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 10-23-2018, 08:04 PM
 
Location: Ohio
17,986 posts, read 13,233,625 times
Reputation: 13765

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
They donít provide the capital,...
Yes, they do. Cash is Capital, too.

Government is not going to provide the Capital to research, develop, test and produce MP3 players, Blu-Ray or anything else.

You have those things because of private investors providing the Capital.

When Triumph was struggling, they came up with a fantastic new design, the Triumph TR8.

Marketing studies indicated it would be a hot-seller in the US Market.

Triumph need British government approval to provide the Capital to re-tool their factories to produce the newly designed car, because the British government had controlling interest in all major auto-makers, plus was majority shareholder of the airlines, railways, defense industry businesses, mines and natural resources like British Petroleum and many more things.

Effectively, the British government was the owner or majority shareholder in every major business, except Sainsbury's (a grocery store like Kroger's started by Lord Sainsbury).

The British government wouldn't approve the Capital to re-tool Triumph's factories.

The British government was paralyzed by bureaucracy, which did nothing but shuffle papers, because no government bureaucrat wants to make a mistake that will make them look bad.

So, Triumph languished.

Eventually, the British government did approve it, but by that time, it was too late.

That's why we don't live government control Capital.

People are no different than government.

You seriously think ignorant towns-people are going to approve Capital to research, develop, test and produce MP3 Players?

No, they wouldn't, in part because they don't understand what's going on and don't understand technology.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
1. Buying shares in a company requires prexisting capital,...
Which you can get by cutting cable/satellite.

Instead of burying your face in cable/satellite, you can take that $120/month and buy stocks.

Everyone has the Capital, they just don't use it properly, which is why some people are in "poverty" (snicker) and some are not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
2. No, companies build demand for a select consumer base that offers the most profit.
So, without corporations, humans wouldn't eat?

Without corporations, humans would run around naked?

Who would have thought we eat and clothe ourselves because corporations said so.

Companies do not build Demand.

Consumers build Demand.

To prove how wrong you are, why don't you start a company producing buggy-whips?

Give us a full report.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-23-2018, 08:16 PM
DKM
 
Location: Thousand Oaks, CA
2,060 posts, read 670,106 times
Reputation: 2215
Here's how it works. Capital and labor combine to make both of them money. Capital intensive work is done with lots of capital and little labor (think computer chip plants) and some work is labor intensive without much capital (think software engineering). Having the proper framework where capital is protected and free to be allocated is what made America great. Its entry level stuff taught even at state colleges. Maybe not at "progressive" schools though...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2018, 10:13 PM
 
Location: Manchester NH
6,225 posts, read 1,726,791 times
Reputation: 2054
Quote:
Originally Posted by DKM View Post
Here's how it works. Capital and labor combine to make both of them money. Capital intensive work is done with lots of capital and little labor (think computer chip plants) and some work is labor intensive without much capital (think software engineering). Having the proper framework where capital is protected and free to be allocated is what made America great. Its entry level stuff taught even at state colleges. Maybe not at "progressive" schools though...
Wrong. Capital is produced by labor and is then utilized by labor.

Allowing the production cycle of investments and production to remain in the hands of the production centers means outside forces like investors can't take charge of the cumulative output.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2018, 10:21 PM
 
Location: Manchester NH
6,225 posts, read 1,726,791 times
Reputation: 2054
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Yes, they do. Cash is Capital, too.

Government is not going to provide the Capital to research, develop, test and produce MP3 players, Blu-Ray or anything else.

You have those things because of private investors providing the Capital.

When Triumph was struggling, they came up with a fantastic new design, the Triumph TR8.

Marketing studies indicated it would be a hot-seller in the US Market.

Triumph need British government approval to provide the Capital to re-tool their factories to produce the newly designed car, because the British government had controlling interest in all major auto-makers, plus was majority shareholder of the airlines, railways, defense industry businesses, mines and natural resources like British Petroleum and many more things.

Effectively, the British government was the owner or majority shareholder in every major business, except Sainsbury's (a grocery store like Kroger's started by Lord Sainsbury).

The British government wouldn't approve the Capital to re-tool Triumph's factories.

The British government was paralyzed by bureaucracy, which did nothing but shuffle papers, because no government bureaucrat wants to make a mistake that will make them look bad.

So, Triumph languished.

Eventually, the British government did approve it, but by that time, it was too late.

That's why we don't live government control Capital.

People are no different than government.

You seriously think ignorant towns-people are going to approve Capital to research, develop, test and produce MP3 Players?

No, they wouldn't, in part because they don't understand what's going on and don't understand technology.



Which you can get by cutting cable/satellite.

Instead of burying your face in cable/satellite, you can take that $120/month and buy stocks.

Everyone has the Capital, they just don't use it properly, which is why some people are in "poverty" (snicker) and some are not.



So, without corporations, humans wouldn't eat?

Without corporations, humans would run around naked?

Who would have thought we eat and clothe ourselves because corporations said so.

