So this is the Socialist Argument In A Nutshell - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

As either the transitional stage to communism or legitimate socio-economic ends in its own right.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14665706
Davea8 wrote:It is a problem for those workers that corporations have abandoned and are now unemployed and underemployed. I was speaking from the point of view of those workers.

Corporations don't exist to look after workers. Blaming them for responding to perverse incentives just exculpates the idiots and crooks who create such incentives.
#14665939
Truth To Power wrote: Corporations don't exist to look after workers. Blaming them for responding to perverse incentives just exculpates the idiots and crooks who create such incentives.

They should be required to look after workers. Not very long ago corporations were required by laws relating to corporate charters to provide some public good as their first obligation to the nation. Then the S.C. stepped in and changed that first obligation to one of making a profit for shareholders. Since that stands in direct conflict with workers' interests, the conditions of workers have been in decline as a consequence.

I mean really, which should be held as more important, -business success and profits, or the wellbeing of society as a whole?
#14665943
Davea8 wrote:Not very long ago corporations were required by laws relating to corporate charters to provide some public good as their first obligation to the nation. Then the S.C. stepped in and changed that first obligation to one of making a profit for shareholders.

I don't think that's completely accurate. Non-profit corporations exist, for example.

Davea8 wrote:I mean really, which should be held as more important, -business success and profits, or the wellbeing of society as a whole?

That varies by individual. Some people build companies with only profit in mind, others build non-profit charities.
#14666017
Truth To Power wrote: Corporations don't exist to look after workers. Blaming them for responding to perverse incentives just exculpates the idiots and crooks who create such incentives.

Davea8 wrote:They should be required to look after workers.

Nonsense. Workers should look after themselves, and to the degree that they can't, it is government's job to create an economic environment where they can, without abrogating others' rights to do likewise.
Not very long ago corporations were required by laws relating to corporate charters to provide some public good as their first obligation to the nation. Then the S.C. stepped in and changed that first obligation to one of making a profit for shareholders.

That depends on the type of corporation. The USSC doesn't govern other countries, which also have corporations.
Since that stands in direct conflict with workers' interests, the conditions of workers have been in decline as a consequence.

You are delusional. The conditions of workers are worse since corporate ownership of business supplanted individual ownership? Ah, no.

In any case, the socialist notion that workers' and employers' interests are in irreducible conflict is a fundamental misunderstanding, and makes no more sense than the idea that producers' and consumers' interests are in conflict. They are exchanging to mutual benefit. They have to serve each other's interests, or there is no deal. The reason economically naïve people like socialists think employers exploit workers is that the privileged, especially landowners, have deprived the workers of their liberty, and thus of their bargaining power. So blaming employers for the poor returns to workers' labor is as stupid as blaming pharmacists for high drug prices.

Consider an analogous situation: a landowner has claimed ownership of a natural spring in the desert where he knows people will want water. Water bottlers see an opportunity to make a profit: they believe they can bottle the water for $0.10 a liter and sell it to thirsty people for $1/liter, so they offer to pay the landowner for exclusive rights to the spring water. The landowner invites competing bids, and the successful one ultimately bids $0.80 a liter, hoping for a $0.10/L profit. The others don't think they can live on that, or consider the venture too risky, etc.

Along comes a thirsty man -- in fact, one who is dying of thirst. He goes to the spring to drink, but is rebuffed by the landowner, who directs him to the water bottler. The thirsty man is outraged to be charged $1/L for a bottle of water; and because he is the most intelligent socialist in the world, he blames the water bottler for exploiting him. He is completely oblivious to the fact that the bottler is just barely making a living, and is providing clean water in a convenient form in return for his $0.10/L profit, while the landowner is pocketing $0.80/L in return for doing and contributing absolutely nothing. The thirsty socialist at least knows he is being robbed; but he is too angry and socialistic to understand who is doing the robbing, and how. He declares that his interests and the interests of the water bottler are in irreducible conflict, ignoring the fact that the bottler has provided him with cleaner and more convenient water than he would have got directly from the spring.
I mean really, which should be held as more important, -business success and profits, or the wellbeing of society as a whole?

The fundamental challenge of economics -- which socialists are simply incompetent to meet, and they know it -- is to create an economic environment where the ineradicable individual desire for success and material reward serves the wellbeing of society as a whole. By refusing to know the difference between publicly and privately created value, capitalism and socialism both disqualify themselves from the process of designing such an environment. They have nothing to contribute, but they won't shut up and let those of us who do have something to contribute get on with it.
#14666127
Davea8 wrote:Not very long ago corporations were required by laws relating to corporate charters to provide some public good as their first obligation to the nation. Then the S.C. stepped in and changed that first obligation to one of making a profit for shareholders.

lucky wrote:I don't think that's completely accurate. Non-profit corporations exist, for example.

Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. [1919] - Michigan Supreme Court says, "A business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders. The powers of the directors are to be employed for that end." IOW, the principle reason and justification for a corporation's existence is to make as much money for the shareholders as possible.
#14666134
Since that stands in direct conflict with workers' interests, the conditions of workers have been in decline as a consequence.

Truth To Power wrote: You are delusional.

You continue to resort to personal attacks. You don't seem to realize that it makes you look weak and unable to debate the issues honestly without such feeble attempts at intimidation.

Truth To Power wrote: The conditions of workers are worse since corporate ownership of business supplanted individual ownership? Ah, no.

No, conditions are worsening. You may have noticed that income inequality has reached an extreme degree and workers real incomes have stagnated even while productivity has gone steadily upward. It goes mostly to the top. You may also have noticed that there has been a veritable war on unions. The percentage of employed workers that were union members peaked in 1954 at 28.3%. In 2003, 11.5% of employed workers were union members. Also, many employers who have not yet abandoned the American worker and moved business overseas for cheap labor, have instead switched from full-time workers to part time in order to avoid having to pay for employee benefits, and those workers now often work 2 or 3 different jobs to make ends meet. And those workers now must pay fully for their families' health insurance out of their incomes. If a worker wants to be sure their child can go to college today they have much higher tuitions to pay out of their stagnant wages. Due to law changes we now have huge political contributions to PACs made by the wealthy in hope of buying elections to obtain favors for big business at the expense of workers. Corporations and politicians collaborate in A.L.E.C. with the same goal in mind. Workers are not represented and journalists who do not lean to the corporate right are not welcome.

Need more? Let me know.


In any case, the socialist notion that workers' and employers' interests are in irreducible conflict is a fundamental misunderstanding, and makes no more sense than the idea that producers' and consumers' interests are in conflict. They are exchanging to mutual benefit.

I think I just proved you wrong.


The fundamental challenge of economics -- which socialists are simply incompetent to meet, and they know it -- is to create an economic environment where the ineradicable individual desire for success and material reward serves the wellbeing of society as a whole.

You need to look into the Mondragon Corporation in Spain.
Mondragon Cooperative Corporation began in 1956 with 6 workers. It began as a furniture repair shop.
Today, they have a university, bank, etc.
Nobody earns more than 8.5 times the lowest paid worker. Managers hired by workers. Workers can fire managers. They are the 7th largest corporation in Spain with over 100,000 workers today. Two American companies have signed agreements to send their scientists to Mondragon to learn from them. Microsoft is one of them.

By refusing to know the difference between publicly and privately created value, capitalism and socialism both disqualify themselves from the process of designing such an environment. They have nothing to contribute, but they won't shut up and let those of us who do have something to contribute get on with it.

Poor you. Are you vastly outnumbered (I'm not at all familiar with your theories) or are socialist too convincing to the public?

The rest of your post was a defense based on idealistic textbook theories of economies that don't actually work in the real world.
#14666150
lucky wrote:I don't think that's completely accurate. Non-profit corporations exist, for example.

Davea8 wrote:Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. [1919] - Michigan Supreme Court says, "A business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders. The powers of the directors are to be employed for that end." IOW, the principle reason and justification for a corporation's existence is to make as much money for the shareholders as possible.

That case is more about "majority shareholders cannot screw over minority shareholders after taking their money with the stated intent of making profit for them" than "all corporations have to be chartered with profit as the primary goal". The latter is obviously false, which was my point and which you ignored.

In short: if you want to be a charity it is allowed (encouraged even by the tax code!) -- as long as you don't lie to investors about it.

Side note: Michigan Supreme Court is not what we normally refer to as "the Supreme Court".
#14666312
But as indicated the court said, among other things, "The powers of the directors are to be employed for that end." And since it was stated, this is recognized by courts as the existing legal position on the question until it is overturned. Therefore courts have built upon it and further developed the question of corporate rights until they arrived at the decision years later of "corporate personhood" and first Amendment "rights" of corporations. So the statement has had consequences and has been part of an overall development that puts us where we are today with Citizens United and much more.
#14666317
Davea8 wrote:But as indicated the court said, among other things, "The powers of the directors are to be employed for that end."

Of course, but only in specific contexts: when the company has been chartered as a for-profit institution. The Ford company was chartered as a for-profit business, and the Dodge brothers invested with the intent of getting a return.

This does not apply when you declare your company to be a non-profit charity corporation. In that case people giving you money know that it's going to public good, and that's where it should go.

Again, this just means you can't start a for-profit business, woo investors by saying you're about to go and make money for them in your founding letter, take their money, and then turn on them and start giving it away for public good.

The directors are not allowed to do with the company as they wish, because the directors are employees. It's not their company. They have been hired by the owners (aka shareholders) to represent their interests. It's as if you hired somebody to clean your house, and they decide to invite homeless people in, arguing that it's for public good. Not allowed.
#14667138
Since that stands in direct conflict with workers' interests, the conditions of workers have been in decline as a consequence.

