and enough resources to sustain an expanding population.

In such a case freedom of movement can’t be limited by regional costs (which, when you think about it, have no basis in natural law and are just meant to make realtors more money).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2018, 08:51 AM
 
440 posts, read 200,672 times
Reputation: 459
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post

In a free society everyone will have freedom of movement and right to Housing wherever they settle. They could find land and build their own house, occupy a vacant one, or have the local construction union build you one, or pay a bunch of workers to do it for you and direct them around.
There is a nice McLaren sitting in the parking lot. The drivers seat is vacant. In your version of a free society, can I get in the car and drive it over to the vacant beach condo that I want to occupy?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2018, 09:00 AM
 
Location: Manchester NH
6,544 posts, read 1,792,034 times
Reputation: 2079
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim1921 View Post
There is a nice McLaren sitting in the parking lot. The drivers seat is vacant. In your version of a free society, can I get in the car and drive it over to the vacant beach condo that I want to occupy?
If you had read the thread, or any of my other posts, you’d know that operation extends beyond presence.

If you are living in a house and that is your primary residency, then you are still living there when you leave for a while.
When you’re growing crops, and you leave the field, the crop yield is still yours as you are still working the land even for the period you stop.
Similarly, a car is still in usage when it’s not being driven, that is your car, that is your tool and means of transportation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2018, 09:02 AM
 
Location: Philadelphia/South Jersey area
2,324 posts, read 1,058,709 times
Reputation: 7707
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
More lazy insults. In the modern day it’s expensive to pick up everything, and move to a completely new place, you’d need a job, you’d have to find a new house, move your stuff, sign lots of paperwork, etc.

Freedom of movement doesn’t just mean go from one area to a poorer one, it means people are allowed to move where they want if there is space and enough resources to sustain an expanding population.

In such a case freedom of movement can’t be limited by regional costs (which, when you think about it, have no basis in natural law and are just meant to make realtors more money).
The problem with this argument is that you are assuming the larger world should follow your "natural law" theory.
Freedom of movement has always been limited to some type of "cost" . Hell the only reason the Israelites were able to skiddale out of Egypt was because God hooked them up with Manna. lol, food ain't cheap even in biblical times.

One of the resources needed to sustain an expanding population is, wait for it. money. What you think that if there were no realtors people would just magically be able to move into NYC.

What are resources in modern day? food, electricity?

The "natural law" theory has always worked best "in theory". lol no one has been able to do much with it in reality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2018, 09:03 AM
 
2,268 posts, read 1,407,641 times
Reputation: 4943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
More lazy insults. In the modern day it’s expensive to pick up everything, and move to a completely new place, you’d need a job, you’d have to find a new house, move your stuff, sign lots of paperwork, etc.

Freedom of movement doesn’t just mean go from one area to a poorer one, it means people are allowed to move where they want if there is space and enough resources to sustain an expanding population.

In such a case freedom of movement can’t be limited by regional costs (which, when you think about it, have no basis in natural law and are just meant to make realtors more money).
You have one of the most misguided “understandings” of economics I’ve ever seen on these forums, which is quite an impressive feat.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2018, 09:08 AM
 
Location: Philadelphia/South Jersey area
2,324 posts, read 1,058,709 times
Reputation: 7707
Now onto the original question of whether or not executives deserve the majority of the company's output? No but I don't know any executives of publicly owned companies where that happens and I only read the first few pages of your argument which don't really stand up.

privately owned companies? the golden rule applies: He who owns the gold (company) rules. Jeff Bezoz founded Amazon. He employs as free will, meaning all employees have the right to either accept or reject the offer of employment. no one is forcing them, they are not slaves.

My company, my blood sweat and tears. again I force no one to work for me. they willingly accept the salary. Mine is more. Mine will always be more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2018, 09:10 AM
 
Location: Philadelphia/South Jersey area
2,324 posts, read 1,058,709 times
Reputation: 7707
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatsright19 View Post
You have one of the most misguided “understandings” of economics I’ve ever seen on these forums, which is quite an impressive feat.
Amen but it's not really any economic principle at all, it's more of a philosophical theory and as with most philosophical theories, they work well in discussions and on paper. They RARELY work in real life and most do not transfer well to economics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top