Companies do not build Demand.

Consumers build Demand.

To prove how wrong you are, why don't you start a company producing buggy-whips?

Give us a full report.
First of all, if you have read my posts, you'd know that while there is a baseline demand, that demand is manipulated by companies needing to expand their market, some segments of demand are re-targeted despite their demands being fulfilled, while excess materialism is targeted to people with money over those lacking basic needs.

Not all costumers are equal, and when you give for profit organizations power over distribution, the targeting and distribution of goods will not be beneficial for the whole of society.

Mircea, your understanding of capital is skewed by legal functions. Yes, thanks to private ownership backed by the state investors have claim on capital and give it legal permission to be shared and utilized, but the actual practice of technological and production improvements is based in networking between production centers. These practical functions are controlled not by the investors, but by the producers, and restoring that rightful power to them on a horizontal plane will allow for freedom beyond the private control of economy we are use to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
I believe if you look at the history of socialism and capitalism in the world, and in general the history of politics since after the Neolithic period, youíll see a great degree of control concentrated towards people who do not have the individual capacity to exert said power over the wider populace.

These powers change hands of course, the senate in Rome, the imperial family in China, feudal land lords, kings, captains of industry in the 19th century, etc.

And yet the basis of all these peopleís power though relies on the same understanding of invisible control, or control through influence rather than direct force.

While many do claim these persons of power will naturally arise or are even necessary for the organization of human life I see evidence to the contrary. Most of these same functions people talk about being handled by the state or the private industry are in practice handled in the local level where these models are directly implemented.

In mutual aid: A Factor of evolution by peter Kropotkin he discusses many of the factors that natural selection functions by. Most often, both in the human and animal kingdom, these functions awarded not the strongest or smartest individuals, but the ones that excelled at cooperation. Obviously there were differences in abilities within the group and these differences created different roles for each member, but the main factor was the will to understand that mutual benefits were the only way to overcome the challenges of competing species and the environment.

In human kind, in medieval communes (which there were many), people did function out of self desire, but these desires were one of survival and prosperity to a wider extent. To accomplish this the people did agree to some level of order, but this cooperation with the heads of the commune was not one of servitude, but one of role taking. Obviously selfishness exists in all people to varying degree, but even the most selfish did not feel the need to take all power for themselves, for if that were to happen, they would suffer as well. The voluntary agreement to organize did not require some external reward, because production had direct affects. Furthermore the more that were feed, the more who could work, and the more that was produced for everyone.

Going back to power models I mentioned in my previous paragraph, while the power centers did influence the output of a society, the sole production was still handled locally. These immediate powers were the only ones that were present. A manager at a factory could have a badge on him that says he is representative of some larger company, or a guard in a town could wear the sigil of a king to visualize control by said king, but neither of these representatives were themselves the power they claimed to represent. From this we can understand that the actual power (the enforcement of will) is not being distributed down by some incredible power, but is directly being enforced by a local entity (manager, city guards, police department, etc.) who has the voluntary agreement of the actual workforce or civilian population to follow the set of parameters. It is significant to observe this distinction because then we can understand that these presumed power centers are not all that powerful themselves; if that is the case then the order they bring is not inherent to them, in fact there power is in practice nothing but voluntary (whether the subjects know it or not) agreement by the subjects to follow an agreed set of rules. Because the central powers can seem direct in their ability to exert force, this may force some level of subservience, but it is nonetheless what seems to be true.

Now, these power structures still exist. We just understand that they are not being derived from the top. If such a universal accord of structure and organization is being practiced what creates its structure if not central power? I believe, and I think there is evidence to suggest this, that the practical formation of these structures come from networking. All the separate institutions that make up a kingdom, an empire, a corporation, a republic, or anything else comes from the horizontal power sharing that all these separate institutions practice. Even if a police department in one county in the US (for example) is separate from another federal police department on the other side of the country, they both, even if through 3rd party chains or different organizations, connect and share information and operate based on some level of coordination. These intrinsic networks do build the presence of a great singular body (the state), but the input of all this power is created at each decentralized part.
The same applies with corporate structures, different work places all produce separately but they communicate and form this appearance of an individual body.

So for us to assume that each locality needs some organized force to run it, we would have to assume they derive organization from a singular force, when in actuality it is a multitude of forces. For each community, the needs are different, and as such the practice of power will be different. That being said if we were to acknowledge the purpose of checks and balances, we can find the same thing practicing in society. While each community is connected with the next into a web of communities, they are each affected, both in limitations and enhancements by the acts of the others. That would mean the resources that one would need that could affect themselves negatively would be educated and supported by the infrastructure of the others. If we were to take away the central force that redistributes the collective output of all these different networks (corporate shareholders, state leaders, etc.) then the usage of what they produce can be better acclimated to their individual circumstances. Further democratic forces and the inertia of natural law (personal property/property by usage) will help limit the power accumulation of one person. So different people can achieve different levels of control or success but they would be limited by both how much they can own due to operation limitations (one person cannot operate a huge swath of land by themselves), and they would be limited by democratic means (workers control their own labor so one person canít trade or commodities labor with out consent, and the mass production of goods canít be monopolized by one person or a small group of people).

