PDA

View Full Version : Jon Stewart video



SPYDER
11-18-2011, 10:35 AM
I bet the dummys don't post this clip from Jon Stewart!!!

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-november-16-2011/occupy-wall-street-divided

AmPat
11-18-2011, 11:07 AM
Filthy hippies are carrying their class warfare into their disgusting swarm and segregating. They want to "share" everything they don't own but don't want to "share" what they do own.:rolleyes:

Janey
11-18-2011, 02:42 PM
"Personal property, not private property." LOL!!

SarasotaRepub
11-18-2011, 04:04 PM
OMG!!! :D

And these morons wonder why they aren't taken seriously????

:rotfl::popcorn:

DumbAss Tanker
11-18-2011, 04:23 PM
OMG!!! :D

And these morons wonder why they aren't taken seriously????

:rotfl::popcorn:

I don't think they're sufficiently self-aware to actually recognize that fact, let alone wonder about it.

noonwitch
11-18-2011, 04:31 PM
I watched that on tv last night. It's hilarious.

Articulate_Ape
11-18-2011, 04:55 PM
I don't think they're sufficiently self-aware to actually recognize that fact, let alone wonder about it.

Spot on.

Wei Wu Wei
11-18-2011, 07:52 PM
"Personal property, not private property." LOL!!

There is a real distinction between these two, FYI.

JB
11-18-2011, 08:01 PM
There is a real distinction between these two, FYI.Please elaborate.

Wei Wu Wei
11-18-2011, 10:46 PM
When people say "personal property" they are referring to the things that you own which you use for yourself. You have them for some particular quality which they possess which is useful to you, which may be shelter, warmth, sustenance, entertainment, ect. This type of property includes your home, your vehicle, your artwork, your furniture, you toys, your computer, ect. ect. ect.

When they say "private property", they are referring to Capital or the means of production. The ovens in a bakery are not used for feeding the owner of the oven, they are used for producing a commodity and sold for profit.


Capitalism generally doesn't draw a distinction between these two, neither does feudalism or slavery.

Bailey
11-18-2011, 10:51 PM
There is a real distinction between these two, FYI.

Only to a believer of Marx

Rockntractor
11-18-2011, 10:59 PM
When people say "personal property" they are referring to the things that you own which you use for yourself. You have them for some particular quality which they possess which is useful to you, which may be shelter, warmth, sustenance, entertainment, ect. This type of property includes your home, your vehicle, your artwork, your furniture, you toys, your computer, ect. ect. ect.

When they say "private property", they are referring to Capital or the means of production. The ovens in a bakery are not used for feeding the owner of the oven, they are used for producing a commodity and sold for profit.


Capitalism generally doesn't draw a distinction between these two, neither does feudalism or slavery.

Oh I get it, it's like keep your hands off my personal property or I'll blow your head off with my private property!:idea:

Wei Wu Wei
11-18-2011, 11:14 PM
Only to a believer of Marx

It is a Marxist distinction, yes.

You don't have to accept Marxist analysis in order to understand it. That is what the people are referring to.

Apache
11-18-2011, 11:15 PM
When people say "personal property" they are referring to the things that you own which you use for yourself. You have them for some particular quality which they possess which is useful to you, which may be shelter, warmth, sustenance, entertainment, ect. This type of property includes your home, your vehicle, your artwork, your furniture, you toys, your computer, ect. ect. ect.

When they say "private property", they are referring to Capital or the means of production. The ovens in a bakery are not used for feeding the owner of the oven, they are used for producing a commodity and sold for profit.


Capitalism generally doesn't draw a distinction between these two, neither does feudalism or slavery.

Anything to blur the lines, huh?



Dumbass:rolleyes:

Elspeth
11-19-2011, 02:20 AM
Jon Stewart: Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz

Jon Stewart's Older Brother, Larry Leibowitz, Is Chief Operating Officer Of The NYSE.

The coverage of OWS on the Daily Show has been negative. TDS was the first to treat the entire problem of the porta-potties.

FlaGator
11-19-2011, 10:22 AM
When people say "personal property" they are referring to the things that you own which you use for yourself. You have them for some particular quality which they possess which is useful to you, which may be shelter, warmth, sustenance, entertainment, ect. This type of property includes your home, your vehicle, your artwork, your furniture, you toys, your computer, ect. ect. ect.

When they say "private property", they are referring to Capital or the means of production. The ovens in a bakery are not used for feeding the owner of the oven, they are used for producing a commodity and sold for profit.


Capitalism generally doesn't draw a distinction between these two, neither does feudalism or slavery.

Mr. Bojangles...
Mr. Bojangles...
Mr Bojangles... dance.

AmPat
11-19-2011, 10:46 AM
When people say "personal property" they are referring to the things that you own which you use for yourself. You have them for some particular quality which they possess which is useful to you, which may be shelter, warmth, sustenance, entertainment, ect. This type of property includes your home, your vehicle, your artwork, your furniture, you toys, your computer, ect. ect. ect.

When they say "private property", they are referring to Capital or the means of production. The ovens in a bakery are not used for feeding the owner of the oven, they are used for producing a commodity and sold for profit.


Capitalism generally doesn't draw a distinction between these two, neither does feudalism or slavery.

Ect? Is this shorthand for ectoplasma?

Kay
11-19-2011, 11:20 AM
Ha! I loved the video, and who is that reporter woman?
She was great, we need to see more of her. :)

JB
11-19-2011, 04:17 PM
When they say "private property", they are referring to Capital or the means of production. The ovens in a bakery are not used for feeding the owner of the oven, they are used for producing a commodity and sold for profit.Oh, I see the difference.

So if I wanted some bread but didn't own an oven, I could just walk into your bakery with my flour, water, salt and yeast and use your oven and you'd have no problem with that?

Or do I take my ingredients and go to the state-owned oven and stand in line with the 2,000 or so other people that need to make bread that day and wait my turn?

Or do you have a third option?

AmPat
11-20-2011, 10:37 AM
Oh, I see the difference.

So if I wanted some bread but didn't own an oven, I could just walk into your bakery with my flour, water, salt and yeast and use your oven and you'd have no problem with that?

Or do I take my ingredients and go to the state-owned oven and stand in line with the 2,000 or so other people that need to make bread that day and wait my turn?

Or do you have a third option?

;):popcorn::thumbsup:

Tipsycatlover
11-20-2011, 12:04 PM
When people say "personal property" they are referring to the things that you own which you use for yourself. You have them for some particular quality which they possess which is useful to you, which may be shelter, warmth, sustenance, entertainment, ect. This type of property includes your home, your vehicle, your artwork, your furniture, you toys, your computer, ect. ect. ect.

When they say "private property", they are referring to Capital or the means of production. The ovens in a bakery are not used for feeding the owner of the oven, they are used for producing a commodity and sold for profit.


Capitalism generally doesn't draw a distinction between these two, neither does feudalism or slavery.

Oh so someone who buys the oven for the bakery, risks their own capital never really owns it! That's exactly what I thought it was. There's not much point to opening that bakery is there? I wouldn't do it.

Wei Wu Wei
11-20-2011, 12:45 PM
Oh, I see the difference.

So if I wanted some bread but didn't own an oven, I could just walk into your bakery with my flour, water, salt and yeast and use your oven and you'd have no problem with that?

Or do I take my ingredients and go to the state-owned oven and stand in line with the 2,000 or so other people that need to make bread that day and wait my turn?

Or do you have a third option?

If you wanted bread you could buy an oven or buy some bread from a bakery.

Sure there could be state-owned ovens but it may not be the best quality stuff there and yeah you might have to wait in line.

If you worked at a bakery though, the oven would be yours. Whoever worked the oven would own what the oven produces, so any money gained from selling that bread would be split up between the workers who produced it.

That's the idea at least.


For the third option, well that's something we should be thinking about, rather than engaging in thought-terminating exercises.

Wei Wu Wei
11-20-2011, 12:53 PM
Oh so someone who buys the oven for the bakery, risks their own capital never really owns it! That's exactly what I thought it was. There's not much point to opening that bakery is there? I wouldn't do it.

