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.
First thing before I get to the content - prosperity for all isn't happening. It never has happened for a country, and it never will. Why? Some people are just lazy and not motivated - so on their own, they won't be prosperous. But if we want to prosper the lazy, then we must steal from the working group to give to the lazy group. This will discourage many in the working group since they would not be reaping the full benefits of their labor.
Their theory...
We call this third option evolutionary reconstruction. Like reform, evolutionary reconstruction involves step-by-step nonviolent change. But like revolution, evolutionary reconstruction changes the basic institutions of ownership of the economy, so that the broad public, rather than a narrow band of individuals (i.e., the “one percent”) owns more and more of the nation’s productive assets.
It sounds appealing - we all own the company - but who makes the decisions? Who reaps the profits?
To me, ownership is control. Someone can say everyone has ownership, but without decision making authority - what good is it?
Six steps.
1. A People’s Bank
2. Move to Universal Healthcare
3. Build Community Wealth
4. Leverage City Assets
5. Organize for the Long Haul
6. Cut Corporate Power Down to Size
I read thru the steps, and they give some flowery success stories about how well the projects are proceeding. So I looked up some details on on of the projects.
Read through the page and I get to this at the bottom...
Local hiring: 91 percent of the initial employees at Food 4 Less were hired from the community. All these jobs are unionized and include living wages, health care, and pension plans.
Unionized? That's a red flag.
So I looked up another example - the article mentions a Cleveland project based on a Mondragon, a Spanish cooperative effort. I ran across this article.
Moreover there is now a quiet trend in the union movement—away from disinterest in new forms of ownership and towards positive assistance. The United Steelworkers, working jointly with Mondragon (the 80-thousand member strong complex of cooperatives in the Basque country), have taken the lead in proposing and developing “union coops” which will combine worker ownership and the collective bargaining process. The Service Employees union (SEIU) has taken some interesting steps here as well, with a worker-owned and unionized laundry slated to launch in Pittsburgh this year, and a groundbreaking partnership with New York City’s Cooperative Home Care Associates, the largest worker cooperative in the United States. Also notable is a growing sophistication among unions regarding a far more common form of U.S. worker ownership, the ESOP or Employee Stock Ownership Plan (which involve 10 million workers): unions like the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) are taking a strong role in making sure workers’ interests are protected as companies convert to worker ownership.
So now I get it. This whole "public ownership" trend is a scam to get people to join the unions. Or at the least, the unions would be involved in the decision making processes.
Also, the projects are opened up to investors to make investment. I assume they will reap the profits - not the entire public. However, the public is involved because they will contribute so much of their profits to other groups. Sounds noble - until you understand these contributions allow them to be 501c3 charitable organizations, and they can get out of paying their fair share of taxes.
First thing before I get to the content - prosperity for all isn't happening. It never has happened for a country, and it never will. Why? Some people are just lazy and not motivated - so on their own, they won't be prosperous.
Before I get bogged down in an idiots argument, let me get this straight.
Is it your premise that "laziness" is the root cause of poverty?
When you use the term "some" are you referring to all poor people or some percentage of the poor?
If it is a percentage what is the size of this percentage in your estimation?
Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Belgium, Switzerland, Norway, Netherlands, France, Austria are other real world examples. They are the most unionized countries in the World . In general, they rate a higher standard of living, happier, less corrupt, more press freedoms, universal health care, huge governments in comparison to the USA in a size for size comparison. High taxes. They are doing great. Much better than we are.
Before I get bogged down in an idiots argument, let me get this straight.
Is it your premise that "laziness" is the root cause of poverty?
When you use the term "some" are you referring to all poor people or some percentage of the poor?
If it is a percentage what is the size of this percentage in your estimation?
No. You are reading this wrong. OP rightly believes there is only so much that can be done in government to improve lives of citizens due to human nature.
Before I get bogged down in an idiots argument, let me get this straight.
Is it your premise that "laziness" is the root cause of poverty?
When you use the term "some" are you referring to all poor people or some percentage of the poor?
If it is a percentage what is the size of this percentage in your estimation?
The root cause? No. Is it "a" cause? Yes.
Some - meaning not "all". The percentage is not important to the post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by padcrasher
No. You are reading this wrong. OP rightly believes there is only so much that can be done in government to improve lives of citizens due to human nature.
So now I get it. This whole "public ownership" trend is a scam to get people to join the unions. Or at the least, the unions would be involved in the decision making processes.
Apparently the thing that seems to be upsetting to you isn't capitalism but rather who are the owners of that capital.
The idea of employee owned companies(ESOPs) isn't new. They have usually occurred when employees have taken over ownership of companies that are close to bankruptcy and the employees decided to use their pension funds to buy out the present ownership. The companies are then run pretty much as any other company and often issue stocks (making them "public") to further capitalize the company through modernization and capital improvements.
Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Belgium, Switzerland, Norway, Netherlands, France, Austria are other real world examples. They are the most unionized countries in the World . In general, they rate a higher standard of living, happier, less corrupt, more press freedoms, universal health care, huge governments in comparison to the USA in a size for size comparison. High taxes. They are doing great. Much better than we are.
