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 10-16-2018, 09:01 PM
 
853 posts, read 364,843 times
Reputation: 884

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
These utilities and supply chains aren't created by the owner, they are created by networking.

All the different factories of one company (for example) are not granted added resources by the will of the owner, they are granted by a series of cooperative networks with other production facilities that share and coordinate production.

These connections could still exist without one central owner dictating the terms of usage of the cumulative output.
“Could”

And anyone “could” win the lottery.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-16-2018, 09:09 PM
 
Location: Manchester NH
6,398 posts, read 1,760,233 times
Reputation: 2069
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuiteLiving View Post
“Could”

And anyone “could” win the lottery.
Did I say could? Let me clarify, they will as syndicates (guild systems) will be set up to form direct networks between production centers (they'd be voluntary, but without the for profit demands, joining would be nothing but positive for each cooperative).

In fact these networks will be more extensive than the current corporate one being as sharing and coordination won't be limited to production centers owned by a certain person and they would be free to organize based on mutual benefit rather than the desires of a group of shareholders.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2018, 09:14 PM
 
853 posts, read 364,843 times
Reputation: 884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
Did I say could? Let me clarify, they will as syndicates (guild systems) will be set up to form direct networks between production centers (they'd be voluntary, but without the for profit demands, joining would be nothing but positive for each cooperative).

In fact these networks will be more extensive than the current corporate one being as sharing and coordination won't be limited to production centers owned by a certain person and they would be free to organize based on mutual benefit rather than the desires of a group of shareholders.
Those multi-national supply chains will be a breeze to get going in your alternate universe.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2018, 09:16 PM
 
173 posts, read 51,540 times
Reputation: 515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
lol.

The company would be run cooperatively, unlike most capitalist, I don't have the arrogance to claim complete control over an organization I do not completely operate.
Sounds like a failure already.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2018, 09:27 PM
 
Location: Manchester NH
6,398 posts, read 1,760,233 times
Reputation: 2069
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuiteLiving View Post
Those multi-national supply chains will be a breeze to get going in your alternate universe.
Of course these decentralized networks already exist and function today, the corporate heads don't directly force the engagement, and they are not responsible with maintaining them.

Once we have a cooperative network of worker own community minded production center that don't work for shareholder profit, the networks that already exist would be connected through a syndicate system (handled democratically unlike today) and the actual producers of power (the production center, not the executives or shareholders) will be free to communicate, trade, coordinate, and enhance production.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2018, 09:30 PM
 
853 posts, read 364,843 times
Reputation: 884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
Of course these decentralized networks already exist and function today, the corporate heads don't directly force the engagement, and they are not responsible with maintaining them.

Once we have a cooperative network of worker own community minded production center that don't work for shareholder profit, the networks that already exist would be connected through a syndicate system (handled democratically unlike today) and the actual producers of power (the production center, not the executives or shareholders) will be free to communicate, trade, coordinate, and enhance production.
Name the multi national supply chains that exist within the confines of your imaginary utopian society.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2018, 09:38 PM
 
Location: Manchester NH
6,398 posts, read 1,760,233 times
Reputation: 2069
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuiteLiving View Post
Name the multi national supply chains that exist within the confines of your imaginary utopian society.
All of them actually. Take a look at any large corporation, the production centers communicate directly in actual practice despite the fact the higher ups negotiate terms to allow these partnerships to form.

If you eliminate the higher powers of either the state or corporations, production centers will be free to communicate and work with as many centers as need be, or even form groups (packs) within a syndicate to specifically increase ties with an entirely separate syndicate rather than just one production center with another.

The scale of these relationships depend on the individual and communal needs of whoever is partnering with however many people, but the function is the same as today.

Remember, corporate leaders and state allow and regulate these cooperative chains, they do not themselves directly manage them. The same principles and infrastructure that exist today would stay the same, they'd just be ordered differently.

And like I said before, the share holders are not responsible with making sure these supply chains function, they just allow them to happen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2018, 09:42 PM
 
Location: Ohio
18,053 posts, read 13,266,597 times
Reputation: 13876
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
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.
All businesses have Capital that must be managed. That includes sole proprietorships, general partnerships, limited partnerships, limited liability partnerships, limited liability companies, for profit and not for profit corporations and S-Corps.

You're railing against the minuscule 3% of all US businesses that are publicly-traded corporations and which only employ a mere 5.8% of the work-force.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
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.
Workers are too stupid to properly manage Capital, which is why they are workers and not managers of Capital.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
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?
No, it says we should use testing for voters.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2018, 09:46 PM
 
853 posts, read 364,843 times
Reputation: 884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
All of them actually. Take a look at any large corporation, the production centers communicate directly in actual practice despite the fact the higher ups negotiate terms to allow these partnerships to form.

If you eliminate the higher powers of either the state or corporations, production centers will be free to communicate and work with as many centers as need be, or even form groups (packs) within a syndicate to specifically increase ties with an entirely separate syndicate rather than just one production center with another.

The scale of these relationships depend on the individual and communal needs of whoever is partnering with however many people, but the function is the same as today.

Remember, corporate leaders and state allow and regulate these cooperative chains, they do not themselves directly manage them. The same principles and infrastructure that exist today would stay the same, they'd just be ordered differently.

And like I said before, the share holders are not responsible with making sure these supply chains function, they just allow them to happen.
The relationships are based on profit not mutual cooperation. Any suggestion otherwise is wrong. And mutual profit depends on shareholder capital or the supply chain wouldn’t be necessary or exist.

Name one multi-national supply chain that operates in a cooperative manner.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2018, 09:49 PM
 
Location: Manchester NH
6,398 posts, read 1,760,233 times
Reputation: 2069
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
All businesses have Capital that must be managed. That includes sole proprietorships, general partnerships, limited partnerships, limited liability partnerships, limited liability companies, for profit and not for profit corporations and S-Corps.

You're railing against the minuscule 3% of all US businesses that are publicly-traded corporations and which only employ a mere 5.8% of the work-force.



Workers are too stupid to properly manage Capital, which is why they are workers and not managers of Capital.



No, it says we should use testing for voters.
1. Just nonsensical, just because the relationship and organization of shareholder rule is different, their voting systems are different, etc. doesn't mean the corporate board doesn't have control over the company

2. That's what checks and balances are for, one worker doesn't give management orders, but cumulatively they have a say and different authorities on different matters play different roles while also being accountable to the workers at large.

3. I have no idea what you mean.
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