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.
1
Actually, CalPERS DID change how Walmart and Dick's makes money. They forced a limitation on what those two corporations sell, thereby also limiting/reducing profits.
2
Shareholders ARE active members, particularly when 71% of all retirees are participants in a pension or retirement account collective. The shareholder collectives wield great power when they vote their shares. I already gave CalPERS as an example of that.
3
That's just another form of what we already have: Some will have more/better while others do not. You've solved nothing.
4
What you've described is also about power. You just don't see it. Under your theoretical example, some will still have more/better while others do not.
1: That's barely a portion of their overall profits; and including boycotts + uncomfortable shoppers who don't want to enter a story with automated weaponry, it was probably a good business decision.
2: This is circular logic; I'm not part of a process that I then buy into therefore becoming part of the process. This can lead you to conclude anything. The 'process' is the labor/work; owning shares does not make you an employee/worker for that company.
3/4: No its not; Yes not everyone would be exactly equal, and that's fine. But society will have less upwards pressure to develop, globalize, and financialize because capital will not be monopolized by credit and large pools of liquidity. People would have control over their futures and jobs would be decentralized allowing for a more equal and humble society. You talk about personal choice but as I already explained, our current system requires greed and excessive spending to be upheld.
Not giving people power to invest in property, liquidate housing, and monopolize capital leads to a more primitive economic structure.
That means larger scale projects have to be joint efforts between small capital holders, were resources are pooled together. Socially that increases cooperation and helps maintain communities from be swallowed by large metro areas.
Disagree that health services and housing in present form are examples of capitalism. Capitalism requires private ownership, private ownership means freedom (absence of force) to operate in best self-interest.
Capitalism is sink or swim.
Banker Bail Outs, QE for Wall Street, Corporations and Banks purchasing politicians is not Capitalism.
Corporate America is very Marxist today in their internal functions.
Wide scale equality leads to massive mobilization, especially under the guise of democracy or a shared 'goal'.
Lycurgus was a Spartan king who had no care for communist ideologies or character traits; nonetheless he implemented massive equality by breaking down wealth concentration.
He made people have to carry Iron bars as money or barter. He caused massive inflation to keep the value low so that when a Spartan wanted to go out to the market, they only had what they could carry.
In the end land lords and peasants all had to room with one another in communal housing to save money, and labor was no longer hired but rather entered into as a joint operation.
The king at the top had social authority over the people and now that they were mobilized in small, equal, and democratic structures they could operate like a machine given the right 'manager'.
In the end Sparta hyper leaped all its competitors to have one of the strongest armies, both technologically and otherwise, in the entire world.
Stalin didn't forget that such that many of the gulags were operated on a self-management principle. And you can bet American founders like Ford, JP Morgan, Vanderbilt, and Rockefeller remembered the same message.
The wisest private enterprise like paying for their workers well being as to have greater authority over their lives, just like they want to keep paying the majority of taxes to keep the government promoting their investment.
In the end the efficiency involved with controlling massive swaths of capital in one open market does not promote freedom. In the same way wealth is considered a replacement for liberation when in truth modern day capitalism has little to do with that.
You're right about human nature, but you're wrong about its affects; human's can be very selfish which despite what Ayn Rand might say, is the furthest thing from profitable.
Industries and states that hope to build an efficient money machine do in basic turns require the ideals of communism if not the end goal.
In America today, we mostly have Socialism for Big Business and Capitalism for everyone else.
The majority of our spending is not socialist but corporatism.
Follow the money. A big chunk is on healthcare and guess what the top lobbying industries are?
Pharma and Insurance.
If that's true, poverty pimps are extracting the most. The CBO provides a breakdown of what is spent, where, and well over $1 trillion/year is spent solely on means-tested public assistance programs and federal grants for the poor. Fed bureaucrats and the private contractors they line up to provide services, etc., all profit from that.
1: That's barely a portion of their overall profits; and including boycotts + uncomfortable shoppers who don't want to enter a story with automated weaponry, it was probably a good business decision.
2: This is circular logic; I'm not part of a process that I then buy into therefore becoming part of the process. This can lead you to conclude anything. The 'process' is the labor/work; owning shares does not make you an employee/worker for that company.