Depends what you define as "higher standard of living".
Americans are drawn to 4000 sq ft McMansions. Europeans are not nearly as materialistic. They enjoy food family and travel.
Apparently the thing that seems to be upsetting to you isn't capitalism but rather who are the owners of that capital.
The idea of employee owned companies(ESOPs) isn't new. They have usually occurred when employees have taken over ownership of companies that are close to bankruptcy and the employees decided to use their pension funds to buy out the present ownership. The companies are then run pretty much as any other company and often issue stocks (making them "public") to further capitalize the company through modernization and capital improvements.
So your problem is what?
I don't consider all problems as "upsetting" - FYI.
It's just that public ownership 1) involves unions even though that aspect is rarely mentioned, and 2) will not achieve the perceived goal of prosperity for all.
It's like you said - the companies are run just like any other companies. There are private investments. There is profit. There is tax avoidance. However, there will be increased union control - which is not good.
You seem to have fair amount of writing here, which means this would probably be better discussed in the "Great Debates" subforum instead in the cesspool of P&C. But here we go.
Quote:
First thing before I get to the content - prosperity for all isn't happening. It never has happened for a country, and it never will. Why? Some people are just lazy and not motivated - so on their own, they won't be prosperous. But if we want to prosper the lazy, then we must steal from the working group to give to the lazy group. This will discourage many in the working group since they would not be reaping the full benefits of their labor.
Where to start?
1. It's naive to think the sole reason for poverty is laziness. But assuming that in this system, only the lazy would not prosper would be an acceptable trade-off, since work directly translates to success (this is not currently the case).
2. Just because someone chooses not to be prosperous, does not mean they should be left to rot or die. Morally, we have a responsibility to provide the very minimum for individuals to survive. How that minimum is distributed is open to discussion, but morally, as individuals and as a society, we should not and can not leave people without the very basic life giving essentials.
3. Nobody in the history of the world has given up working (hyperbole) to go and subsist on welfare because welfare programs are that much better than working.
Quote:
Their theory...
We call this third option evolutionary reconstruction. Like reform, evolutionary reconstruction involves step-by-step nonviolent change. But like revolution, evolutionary reconstruction changes the basic institutions of ownership of the economy, so that the broad public, rather than a narrow band of individuals (i.e., the “one percent”) owns more and more of the nation’s productive assets.
It sounds appealing - we all own the company - but who makes the decisions? Who reaps the profits?
To me, ownership is control. Someone can say everyone has ownership, but without decision making authority - what good is it?
Valve runs without any tangible leadership making decisions. It's not uncommon for entire companies to be run by boards instead of individual executives, with decisions made by vote. We have an entire nation based upon representation and democracy. Smaller groups operate well as communes, where work is shared and rewards are shared amongst the group. Non of this sounds ground breaking.
Quote:
Six steps.
1. A People’s Bank
2. Move to Universal Healthcare
3. Build Community Wealth
4. Leverage City Assets
5. Organize for the Long Haul
6. Cut Corporate Power Down to Size
I read thru the steps, and they give some flowery success stories about how well the projects are proceeding. So I looked up some details on on of the projects.
Read through the page and I get to this at the bottom...
Local hiring: 91 percent of the initial employees at Food 4 Less were hired from the community. All these jobs are unionized and include living wages, health care, and pension plans.
Unionized? That's a red flag.
So I looked up another example - the article mentions a Cleveland project based on a Mondragon, a Spanish cooperative effort. I ran across this article.
Moreover there is now a quiet trend in the union movement—away from disinterest in new forms of ownership and towards positive assistance. The United Steelworkers, working jointly with Mondragon (the 80-thousand member strong complex of cooperatives in the Basque country), have taken the lead in proposing and developing “union coops” which will combine worker ownership and the collective bargaining process. The Service Employees union (SEIU) has taken some interesting steps here as well, with a worker-owned and unionized laundry slated to launch in Pittsburgh this year, and a groundbreaking partnership with New York City’s Cooperative Home Care Associates, the largest worker cooperative in the United States. Also notable is a growing sophistication among unions regarding a far more common form of U.S. worker ownership, the ESOP or Employee Stock Ownership Plan (which involve 10 million workers): unions like the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) are taking a strong role in making sure workers’ interests are protected as companies convert to worker ownership.
So now I get it. This whole "public ownership" trend is a scam to get people to join the unions. Or at the least, the unions would be involved in the decision making processes.
I don't understand your problem with unionization? Organized Labor has always been part of the proletariat movements.
Quote:
Also, the projects are opened up to investors to make investment. I assume they will reap the profits - not the entire public. However, the public is involved because they will contribute so much of their profits to other groups. Sounds noble - until you understand these contributions allow them to be 501c3 charitable organizations, and they can get out of paying their fair share of taxes.
I presume "public" here might be referencing the workforce of the company, not just the few top cats. That workforce, after all, is who actually spends money, not the top few people. Money spent is money in the community, to the public.
What's your issue again?
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.