There are already successful models for worker-owned cooperative businesses. The state can offer low-interest loans and capital injections for start-up businesses that are co-operatively owned and operated. The workers can all split up the risk, so that it doesn't all fall on one person, and because the profits are also split up, everyone ends up making far more than they would otherwise.

Another option is for one person to start up a company, with a plan in place to transition to a co-op. At first they take on the risk and get the reward, with the government helping them out because they are a small business, and with time they pass over the risk and the reward to the rest of their employers and become another worker-owner. They can maintain a higher pay-rate for a while, until their initial investment is returned and then some.

There are dozens of different models which have been very successful in many different countries.

ABC in Georgia
11-20-2011, 02:56 PM
There are already successful models for worker-owned cooperative businesses. The state can offer low-interest loans and capital injections for start-up businesses that are co-operatively owned and operated. The workers can all split up the risk, so that it doesn't all fall on one person, and because the profits are also split up, everyone ends up making far more than they would otherwise.

Another option is for one person to start up a company, with a plan in place to transition to a co-op. At first they take on the risk and get the reward, with the government helping them out because they are a small business, and with time they pass over the risk and the reward to the rest of their employers and become another worker-owner. They can maintain a higher pay-rate for a while, until their initial investment is returned and then some.

There are dozens of different models which have been very successful in many different countries.

Pure and unadulterated HOGWASH ... Wei.

The already, large enough and growing "entitlement" segment in this country, doesn't have much of a desire to help themselves, let alone get together to do something to help *others* in their same situation.

That is the problem, with all the government subsidies given to them, where is the incentive needed to get off their lazy backsides and try to better themselves, huh?

Would be nice if your ideas could take hold, but we BOTH know that, that hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell of ever coming to fruition.

Sad, but true!

~ ABC

Elspeth
11-20-2011, 03:00 PM
There are already successful models for worker-owned cooperative businesses. The state can offer low-interest loans and capital injections for start-up businesses that are co-operatively owned and operated. The workers can all split up the risk, so that it doesn't all fall on one person, and because the profits are also split up, everyone ends up making far more than they would otherwise.

Another option is for one person to start up a company, with a plan in place to transition to a co-op. At first they take on the risk and get the reward, with the government helping them out because they are a small business, and with time they pass over the risk and the reward to the rest of their employers and become another worker-owner. They can maintain a higher pay-rate for a while, until their initial investment is returned and then some.

There are dozens of different models which have been very successful in many different countries.

How long before people start fighting over who owns what and who is working hard and who isn't?

On the long term, this is just not feasible.

JB
11-20-2011, 07:37 PM
If you worked at a bakery though, the oven would be yours. Whoever worked the oven would own what the oven produces, so any money gained from selling that bread would be split up between the workers who produced it.It's called a co-op. Feel free to start one.

By your logic, if I worked in a diamond mine all the diamonds would be mine too.

AmPat
11-21-2011, 09:18 AM
If you wanted bread you could buy an oven or buy some bread from a bakery.

Sure there could be state-owned ovens but it may not be the best quality stuff there and yeah you might have to wait in line.

If you worked at a bakery though, the oven would be yours. Whoever worked the oven would own what the oven produces, so any money gained from selling that bread would be split up between the workers who produced it.

That's the idea at least.


For the third option, well that's something we should be thinking about, rather than engaging in thought-terminating exercises.

Here's an option worth thinking about:
A man bakes bread at his house for his family. Everybody who he knows has sampled his creations and tells him he should open a bakery. One day, he decides, Why not?

He takes his family savings, spends it on rent and purchase of a building and some ovens and goes into business. His business struggles for 5 long years where he nearly loses his dear wife and family due to the stresses of financial hardship. After 5 years, his business begins to thrive. He replaces his family savings and begins to prosper. He is getting on in years and he cannot keep up with the orders for his wonderful bread and cakes so he decides to finally hire somebody to assist him and the missus.

His new employee and he settle on mutually agreed upon compensation and the baker begins training the man on how to mix and bake his popular bread and treats. The new employee takes his wages and is able to actually buy things for his family like bread and even pay for those pesky little details of life like shelter and clothing, taxes and fees.

He continues this pattern for 15 years and grows his business to 100 employees who also pay taxes and feed their families, paying rent, food, clothing, taxes and fees. All are happy until one day all those previously unemployed workers decide that they should be compensated more for their labor. After all, WE make the products, not those evil owners.

They decide that they either get paid more for the product THEY produce, surely as much as the fat cat evil owners, or they will refuse to bake the bread.

Not wishing to create hardship for the employees, their families, or the business, the old baker gives them all a raise. Of course, the bread now costs more but that is somebody elses problem, the bakery employees got their raises.

This pattern repeats itself until one day, nearing financial collapse, the baker reasons with his wife;
Either we close the doors or find another bunch of employees willing to trade their time to work for much more reasonable wages. I cannot sell the bread for a fair and market supported price, pay all the demands of the workers, and satisfy the burden of governmental oppression at the present time.

She says:

Honey, we risked all, struggled for years, produced a superior product for a fair price, supported 100 families and their way of life, and now we can retire and live or twilight years in a modest home. Why don't you close the doors?

He agonizes over this but realizes she is right. He closes the doors.

100 families previously employed at the bakery are now being supported at sustenance levels by governmental forced charity, aka, welfare, instead of by the fruit of their labor. The support comes from those lucky enough to be working for other "evil, rich, entrepreneurs" who took the risk of starting their own businesses years before. Of course the benevolent government has to raise taxes again to support another 100 families and their hungry children. Those new costs are being passed along to those same charitable folks in the form of higher cost products, but the pattern has been going on now for years. As a matter of fact, the pattern has been repeating itself coincidentally as long as unionized shops took over and convinced its previously unemployed locals that they should make higher than market value wages for their unskilled labor.

txradioguy
11-21-2011, 09:34 AM
It's called a co-op. Feel free to start one.

By your logic, if I worked in a diamond mine all the diamonds would be mine too.

The problem Wee Wee either doesn't realize or is ignoring...is that the central planning he so craves for this wouldn't A) allow him to own his own bakery and B) without market forces at work there is no way to accurately predict how much bread to make at any given time to keep up with demand.

Wei Wu Wei
11-21-2011, 12:20 PM
It's called a co-op. Feel free to start one.

By your logic, if I worked in a diamond mine all the diamonds would be mine too.

Yes they would.

THe people who are going into the mine and doing the hard work, who are managing the project, who are doing the work every step of the way, would all divide up the diamond wealth. It's not necessary for everyone to get paid the same amount, but everyone should have a say in determining that. If the miners want to give a little more to the engineers or managers, that's great and it makes sense, but it should be the decision of the workers.

I think that makes more sense than people going in and working their asses off in a life-threatening area, and having no say about their work, and everything they mine going to whoever owns the mineral rights.

Wei Wu Wei
11-21-2011, 12:23 PM
Pure and unadulterated HOGWASH ... Wei.

The already, large enough and growing "entitlement" segment in this country, doesn't have much of a desire to help themselves, let alone get together to do something to help *others* in their same situation.

That is the problem, with all the government subsidies given to them, where is the incentive needed to get off their lazy backsides and try to better themselves, huh?

Would be nice if your ideas could take hold, but we BOTH know that, that hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell of ever coming to fruition.

Sad, but true!

~ ABC

cooperative businesses already exist, they are very successful, and are generally considered to be the very best to their workers. many countries have policies in place to encourage the startup and growth of cooperative businesses.

propaganda will tell you all the time "nothing else is possible except the way we do it now", and it's easy to just accept that, but even a few minutes of research will show you that other things can be done, actually are done, and are done very well.

it's not a matter of "would this work" or "could it work", it does work, coops exist already.

Wei Wu Wei
11-21-2011, 12:49 PM
Here's an option worth thinking about:
A man bakes bread at his house for his family. Everybody who he knows has sampled his creations and tells him he should open a bakery. One day, he decides, Why not?