3/4: No its not; Yes not everyone would be exactly equal, and that's fine. But society will have less upwards pressure to develop, globalize, and financialize because capital will not be monopolized by credit and large pools of liquidity. People would have control over their futures and jobs would be decentralized allowing for a more equal and humble society. You talk about personal choice but as I already explained, our current system requires greed and excessive spending to be upheld.
Not giving people power to invest in property, liquidate housing, and monopolize capital leads to a more primitive economic structure.
That means larger scale projects have to be joint efforts between small capital holders, were resources are pooled together. Socially that increases cooperation and helps maintain communities from be swallowed by large metro areas.
You actually never disputed anything I said. Your "opinion" is different, but it doesn't dispute the facts. Your system STILL leaves people unequal both in what they have and what they are able to acquire.
You actually never disputed anything I said. Your "opinion" is different, but it doesn't dispute the facts. Your system STILL leaves people unequal both in what they have and what they are able to acquire.
It doesn't leave people to live buried under debt, or locked out of society because they don't have enough money.
It protects land from confiscation or manipulation, and promotes primitive economic activities that builds partnership.
It doesn't create high levels of expectations or academic elitism, neither does it supercharge people for basic commodities like irrigation.
It doesn't promote massive consumerism and cheap processed goods, it keeps capital/land from being bought up by one proprietor, and it allows for greater social organization and personal freedom. It promotes beauty in society rather than purely functional buildings, it will bring a reemergence into fantastical and artistic interests, botanical activities, etc.
It allows sustainability rather than exploiting resources for production, its stops off shoring all together, and introduces stability to a society that has been about becoming richer.
Today the poorest look at money like freedom, it is the religion of this country. People want to become celebrities or rich investors; instead the more mutualistic approach takes power away from political governments or corporate investors and gives people more rights.
And of course some people will achieve more than others, but in a scale of fractions rather than massive concentrations of power. It means a business man can't buy up land to build a factory or create a chain brand, and businesses that want to work together do so cooperatively, not by merging. Its community forward interests, not just the interest of international finance.
It doesn't leave people to live buried under debt, or locked out of society because they don't have enough money.
What you propose does exactly the same to the collective (everyone) instead of just to individuals who made bad choices. And that's inherently unfair as some STILL have more/better than others.
What you propose does exactly the same to the collective (everyone) instead of just to individuals who made bad choices. And that's inherently unfair as some STILL have more/better than others.
It helps build a home for people, and gives stability a larger input on society than just a free moving population attracted to where the latest job markets are set up.
Individual freedom is about their rights, not how efficiently they can be used by external factors.
And there is still government/trade, its just not the primary mode of social/economic interaction.
Capitalism is sink or swim.
Banker Bail Outs, QE for Wall Street, Corporations and Banks purchasing politicians is not Capitalism.
A word about what really happened due to the 2008 credit crisis (which is actually what it was)...
The Federal Reserve created $2 trillion worth of QE out of thin air to buy F&F MBS. That money creation wasn't backed by T-Bills or anything, it was just an inflated keystroke value added to the Federal Reserve's H.4.1. Currently, $1.45 trillion worth is STILL on the Federal Reserve's H.4.1. And it matters not one whit to the Federal Reserve if that's never paid back. Those MBS will just roll off the Federal Reserve's H.4.1 as they mature, paid or not. We'll never know because the Federal Reserve doesn't have to recognize or state losses. They just reduce/erase the line item on their H.4.1.
And that all happens WHY? Because that $2 trillion artificially created by the Federal Reserve to buy F&F MBS was created with just key strokes and can be erased/deleted just the same without anyone losing any money. The only negative result is the QE used to buy the F&F MBS that contain mortgages that default and are never paid off can never be reined back in, so it devalues the US Dollar by that amount.
Oh, and just for grins... Tens of thousands of mortgage borrowers, if not more, will get their homes for free as this all continues to play out and their mortgage debt just rolls off the Federal Reserve's H.4.1, unpaid...
It helps build a home for people, and gives stability a larger input on society than just a free moving population attracted to where the latest job markets are set up.
Individual freedom is about their rights, not how efficiently they can be used by external factors.
And there is still government/trade, its just not the primary mode of social/economic interaction.
Actually, it introduces a moral hazard. One can do everything correctly to live within a collective and STILL end up with less and/or a worse homestead, etc., situation than other somehow specially selected others. Read Animal Farm.
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.