Truth To Power wrote: You are delusional.

Davea8 wrote:You continue to resort to personal attacks. You don't seem to realize that it makes you look weak and unable to debate the issues honestly without such feeble attempts at intimidation.

<yawn> It wasn't a personal attack, it was an observation that your claim is absurd.
Truth To Power wrote: The conditions of workers are worse since corporate ownership of business supplanted individual ownership? Ah, no.

No, conditions are worsening.

But they are better now, under corporate ownership models, than they were under individual ownership models. The corporation has to serve the interests of its owners, which means not treating valued workers so badly that they leave; the individual owner could just be an evil, vindictive $#!+.
You may have noticed that income inequality has reached an extreme degree and workers real incomes have stagnated even while productivity has gone steadily upward. It goes mostly to the top.

But that is the result of PRIVILEGE, not corporate ownership or profit-seeking.
You may also have noticed that there has been a veritable war on unions.

Yes, well, they are also privileged, so the war on them is justified. The unions are the authors of their own misfortune, because instead of justice for all workers, they demanded countervailing privilege exclusively for union members at the expense of non-union workers.
The percentage of employed workers that were union members peaked in 1954 at 28.3%. In 2003, 11.5% of employed workers were union members. Also, many employers who have not yet abandoned the American worker and moved business overseas for cheap labor, have instead switched from full-time workers to part time in order to avoid having to pay for employee benefits, and those workers now often work 2 or 3 different jobs to make ends meet. And those workers now must pay fully for their families' health insurance out of their incomes. If a worker wants to be sure their child can go to college today they have much higher tuitions to pay out of their stagnant wages. Due to law changes we now have huge political contributions to PACs made by the wealthy in hope of buying elections to obtain favors for big business at the expense of workers. Corporations and politicians collaborate in A.L.E.C. with the same goal in mind. Workers are not represented and journalists who do not lean to the corporate right are not welcome.

Why do you think non-union workers won't sign union cards? They want to work, and they have seen for themselves that unions just bankrupt private employers, destroying jobs. This is inherent in the perverse incentives unions set up. Economic analysis has established that the ideal union demands more and more for workers, reducing employment in pace with attrition and retirements, until the employer goes bankrupt on the day the last union worker retires.
Need more? Let me know.

I will demolish more of your claims if you like.
In any case, the socialist notion that workers' and employers' interests are in irreducible conflict is a fundamental misunderstanding, and makes no more sense than the idea that producers' and consumers' interests are in conflict. They are exchanging to mutual benefit.

I think I just proved you wrong.

See above. That didn't happen, nor will it ever be happening. Take it to the bank.
The fundamental challenge of economics -- which socialists are simply incompetent to meet, and they know it -- is to create an economic environment where the ineradicable individual desire for success and material reward serves the wellbeing of society as a whole.

You need to look into the Mondragon Corporation in Spain.

Obviously, I already know about it.
Mondragon Cooperative Corporation began in 1956 with 6 workers. It began as a furniture repair shop.
Today, they have a university, bank, etc.
Nobody earns more than 8.5 times the lowest paid worker. Managers hired by workers. Workers can fire managers. They are the 7th largest corporation in Spain with over 100,000 workers today. Two American companies have signed agreements to send their scientists to Mondragon to learn from them. Microsoft is one of them.

Like the Israeli kibbutzim, Mondragon is a VOLUNTARY socialist organization, not a compulsorily socialist SOCIETY. It is true that voluntary socialist organizations can be successful. But not everyone wants to be a member of a socialist organization. In fact, most people don't.
By refusing to know the difference between publicly and privately created value, capitalism and socialism both disqualify themselves from the process of designing such an environment. They have nothing to contribute, but they won't shut up and let those of us who do have something to contribute get on with it.

Poor you. Are you vastly outnumbered (I'm not at all familiar with your theories) or are socialist too convincing to the public?

Like anyone who identifies inconvenient facts, I am indeed vastly outnumbered by those who prefer their accustomed, comfortable lies. But I demolish socialists -- and capitalists -- before breakfast.
The rest of your post was a defense based on idealistic textbook theories of economies that don't actually work in the real world.

Wrong again. You will not find views like mine in any economics textbook I am aware of.
#14785167
Truth To Power wrote:The problem is privilege: legal entitlement to benefit from the uncompensated abrogation of others' rights.

Very good! That is exactly right! The problem is that the capitalist is legally entitled to benefit from the, .... well, .... partially compensated abrogation of the rights of others.