He takes his family savings, spends it on rent and purchase of a building and some ovens and goes into business. His business struggles for 5 long years where he nearly loses his dear wife and family due to the stresses of financial hardship. After 5 years, his business begins to thrive. He replaces his family savings and begins to prosper. He is getting on in years and he cannot keep up with the orders for his wonderful bread and cakes so he decides to finally hire somebody to assist him and the missus.

If we had laws (like ones that already exist in other western nations) to support cooperative businesses, he could avoid most of the financial hardship because his small business would be supported by the government. Supporting small businesses helps competition.


His new employee and he settle on mutually agreed upon compensation and the baker begins training the man on how to mix and bake his popular bread and treats. The new employee takes his wages and is able to actually buy things for his family like bread and even pay for those pesky little details of life like shelter and clothing, taxes and fees.

He continues this pattern for 15 years and grows his business to 100 employees who also pay taxes and feed their families, paying rent, food, clothing, taxes and fees. All are happy until one day all those previously unemployed workers decide that they should be compensated more for their labor. After all, WE make the products, not those evil owners.

You are pointing something interesting out. The workers are right about one thing, they do make the products, it is their labor that is turning the raw materials into goods to sell.

It's not right to call the owner "evil", after all, he plays a part of this arrangement too.

The problem though isn't the worker or the owner, it's the arrangement itself. You are pointing out that there is an internal conflict between the owner and the workers. Even if they are all friendly with one another and like each other personally, the interests of the owner are to pay his workers less to make more profit, while the interest of the workers are to be compensated more for their labor which produces the profit.




They decide that they either get paid more for the product THEY produce, surely as much as the fat cat evil owners, or they will refuse to bake the bread.

Not wishing to create hardship for the employees, their families, or the business, the old baker gives them all a raise. Of course, the bread now costs more but that is somebody elses problem, the bakery employees got their raises.

This pattern repeats itself until one day, nearing financial collapse, the baker reasons with his wife;
Either we close the doors or find another bunch of employees willing to trade their time to work for much more reasonable wages. I cannot sell the bread for a fair and market supported price, pay all the demands of the workers, and satisfy the burden of governmental oppression at the present time.

You are right in that we cannot solve this internal conflict by putting all of our eggs in one basket. If the owner simply never gives them raises, the workers will revolt and stop working, and because it is their work that keeps the business operating, the business kills itself by trying to preserve itself.

Likewise, if the workers get everything they want, the business cannot operate. They get their higher raises but the business is unable to generate profits competitively, and is forced under. The result is that the workers lose their jobs by trying to preserve and improve them.

This internal conflict cannot be resolved this way.


She says:

Honey, we risked all, struggled for years, produced a superior product for a fair price, supported 100 families and their way of life, and now we can retire and live or twilight years in a modest home. Why don't you close the doors?

He agonizes over this but realizes she is right. He closes the doors.

100 families previously employed at the bakery are now being supported at sustenance levels by governmental forced charity, aka, welfare, instead of by the fruit of their labor. The support comes from those lucky enough to be working for other "evil, rich, entrepreneurs" who took the risk of starting their own businesses years before. Of course the benevolent government has to raise taxes again to support another 100 families and their hungry children. Those new costs are being passed along to those same charitable folks in the form of higher cost products, but the pattern has been going on now for years. As a matter of fact, the pattern has been repeating itself coincidentally as long as unionized shops took over and convinced its previously unemployed locals that they should make higher than market value wages for their unskilled labor.

Why wouldn't they sell the business? If they are able to retire comfortably, I imagine their business was good enough to be purchased.

However, I imagine even if that did happen, whoever bought the struggling business would clean house and fire many workers. So in the end, it happens the same way.

If he had kids, wouldn't he pass it to them to?

Anyway, I see your point, and the problem is with that arrangement, it's not with the owners or the workers. They both have legitimate interests, and if either side "wins", they both end up losing.



With a cooperative setup, the workers won't feel a conflict with the owners, because they are the owners. They will be able to control their own work lives, as well as the business. They each will get paid more than they would otherwise, and nobody would have to take on the entire risk on their own.

