Yes, in one way or the other. I’m arguing that labor should own a greater share of the end product than the one providing capital or raw resources, so they should profit more.
Democracy.
Do you believe humans are capable of greed, even without capitalism’s presence?
Technically that would be accurate. The USSR had a fascist, totalitarian political system with a quasi-socialist economic system, but it never actually acheived communism as Marx defined it. Neither has any other country. In true communism, there is no government.
Okay, so let’s say you need to take $200,000 of your retirement money to open a business. Would you invest that $200,000 in a new business if you knew that you would only get say a 10% share of the company and the 5 employees you hired would each get 18% shares? Would that be the decision you made with your money? To essentially give away 90% of your money to 5 other individuals, in exchange for them working for you?
Let’s assume a ROI of 100%. Since you only get profits on the 10% (despite fronting 100% of the capital to create the business) assuming no taxes and etc etc, it will take 10 years just to break even and have you with $200,000 cash in hand. It would take 20 years to double your money.
Is that an investment you would make?
Why hasn’t that prevented politicians from collecting power and perks in democratic countries like the United States?
Yes. Absolutely.
I don’t care about profit. If I started a business, it would be for the sake of simply doing work I wanted to do, not to make money. I don’t really like the whole notion of investing money to try to make more money without doing anything to earn it. That part of the capitalist system is one of the things that is abhorrent to me.
What percentage of current business owners do you think feel the way you do?
I don’t know and don’t care.
Alright, I’ll continue the thread with people interested in the discussion.
It’s interesting that you think people who start companies don’t do “anything to earn” the money they make. Nothing.
Does this worker ownership of the product also extend to the company’s debt?
I’m interested in the discussion., Your question had no particular relevance to the discussion.
One of the problems with that is you then have 50 bakers baking one cake. Throughout human history this has essentially always been a problem.
If you have something, anything, be it a business, government project, an entire country, that needs leadership then the person in that position of leadership has potential to abuse that position. If you divide the leadership up, the operation becomes less effective, you can have internal debates that can ground the whole thing down to a stand still. This is why most corporations, at the end of the day, there is one guy who is CEO and he has final say on a day to day basis (depending on the ownership structure of the company he could of course be ousted by the board), most countries also have one man at the end of the day who has ultimate responsibility.
There was a suggestion in the formative days of the United States to make the office of the President a council of individuals, and ultimately it was not seen as ideal.
But maybe it really is better than having an administrative class, but it’s undeniable you’ll have a greater portion of the work force spending a greater portion of their time in meetings and having discussions versus now, and that will mean less productivity.
I guess we’re at an impasse then, so again, I’ll have to move on without you.
Of course it was relevant. If most people don’t think the way you do, why should be base an economic system on the way you think?
For the most part they don’t. They’re parasites feeding on the working class. There are rare exceptions who actually have ideas and put labor into things, but they still tend to profit inequitably compared to the labor they employ.
No more than the provider of capital is responsible for doing labor.
Because I’m right.
It’s pretty clear you have no idea what constitutes a business. If you did, you’d know that most business being started are small, employing a few individuals, and the owner often works his or her butt off to get it going.
But if you have a cite to back up your assertion, I’m all eyes.
So, they share the profits, but not the losses. Kind of like what the big banks did when they got the feds to pass the TARP legislation. That’s a great model for an economic system. What could possibly go wrong?
Cite?
How do we know it’s not the other way around? Maybe the reason capitalism doesn’t work perfectly is because of the malign influence of communism. If we eliminated the last vestiges of communism in the world, capitalism could finally achieve its ideal state and the world would be perfect.
At least, it’s no less plausible than your theory.
Well, he did say the workers should share in the debt to the same degree the owner shares in the labor. So in my example 6 person company (owner + 5 employees), that would suggest workers should each shoulder around 16 2/3 % of any company debts.