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.
At this point I’ll just “right you off” as another unemployed liberal arts graduate who thinks they can cure the world’s perceived problems by redistributing the wealth of others.
I don't want to redistribute wealth. I want to change the way its distributed so that input=output.
I don't want to redistribute wealth. I want to change the way its distributed so that input=output.
Taking ownership of businesses from shareholders and giving it to workers is redistribution of wealth. You can call it whatever you want but that’s what it is.
I don't want to redistribute wealth. I want to change the way its distributed so that input=output.
That's a system that will fail. Take agriculture for instance. If the output equals the input, there are no seeds for next year. If you raise animals for food, you need the animals to produce offspring, so there's enough to slaughter for food next year.
Surplus, or profit, is always a good thing, since that's how you keep up with growing demand. The entire purpose of a business is to add value to the inputs and make them worth more.
Have you considered taking an economics class that will provide a better understanding of reality?
Taking ownership of businesses from shareholders and giving it to workers is redistribution of wealth. You can call it whatever you want but that’s what it is.
Its changing the economic system to follow natural law, not disrupting the current system.
Workers operate the company with there own labor, it is theirs, and it should be run democratically to give everyone a say in production and the usage of their own labor.
That's a system that will fail. Take agriculture for instance. If the output equals the input, there are no seeds for next year. If you raise animals for food, you need the animals to produce offspring, so there's enough to slaughter for food next year.
Surplus, or profit, is always a good thing, since that's how you keep up with growing demand. The entire purpose of a business is to add value to the inputs and make them worth more.
Have you considered taking an economics class that will provide a better understanding of reality?
1. No, cooperative farms have been tried and are successful. It's not about each person doing whatever they want, if more than one person works a land, they must come up with a single order of operation based on agreement.
So why wouldn't there be planning for next year, farmers would want food for themselves later on, and larger scale farms may need to produce for an entire community or more. Subsistence farming for example doesn't involve not breeding animals or preparing for harvest season.
Its changing the economic system to follow natural law, not disrupting the current system.
Workers operate the company with there own labor, it is theirs, and it should be run democratically to give everyone a say in production and the usage of their own labor.
You can call it whatever you want, it boils down to taking property from the shareholder and giving it to the worker. Redistribution of wealth. If you’re going to advocate something, own it, don’t pretend it’s something else that you think sounds more palatable. Or maybe you know it’s wrong and just can’t face it.
You can call it whatever you want, it boils down to taking property from the shareholder and giving it to the worker. Redistribution of wealth. If you’re going to advocate something, own it, don’t pretend it’s something else that you think sounds more palatable. Or maybe you know it’s wrong and just can’t face it.
Shareholders have no right to other people's labor. They only have it because of legal protection from the state that has a monopoly on legitimate violence. Take away state power and what are share holders going to do when they don't get paid for doing nothing, through a temper tantrum? At that point the free people won't care.
Shareholders have no right to other people's labor. They only have it because of legal protection from the state that has a monopoly on legitimate violence. Take away state power and what are share holders going to do when they don't get paid for doing nothing, through a temper tantrum? At that point the free people won't care.
Blah, blah, blah, blah. Funny, your posts are making me look forward to the Peanuts holiday specials, you sound like the teacher.
Find a country that matches your socioeconomic theories. America obviously isn’t for you.
And that is not including the majority of America's electric lines being owned not by the state or the private industry, but as a cooperative. https://www.electric.coop/our-mission/
And then that doesn't begin to explain the exploding popularity of the evergreen network in Ohio. Americans want this despite the media trying to hide them from libertarian socialist ideas.
Shareholders have no right to other people's labor.
Correct, but they have the right to what they produce.
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.
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.