Molon Labe
11-21-2011, 03:59 PM
"Personal property, not private property." LOL!!

lol...saw that.

AmPat
11-21-2011, 04:29 PM
So what is stopping those virtuous workers from risking all and starting their own bakery? If they want,they can compete. Go work in their own bakery and share the risk/reward with their virtuous co-owners. If the family owned bakery can't compete, it will go out of business. If the mighty co-op can't compete, it will be subsidized by taxpayer bailouts.

AmPat
11-21-2011, 04:33 PM
Why wouldn't they sell the business? If they are able to retire comfortably, I imagine their business was good enough to be purchased.They wanted to but the DIMoRAT economy made sure that nobody but DIMoRAT supporters could secure a loan to buy a business that failed to turn a profit due to confiscatory taxation and massive government regulation.

None of the DIMoRATS saw enough reward for hard work so they stayed in government jobs that produced nothing but more regulation and higher taxes to pay their salaries.

JB
11-21-2011, 07:14 PM
Yes they would.

THe people who are going into the mine and doing the hard work, who are managing the project, who are doing the work every step of the way, would all divide up the diamond wealth. It's not necessary for everyone to get paid the same amount, but everyone should have a say in determining that. If the miners want to give a little more to the engineers or managers, that's great and it makes sense, but it should be the decision of the workers.

I think that makes more sense than people going in and working their asses off in a life-threatening area, and having no say about their work, and everything they mine going to whoever owns the mineral rights.Let's say this mine has two workers.

One (Gallant) saves all his money, only lives in a studio apartment and walks to work. The other (Goofus) buys bling, beach houses and Porsches.

Gallant decides he wants to start a new mine. He takes all his saved money, buys all the mining equipment, insurance, technology and whatever else it takes to run a diamond mine and starts mining. After a while he decides he needs help mining his mine. He asks Goofus to join him.

Does he now have to split his mining output with Goofus 50-50 or just pay him a wage comparable to Goofus' work?

Wei Wu Wei
11-21-2011, 07:28 PM
Let's say this mine has two workers.

One (Gallant) saves all his money, only lives in a studio apartment and walks to work. The other (Goofus) buys bling, beach houses and Porsches.

Gallant decides he wants to start a new mine. He takes all his saved money, buys all the mining equipment, insurance, technology and whatever else it takes to run a diamond mine and starts mining. After a while he decides he needs help mining his mine. He asks Goofus to join him.

Does he now have to split his mining output with Goofus 50-50 or just pay him a wage comparable to Goofus' work?

You are starting with the assumption that these mineral rights are for sale to a private individual. That's fine, but we should state that this is so.

If the original mine is worker-owned, there would be no purchasing of a second mine.

Basically you are saying, "assuming a privately-owned, capitalist relationship, would the profits be split among the workers?", well no of course not, assuming that relationship at the start.

How you frame the question is important.

If we have laws in place to help Gallant start up a mining company, under the agreement that Gallant will make his business a cooperative business, then in that case he would have to split his mining output.

If Gallant starts up his own mining company and is the sole owner, and there is another competing mining company that is a cooperative, then Goofus has the opportunity to decide who he wants to work for. Under Cooperative Mining Company, Goofus gets a share of the company, a fair split of the profits, and the ability to decide with his co-workers how the company is run. Under Gallant Mining Company, Goofus only gets paid what Gallant decides. In this case, Goofus would obviously be better off working at the cooperative, but Gallant will have a hard time finding workers (unless he raises their pay, which will eventually hurt his bottom line).

I'm not saying we should make Gallant do it all himself and then take it later. I'm saying we should make it easier for Gallant to start up a company, carrying less personal risk, and more government support when his business is small, while supporting the transition to worker-cooperatives.

JB
11-21-2011, 07:45 PM
You crack me up wee. You're a good commie and I appreciate that.

I especially like the part of being able to start your own company with little personal risk. Every Tom, Dick, Harry, Goofus and Gallant would be lining up to start their own business with taxpayer funds. Why wouldn't they? It's not their money. Hell, I'd be starting ten businesses a day.