Finally as to what you claimed about natural greed or ineffency; to the latter I believed I answered that question do to the reality that current day functions are controlled locally and different roles to different people are offered on the basis of mutual benefit. Both in the communes of medieval Europe and the smaller government departments across the country. Iíll also add that these forms of democratic and community checks and balances is also why the CNT in Catalonia was able to establish a successful anarcho-syndicalist state despite the fact that many of the peasant farmers and factory workers were illiterate; there own authority on the subject was not the basis of how society was run, a system of networks based Mutual Aid created different levels of management that were reliant on the masses to understand the details of every small function. To the former claim about greed, I go back to Kropotkin; when you donít have the distribution of output controlled by some central force, you allow production to be based on the needs of the community. In such cases mutual Aid is the selfish act that requires people to need to produce enough for the community (and for themselves). The improvement over old tribal functions that allowed this in ancient times is the modern technological network and infrastructure that makes up States and large corporations remains, and the benefits the provide, from supply chains to mass production and distribution remain, only this time they are handled in different scales based on the situation and the output being distributed voluntarily by the decentralized power centers involved.

In all these cases I think this is why the corruption you see in communist countries and the greed you see in capitalist countries are more products of what is allowed to happen by the environment. If corruption or stock crashes had small outwards affects on society, then they would be much easier to fix. The reason they arenít is that while the network is there to respond, the power output is so centralized to the needs of one source, all these different production areas are affected. We have reached a level in communication, technological advancement, and human education that the cooperative forces of the pass along with the wealth and power standards of the modern era can be combined to great affects.
But even then, a major reason why you donít see large scale reform or discussion towards these forms of economics and politics (though they are happening) goes back to my first paragraph. All these different power models through our time, while different, allowed for practice of power beyond reason. These same forces today donít wish to allow the true freedoms humans are capable of, because they canít, because they know if they do they would have no reason to exist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2018, 06:31 AM
 
15,385 posts, read 8,679,661 times
Reputation: 13769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
I'm an anarcho-syndicalist.

And anarcho-syndicalism has always worked better than state capitalism.
When has anarcho-syndicalism EVER worked, let alone "always" worked?

I don't mean on a teeny tiny, isolated scale. I mean real world, millions of citizens, more than a few years.

I'll wait.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2018, 06:43 AM
 
15,385 posts, read 8,679,661 times
Reputation: 13769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
They only 'own' it through legal paperwork. They don't operate that capital, the workers do, and the workers agree to work with each other with allowance of their legal 'owner'. Without state capitalism investors would not play any role.
And you would have almost no new businesses.

Chef A wants to open a restaurant. He doesn't have enough money, so he solicits investors B, C and D to invest capital. They now own 25% of the company.

In your world, every server, line cook, hostess and dishwasher have a say in how the business is run. They get paid regardless of how successful the place is, and if they lose their job, they go over to another restaurant with no harm to their own finances.

Now the restaurant becomes wildly successful, and makes a lot of money. Those investors who took a risk shouldn't make 25% each of the profit? Are you supposing that the profits should be evenly distributed among every employee in the place, excluding the investors?

Then why on earth would an investor risk his money (that he could have lost, if the restaurant wasn't a success)?

The answer is they wouldn't. And Chef A would still be toiling in front of someone else's hot stove.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2018, 07:52 AM
Status: "Success is earned through failure." (set 29 days ago)
 
1,685 posts, read 2,778,698 times
Reputation: 1726
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
I don't, I think companies should be worker run democratically since they are the ones who keep the company operating, not the ones who manage the capital.
LoL....then start your own company, and set it up that way. Get back to me in 10 years and let me know how it goes.

SS
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2018, 07:56 AM
 
3,266 posts, read 2,335,410 times
Reputation: 5622
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
First of all, if you have read my posts, you'd know that while there is a baseline demand, that demand is manipulated by companies needing to expand their market, some segments of demand are re-targeted despite their demands being fulfilled, while excess materialism is targeted to people with money over those lacking basic needs.

Not all costumers are equal, and when you give for profit organizations power over distribution, the targeting and distribution of goods will not be beneficial for the whole of society.
Just because you post it, doesn't mean it's true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2018, 07:57 AM
 
15,385 posts, read 8,679,661 times
Reputation: 13769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
I don't, I think companies should be worker run democratically since they are the ones who keep the company operating, not the ones who manage the capital.
Clearly someone who has never risen above the position of lowest employee on the totem pole.

Employees keep the company running, but when more capital is needed, it's those investors that keep the company operating.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2018, 12:37 PM
 
Location: Manchester NH
6,225 posts, read 1,726,791 times
Reputation: 2054
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaraG View Post
Just because you post it, doesn't mean it's true.
No, but youíd no what youíre arguing against rather than making a straw man argument.
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