No worker is paid for the actual value of what he produces. Some is kept by the capitalist as a legal entitlement.
#14785171
Truth To Power wrote:Nonsense. Workers should look after themselves, and to the degree that they can't, it is government's job to create an economic environment where they can

I agree. Government should support increased union participation and protections.
#14785416
Senter wrote:The problem is that the capitalist is legally entitled to benefit from the, .... well, .... partially compensated abrogation of the rights of others.

No, not the capitalist (in the classical economics sense of the provider of capital goods), but the privileged owner of land, bank licenses, IP monopolies, etc. The latter abrogate people's rights to liberty. The former does not.
No worker is paid for the actual value of what he produces. Some is kept by the capitalist as a legal entitlement.

Do not ascribe to the provider of productive capital the privilege of the landowner, bankster or IP monopolist.
Government should support increased union participation and protections.

No, it should secure and reconcile the equal individual rights of all, not favor the interests of collective organizations over those of individuals.
#14785754
Truth To Power wrote:No, not the capitalist (in the classical economics sense of the provider of capital goods), but the privileged owner of land, bank licenses, IP monopolies, etc. The latter abrogate people's rights to liberty. The former does not.

Do not ascribe to the provider of productive capital the privilege of the landowner, bankster or IP monopolist.

No, it should secure and reconcile the equal individual rights of all, not favor the interests of collective organizations over those of individuals.

Ok. Bottom line: this profit-driven economic system no longer works for the people. It is creating more problems that it cannot solve. It has outlived its usefulness and we cannot move forward without replacing it.
#14786136
Senter wrote:Ok. Bottom line: this profit-driven economic system no longer works for the people.

You are misdiagnosing the problem. The problem is not the natural human desire for profit -- i.e., to improve one's situation. The problem is the system of PRIVILEGE that enables the privileged to profit, often exorbitantly, without making any commensurate contribution to production -- or even by reducing production.
It is creating more problems that it cannot solve. It has outlived its usefulness and we cannot move forward without replacing it.

There is nothing wrong with people wanting to profit by making commensurate contributions to production. The problem is that we have created too many PRIVILEGES that enable rich, greedy parasites to profit WITHOUT making any contribution to production.
#14793681
Profit-driven capitalism leads to power being concentrated in the hands of the most successful capitalists. When the political system is essentially owned by them, the political system is not going to pass laws mitigating or even limiting the privileges of the most successful capitalists. And it is they who are the source of the major problems facing us. Non-profit businesses don't normally influence government much with their money and power. The problem is power concentrated in the hands of a few rich. This is the whole basis of my arguments.
#14793825
Senter wrote:Profit-driven capitalism leads to power being concentrated in the hands of the most successful capitalists. When the political system is essentially owned by them, the political system is not going to pass laws mitigating or even limiting the privileges of the most successful capitalists. And it is they who are the source of the major problems facing us. Non-profit businesses don't normally influence government much with their money and power. The problem is power concentrated in the hands of a few rich. This is the whole basis of my arguments.


George Soros and Bill Gates don't own the US gov. Richard Branson and J.K.Rowling don't own the UK gov. Both the US and UK are democracies so rich people can be influential a little beyond the ordinary as they can drop (mostly waste) money on activists and election campaigns but that's it.

Power is military power and the sort of people you hate don't have that at all. J.K.Rowling is super rich but she is not powerful.

It says something about a person when they cook up a crappy crypto-religion (socialism) as an excuse to persecute people with loads of cash on the basis that they have commited the sin of avarice when the very basis of socialism and the motivation for persecuting rich people is avarice.

Image

Image

Hypocrisy much?
#14793853
SolarCross wrote:George Soros and Bill Gates don't own the US gov. Richard Branson and J.K.Rowling don't own the UK gov. Both the US and UK are democracies so rich people can be influential a little beyond the ordinary as they can drop (mostly waste) money on activists and election campaigns but that's it.

Power is military power and the sort of people you hate don't have that at all. J.K.Rowling is super rich but she is not powerful.

It says something about a person when they cook up a crappy crypto-religion (socialism) as an excuse to persecute people with loads of cash on the basis that they have commited the sin of avarice when the very basis of socialism and the motivation for persecuting rich people is avarice.

Hypocrisy much?

And it says something about a person when they so willfully misrepresent the facts and vilify those who are working to solve the problem such a person is choosing to ignore. Speaking of hypocrisy.

You took great care to avoid thinking of A.L.E.C. and the huge influence of thousands and thousands of lobbyists and the promise of campaign support in the millions of dollars.

The sad part of it is your betrayal of your own class in your scramble to trip all over yourself to defend and excuse the greed and corruption of the capitalist class that is wrecking both the U.K. and the U.S.

But you presented no argument, ... just character assassination and huge factual errors.

Puffer Fish, as a senior (and olde) member of this[…]

1 The great settlement withdrawal that Israelis […]

As someone that pays very close attention to Amer[…]

I (still) have a dream

...Kids don't need to drive anywhere to play with[…]