AmPat
11-21-2011, 10:04 PM
You are starting with the assumption that these mineral rights are for sale to a private individual. That's fine, but we should state that this is so. It is so as it is still possible to actually own private property in the USA.


If the original mine is worker-owned, there would be no purchasing of a second mine. It doesn't matter who owned the mine, it was bought by Gallant. Assuming of course the tyrant favoring DIMoRATS haven't outlawed private ownership at this point.


Basically you are saying, "assuming a privately-owned, capitalist relationship, would the profits be split among the workers?", well no of course not, assuming that relationship at the start. As long as the mining company doesn't strike any evil oil.:eek:


How you frame the question is important.Because obvious eludes me often.


If we have laws in place to help Gallant start up a mining company, under the agreement that Gallant will make his business a cooperative business, then in that case he would have to split his mining output. There is no such thing as "laws that help" anybody start a business. Regulation, (laws), in fact inhibit business creation. That is why lawyers get paid to navigate the various legal BS put in place by government bureaucRATS. Gates and Jobs both said they could not start their businesses in today's USA.

I'm not saying we should make Gallant do it all himself and then take it later. I'm saying we should make it easier for Gallant to start up a company, carrying less personal risk, and more government support when his business is small, while supporting the transition to worker-cooperatives.Now you're getting close. "Government support" however comes with a price. That price is government oversight (read interference).
Who gets to decide if Gallant is interested in transferring his business into a worker's paradise cooperative?

DumbAss Tanker
11-22-2011, 12:46 PM
If Gallant starts up his own mining company and is the sole owner, and there is another competing mining company that is a cooperative, then Goofus has the opportunity to decide who he wants to work for. Under Cooperative Mining Company, Goofus gets a share of the company, a fair split of the profits, and the ability to decide with his co-workers how the company is run. Under Gallant Mining Company, Goofus only gets paid what Gallant decides. In this case, Goofus would obviously be better off working at the cooperative, but Gallant will have a hard time finding workers (unless he raises their pay, which will eventually hurt his bottom line).

A lot of quibbling without ever directly addressing the point of his question, but this part of your non-answer really leapt out at me, since it relies on the fallacious assumption that the two mines are equally productive, which is highly unlikely. The cooperative mine is like a headless body, staggering onward without direction and very llikely to bog down in satisficing behavior that is sufficient to keep it running (Or not) but not actually succeed or compete.

NJCardFan
11-22-2011, 03:27 PM
Basically you are saying, "assuming a privately-owned, capitalist relationship, would the profits be split among the workers?", well no of course not, assuming that relationship at the start.
This is one of the stupidest statements I've ever seen which is tough to say considering wee wee has own wing in the stupidity hall of fame. Something people like wee wee can't seem to get through their thick skulls is that they are not entitled to an even take of the profits. The employees have invested no capital and have assumed no risk if the mine fails. In fact, if the mine shows signs of failure, they have the opportunity to simply walk away and not bear any brunt of the subsequent failure. But here's the thing wee wee. Since you believe that the employees should get an equal share of the profits, does it stand to reason that when the mine fall on hard times that the employees share in the losses too? Of course not. See, you have the mindset of a professional athlete. Wanting the big contract by pointing out past successes however, if they get said big contract then have a fall off year they wouldn't dream of giving any of that money back. In other words, people like you need to grow up.


If we have laws in place to help Gallant start up a mining company, under the agreement that Gallant will make his business a cooperative business, then in that case he would have to split his mining output.
Once again, if the business starts to struggle, are the losses split as well? Thought not.

noonwitch
11-22-2011, 04:25 PM
So what is stopping those virtuous workers from risking all and starting their own bakery? If they want,they can compete. Go work in their own bakery and share the risk/reward with their virtuous co-owners. If the family owned bakery can't compete, it will go out of business. If the mighty co-op can't compete, it will be subsidized by taxpayer bailouts.



I don't know what's stopping them. We have a very successful co-op bakery in Detroit called the Avalon Bakery. They make awesome bread. The company was founded by a bunch of hippies who pooled their resources to start a business. It's successful partly because of the high quality of their bread, and partly because their prices are still lower than Panera Bread's prices. Also, they sell their products to the local restaurants, and a couple of suburban grocery stores also carry their bread.


They worked hard to build their business, however. I'm not sure that the OWS protesters are capable of that.

AmPat
11-22-2011, 04:56 PM
I don't know what's stopping them. We have a very successful co-op bakery in Detroit called the Avalon Bakery. They make awesome bread. The company was founded by a bunch of hippies who pooled their resources to start a business. It's successful partly because of the high quality of their bread, and partly because their prices are still lower than Panera Bread's prices. Also, they sell their products to the local restaurants, and a couple of suburban grocery stores also carry their bread.


They worked hard to build their business, however. I'm not sure that the OWS protesters are capable of that.

So these hippies have no problem with free msrket capitalism, profits, private ownership or competition? Please alert their handlers. Can't have any leaven in the mix.

Wei Wu Wei
11-22-2011, 09:23 PM
This is one of the stupidest statements I've ever seen which is tough to say considering wee wee has own wing in the stupidity hall of fame. Something people like wee wee can't seem to get through their thick skulls is that they are not entitled to an even take of the profits. The employees have invested no capital and have assumed no risk if the mine fails.

I stated that. Assuming that one person takes on all the risk and forks up all the capital to establish a capitalist relationship to the means of production, then no the profits would not be split. You're not saying anything that I didn't already say.


In fact, if the mine shows signs of failure, they have the opportunity to simply walk away and not bear any brunt of the subsequent failure. But here's the thing wee wee. Since you believe that the employees should get an equal share of the profits, does it stand to reason that when the mine fall on hard times that the employees share in the losses too?

Yes, shared profits and shared risks.

I also think the government should support small businesses. The idea that the government should be totally hands off of the economy is both totally idealistic and has never happened in our history. It's impossible given our current government and economic structure to have no government involvement in the economy.

The question is what sort of involvement we are going to have. I think it would be better for the government to support small businesses and I think encouraging the growth of business cooperatives would be beneficial to workers.

Let me repeat it again, and read it slowly: shared profits, shared risks.



Once again, if the business starts to struggle, are the losses split as well? Thought not.

Shared profits shared risks.

NJCardFan
11-22-2011, 09:31 PM
I don't know what's stopping them. We have a very successful co-op bakery in Detroit called the Avalon Bakery. They make awesome bread. The company was founded by a bunch of hippies who pooled their resources to start a business. It's successful partly because of the high quality of their bread, and partly because their prices are still lower than Panera Bread's prices. Also, they sell their products to the local restaurants, and a couple of suburban grocery stores also carry their bread.


They worked hard to build their business, however. I'm not sure that the OWS protesters are capable of that.

Funny how this happens isn't it? Ben & Jerry are hippies as well, created a marketable product, became highly successful then sold their company and became mega millionaires. Funny how the OWS idiots aren't protesting Ben & Jerry's.

Odysseus
11-22-2011, 11:59 PM
It is a Marxist distinction, yes.

You don't have to accept Marxist analysis in order to understand it. That is what the people are referring to.
Yes, but you have to accept Marxist analysis in order to believe it. I'll pass.

For the third option, well that's something we should be thinking about, rather than engaging in thought-terminating exercises.

Pretty much every argument that you make is a thought terminating exercise. What you don't understand is that government has no interest in supporting small businesses, because the small business can't generate enough capital to keep politicians in power. Politicians do favors for those who do favors for them. That's how crony capitalism, fascism, social democracy, socialism or whatever you want to call it works. One hand washes the other, and everybody else is left high and dry. Political economic systems allocate resources based on political clout, not market success. That's how you get Solyndra and all of the other transfers of taxpayer funds to Obama cronies. Obama doesn't operate this way because he's a hypocrite, he operates this way because this is how socialism works in reality. It isn't money that corrupts, it's power, and a centralized government with the power to pick who gets to stay in business and who doesn't is an inherently corrupt enterprise.