Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 45
  1. #21  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    950
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #22  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by JB View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #23  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Tipsycatlover View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #24  
    Drive-by Poster ABC in Georgia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    2,752
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #25  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    9,033
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #26  
    CU Royalty JB's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    7,923
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #27  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Woodland Park, Colorado, United States
    Posts
    8,563
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    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.
    Last edited by AmPat; 11-21-2011 at 09:20 AM.
    Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.
    C. S. Lewis
    Do not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives. (Are you listening Barry)?:mad:
    Ayn Rand
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #28  
    Moderator txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    7,649
    Quote Originally Posted by JB View Post
    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.
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #29  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by JB View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #30  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by ABC in Georgia View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •