Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
5
... LastLast
  1. #41
    Void Lord Doctor Amadeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    In Security Watching...
    Posts
    41,758
    Quote Originally Posted by Draco-Onis View Post
    I don't think you understand the concept of too big to fail, when companies get this big it means we as a society have to bail them out so that they don't fail (see 2008 financial crisis). You don't consider that "communism"?
    Very good point.

    But what is a the remedy for that specifically, cap how big companies are allowed to get along with not being a monopoly? I wouldn’t object to that depending on where you’re going.

    I say good point because I have over looked that economic environmental impact you raised so that’s an entirely valid argument.

    Because yes being so big one company or even industry can collapse the entire nations economy is a problem.

    Because to be honest I’m still not sure how I feel about bailing fucking banks out.

    Let people starve and panic vs bail banks out.

    No it’s not communism and still socialism but it does really hedge fucking close.

    By communism I’m not saying it as some sort of boogie man. But only that while huge corporations can and do get corrupt so to can government.

    I’m always for independent systems of checks and balances.
    #ANTIFA "Intellect alone is useless in a fight...you can't even break a rule, how can you be expected to break bone" Khan Singh

  2. #42
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    73,960
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Amadeus View Post
    No it’s not communism and still socialism but it does really hedge fucking close.
    It has nothing to do with either, you're parroting McCarthyist propaganda garbage.

    Capitalism is the system that really wants to create massive megacorporations that control everything. Not socialist systems, let alone the narrower spectrum of communist systems.

    You can tell, by how capitalist systems have produced exactly the problem you're complaining about.

    We're right back into "Ask a socialist why they dislike capitalism, and they'll give you a detailed list. Ask a capitalist why they dislike socialism, and they'll describe captialism to you."

    By communism I’m not saying it as some sort of boogie man. But only that while huge corporations can and do get corrupt so to can government.
    Again, utter nonsense that doesn't have a damned thing to do with communism.

    Here's a hint; a hippie commune that works entirely democratically on all major decisions and shares everything equally is "communist", even though there's basically no "government".


  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Without that personal gain, it becomes a lot harder to self-justify unethical acts; a decision made to earn an additional $20m, split 20,000 ways, only works out to about $1000 each; that's like "normal Christmas bonus" territory for a lot of professional firms; I just saw a sign two days ago where a hair stylist was offering a $1500 signing bonus for new stylists.
    You have just explained why employee-owned businesses with fixed pay hasn't worked out great, since it works the same for ethical acts.

    That's one of the many reasons your proposed solution has no chance of being implemented.
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    This is just a critically necessary first step.
    Thus your first step should be to go back to the drawing board.

  4. #44
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    73,960
    Quote Originally Posted by Forogil View Post
    You have just explained why employee-owned businesses with fixed pay hasn't worked out great, since it works the same for ethical acts.


    You realize there's plenty of big worker-owned businesses that do just fine, right?

    And no, it's the reverse; for a company to make an unethical business decision, in a worker-run company, you need more than half the workforce to agree to that action, even with limited personal benefit, as opposed to a capitalist system, where a handful of people make the decision, and have huge personal gains as a benefit. I have no idea how you think the former is more likely to be unethical, because that argument does not hold up to reality.


  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    [/B]

    You realize there's plenty of big worker-owned businesses that do just fine, right?
    None that are really successful and innovative and have such a simple pay-structure. So, if you stretch it they do "fine" - but not "great".

    Many are just supermarket chains.

  6. #46
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    73,960
    Quote Originally Posted by Forogil View Post
    None that are really successful and innovative and have such a simple pay-structure. So, if you stretch it they do "fine" - but not "great".

    Many are just supermarket chains.
    And?

    You keep mentioning things like that which are absolutely meaningless. Especially in a system which has largely been designed to be hostile to such reforms.

    Capitalism's literal only advantage is that it makes rich people richer, at the expense of literally everyone else.


  7. #47
    Void Lord Doctor Amadeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    In Security Watching...
    Posts
    41,758
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    It has nothing to do with either, you're parroting McCarthyist propaganda garbage.

    Capitalism is the system that really wants to create massive megacorporations that control everything. Not socialist systems, let alone the narrower spectrum of communist systems.

    You can tell, by how capitalist systems have produced exactly the problem you're complaining about.

    We're right back into "Ask a socialist why they dislike capitalism, and they'll give you a detailed list. Ask a capitalist why they dislike socialism, and they'll describe captialism to you."



    Again, utter nonsense that doesn't have a damned thing to do with communism.

    Here's a hint; a hippie commune that works entirely democratically on all major decisions and shares everything equally is "communist", even though there's basically no "government".
    Capitalisms is responsible for Megacorporation's just as it is with monopolies, the problem is that Capitalisms, socialism, or communism there is no perfect instance where it works outside of a vacuum of imagination. Corruption is always a problem no matter what you do, and fascism can exist in anything where there isn't a system of checks and balances.

    Capitalisms isn't perfect, but the idea is that ingenuity and competition breed opportunity. Which is true, however the truest means of that unchecked has the same problems that all the others do. I am a capitalist in so far as I believe in the ability for individuals to upwardly move themselves.

    I am a socialist in so far as I do believe that the only way to advance humanity is together.


    I am NOT a communist, because communism breed laziness stupidity, and ultimately brings humanity down. I have not seen ANY MODEL that is worked. Same as with Socialism or Capitalisms alone.
    Last edited by Doctor Amadeus; 2022-08-07 at 09:05 PM.
    #ANTIFA "Intellect alone is useless in a fight...you can't even break a rule, how can you be expected to break bone" Khan Singh

  8. #48
    Titan
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    America's Hat
    Posts
    13,949
    Split them up and throw their executives in jail for tax evasion

  9. #49
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    73,960
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Amadeus View Post
    Capitalisms is responsible for Megacorporation's just as monopolies, the problem is that Capitalisms, socialism, or communism there is no perfect instance where it works outside of a vacuum of imagination. Corruption is always a problem no matter what you do, and fascism can exist in anything where there isn't a system of checks and balances.
    Arguing against claims no one made, rather than the arguments you were actually presented with, is unreasonable.

    Capitalisms isn't perfect, but the idea is that ingenuity and competition breed opportunity.
    You're not talking about capitalism, here. You mentioned capitalism, and then started talking about market systems and dynamics, which are A> not derived from capitalist theory, and B> not even integral to capitalist theory.

    I'm well aware of the value that a strong, free market can provide. Capitalism is fundamentally antagonistic to that. The competition is not to the benefit of the captialists, who are the ones with all the power in that system, so they do everything they can to mitigate its effect.

    Which is true, however the truest means of that unchecked has the same problems that all the others do. I am a capitalist in so far as I believe in the ability for individuals to upwardly move themselves.
    Again, not something capitalism is about. Capitalism requires the maintenance of an underclass, forever. That's who the workers are.

    Also, this is a minor point but it bugs me. You're not a capitalist. At least, I assume your net worth isn't anywherre close to the multi-millions level and you're not, yourself, running a significant business you own. That's what a "capitalist" is. You support capitalism, but the capitalists are the ones who own the means of production. Your use is like claiming you're a monarch because you support monarchy.

    I am a socialist in so far as I do believe that the only way to advance humanity is together.
    This is meaningless. Why are you using words incorrectly all the time?

    I am NOT a communist, because communism breed laziness stupidity, and ultimately brings humanity down. I have not seen ANY MODEL that is worked. Same as with Socialism or Capitalisms alone.
    This is just rank McCarthyism and has no basis in reality.


  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    And?
    They are not large innovative companies, since:
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    a decision made to earn an additional $20m, split 20,000 ways, only works out to about $1000 each; that's like "normal Christmas bonus" territory for a lot of professional firms;
    And thus they are mostly in stable, predictable businesses, at least if revenues are split that way (i.e. evenly).
    Last edited by Forogil; 2022-08-08 at 07:18 AM.

  11. #51
    Void Lord Doctor Amadeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    In Security Watching...
    Posts
    41,758
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Arguing against claims no one made, rather than the arguments you were actually presented with, is unreasonable.
    Which specific claim? Bailing banks out is communism, I said it's hedging close.



    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    You're not talking about capitalism, here. You mentioned capitalism, and then started talking about market systems and dynamics, which are A> not derived from capitalist theory, and B> not even integral to capitalist theory.

    I'm well aware of the value that a strong, free market can provide. Capitalism is fundamentally antagonistic to that. The competition is not to the benefit of the captialists, who are the ones with all the power in that system, so they do everything they can to mitigate its effect.
    Well I'll take your word for it here, you are obviously more articulated and educated on this matter than me, I still do not believe there is anything wrong with a mega corporation provided thy behave in line with laws and regulations.

    SUCH as paying a fair wage, providing a SAFE working environment and pay the appropriate taxes.



    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Again, not something capitalism is about. Capitalism requires the maintenance of an underclass, forever. That's who the workers are.

    Also, this is a minor point but it bugs me. You're not a capitalist. At least, I assume your net worth isn't anywherre close to the multi-millions level and you're not, yourself, running a significant business you own. That's what a "capitalist" is. You support capitalism, but the capitalists are the ones who own the means of production. Your use is like claiming you're a monarch because you support monarchy.
    Not sure if this is a philosophical debate now, maybe you are just clearing up where you actually see where I stand. I am a capitalist as I said in so far as I believe in individual merit and ones ability to market that to advance themselves financially more specifically.

    As for the first part no I am not a multi millionaire, I for sure do alright, I think it's a matter of perspective, as in where someone lives. People in the south who own several acres of land but have the same amount as someone living in the city who is paying rent and living paycheck to paycheck. I am in neither of those places have no debt and own a small business of managing properties I own. That's it I have no aspirations for anything else other than to provide for my family and save to stay debt free and pass along to my kids that's it.



    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    This is meaningless. Why are you using words incorrectly all the time?
    Socialism is where the state runs and owns everything.



    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    This is just rank McCarthyism and has no basis in reality.
    This is reality human beings by proof for the most part are lazy, stupid and uninspired, most instances where PEOPLE are in control or call the shots, everyone is typically miserable.

    Too many people all at once with no separation breeds chaos as well.
    Last edited by Doctor Amadeus; 2022-08-07 at 09:35 PM.
    #ANTIFA "Intellect alone is useless in a fight...you can't even break a rule, how can you be expected to break bone" Khan Singh

  12. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Amadeus View Post
    Which specific claim? Bailing banks out is communism, I said it's hedging close.

    Well I'll take your word for it here, you are obviously more articulated and educated on this matter than me, I still do not believe there is anything wrong with a mega corporation provided thy behave in line with laws and regulations.

    SUCH as paying a fair wage, providing a SAFE working environment and pay the appropriate taxes.
    This only works if you take away the ability for those same companies to basically bribe politicians as that will sway votes.

    Not sure if this is a philosophical debate now, maybe you are just clearing up where you actually see where I stand. I am a capitalist as I said in so far as I believe in individual merit and ones ability to market that to advance themselves financially more specifically.
    Capitalists believe first and foremost profit over everything, including safety of others. If a safe workplace brings more profits in, they will go for it UNTIL it is not profitable. That is why they complain about the simplest regulations.

    As for the first part no I am not a multi millionaire, I for sure do alright, I think it's a matter of perspective, as in where someone lives. People in the south who own several acres of land but have the same amount as someone living in the city who is paying rent and living paycheck to paycheck. I am in neither of those places have no debt and own a small business of managing properties I own. That's it I have no aspirations for anything else other than to provide for my family and save to stay debt free and pass along to my kids that's it.

    Socialism is where the state runs and owns everything.
    That is communism that owns and runs everything.

  13. #53
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    73,960
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Amadeus View Post
    Which specific claim? Bailing banks out is communism, I said it's hedging close.
    Bailing out banks is about as diametically opposed to communism as it is possible to even conceive. Where the hell did you learn basic economics theory?

    Not sure if this is a philosophical debate now, maybe you are just clearing up where you actually see where I stand. I am a capitalist as I said in so far as I believe in individual merit and ones ability to market that to advance themselves financially more specifically.
    Again, that's not about capitalism. The best system for advancing individual merit is socialism. Capitalism isn't concerned one whit with "individual merit", short of the capacity for those currently in power to exploit that merit for their gain, at the expense of the individual whose merit is being exploited. That's the capitalist system, dude. Again; where did you learn this stuff? This is really basic shit.

    Socialism is where the state runs and owns everything.
    False. Wrong. That's '50s-era anti-soviet propaganda horseshit. Whoever taught you that was lying out their ass to you.

    Socialism is any and all forms of collective ownership of the means of production. State ownership is one model (but I'll point out that state capitalism fits your description just as well, among others), but it isn't a particularly prevalent one, ideologically speaking. It isn't even how major socialist states operate or did operate; not the USSR, not modern China, etc.

    You really need to read primary sources rather than propaganda pamphlets.

    This is reality human beings by proof for the most part are lazy, stupid and uninspired, most instances where PEOPLE are in control or call the shots, everyone is typically miserable.

    Too many people all at once with no separation breeds chaos as well.
    Now you're just openly calling for authoritarian dictatorships.


  14. #54
    The Undying Cthulhu 2020's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rigging your election
    Posts
    35,444
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    You're just not extrapolating forward the systemic changes that a lack of capitalist profit motive would propagate through a company's decision-making. The capitalist profit motive is not the same as a worker-driven profit motive, because the individual benefits are much-reduced; unethical choices made don't lead to the same scale of windfall when it's split 20,000+ ways, and no one's getting a lion's share. Without that personal gain, it becomes a lot harder to self-justify unethical acts; a decision made to earn an additional $20m, split 20,000 ways, only works out to about $1000 each; that's like "normal Christmas bonus" territory for a lot of professional firms; I just saw a sign two days ago where a hair stylist was offering a $1500 signing bonus for new stylists.

    Also, if you think this is the only change I'd propose, you haven't paid much attention. This is just a critically necessary first step. Companies like Blackrock are causing problems due to how they use their wealth; splitting them up into three companies that act the same way wouldn't help anything.
    Pretty much. People insisting on the current corporate model being fine are forgetting a major factor. The workers who are actually doing the work are being fucked over royally. Even if they are making 100k, in a company where workers share in the company's success they'd be making FAR MORE.

    As it is, big companies are all publicly or privately traded with stocks, with only a couple of rare exceptions. The people who are making the most profit off of people's work are rich assholes who justify this by trying to claim that if they didn't invest, then these companies would not have the capital to succeed, and thus the rich assholes are the ones driving things forward.

    Don't get me wrong, investment is important, but it is not nearly so important that we rip all benefits from the workers solely to give it to the investors.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Forogil View Post
    None that are really successful and innovative and have such a simple pay-structure. So, if you stretch it they do "fine" - but not "great".

    Many are just supermarket chains.
    So many worker run companies have simply been bought out, because people will take a large infusion of cash. When a worker run company votes to sell out to a large business that in itself is an unethical decision.

    Because it's basically the same as when a Democracy decides to trade its Democracy for a dictator.

    Tell me, why is Democracy considered such a force of good, and dictatorships generally seen as bad? It's usually because a very few people having all the power will ultimately lead to unethical decisions for the country. Why is it any different for companies?

    Also, before you answer, I want you to separate the concept of ethical and unethical from profitable and non profitable. Just because rich assholes know how to squeeze every dime they can out of their employees and their consumers doesn't mean it's ethical.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Draco-Onis View Post
    I don't think you understand the concept of too big to fail, when companies get this big it means we as a society have to bail them out so that they don't fail (see 2008 financial crisis). You don't consider that "communism"?
    Also, this.

    We as a society become reliant upon these giants to supply and manage our every day lives. When they make bad decisions and fail, we are the ones who suffer and yet we as societies have decided we'd rather throw money at them to stay afloat than let their bad decisions sink them.

    The very core concept of capitalism is that if you have a good product or service and make good decisions, you can succeed, and if you don't, the market will weed out the "losers".

    And yet we have become so reliant on massive companies that we prop up the losers. That's not capitalism any more.
    Plenty of people have been holding their breath waiting for me to fail. I think they all suffocated years ago.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zython View Post
    Just came here to remind people that the right has no moral conscious. If they ever try to morally scold you, it's not because they think what you're doing is wrong. Is because it's effective, and want to discourage you from doing it.

  15. #55
    Old God Captain N's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    New Resident of Emerald City
    Posts
    10,356
    We're on the brink of finding out exactly what's going to happen with the "Too Big To Fail" Class 1 Railroads in about a month or so. Closing yards, massively laying off people, taking PPP loans and using them for stock buybacks, and imposing some of the most barbaric attendance policies around has led to a massive worker shortage. With the supply chain on the line the railroads and the unions representing the workers has reached an impasse that has caused Biden to sign an Executive Order for a Presidential Emergency Board. If the parties cannot reach common ground after the cooling off period there's a chance the railroads will strike and cause even more damage to the economy. That will be where we find out if our elected officials truly are for the people with the boots on the ground, or the suits willing to sell out their safety just to add a few more zeroes into their stock portfolio.
    “You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it.”― Malcolm X

    I watch them fight and die in the name of freedom. They speak of liberty and justice, but for whom? -Ratonhnhaké:ton (Connor Kenway)

  16. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhu 2020 View Post
    Tell me, why is Democracy considered such a force of good, and dictatorships generally seen as bad? It's usually because a very few people having all the power will ultimately lead to unethical decisions for the country. Why is it any different for companies?
    Several reasons - as long it's not a monopoly for a necessary product people can just chose a different product, most large companies are share-holding companies so it isn't one person controlling them, and mostly they operate in democracies and are bound by laws.

    And when looking at these companies it is unwise to narrowly focus on the employees, when they have a larger number of consumers impacted by the decisions (obviously there are consumer owned companies as well - and similarly as employee-owned ones they are mostly in supermarkets and some specialized fields).
    In comparison employee-owned companies seems fairly undemocratic - think of it: a grocery chain with 100,000 consumers and 5,000 employees and you think it is best to have the 5,000 decide?

    There are also other issues - as we live in the 21st century and the simple employee idea is basically 19th century thinking.

    But apart from that if you start with a proposal that is dead in the waters you will not get anywhere, so why not look at the real problems instead? Why are deliberately trying to de-rail conversations about potential actual changes that might be good (or might not be) with ideas that have zero chance of being implemented (apart from being bad in themselves).

  17. #57
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Omelas
    Posts
    57,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Forogil View Post
    Several reasons - as long it's not a monopoly for a necessary product people can just chose a different product, most large companies are share-holding companies so it isn't one person controlling them, and mostly they operate in democracies and are bound by laws.
    So, in your view, tyranny isn't bad as long as it takes the form of a wealth-run oligarchy where there's a rule of law in place and people can still move to other countries? Because that's the political analogue to the economic model you're extolling.

    And when looking at these companies it is unwise to narrowly focus on the employees
    It's not an either or, especially considering employees are themselves consumers. "Capitalists dictating what happens at companies by fiat is better than workers having a stake in said companies is bad because consumers" is a silly non sequitur.
    Last edited by Elegiac; 2022-08-08 at 08:17 AM.
    The Were/Was Army: "Nooo you can't just vaporize my entire armored division, we had such a manly recruitment ad!"
    The They/Them Army: "Omg integrated fire support?? Go off queen sksksks, JDAMs are such a gemini thing."

  18. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    So, in your view, tyranny isn't bad as long as it takes the form of a wealth-run oligarchy where there's a rule of law in place and people can still move to other countries?
    No, because the items are not equivalent.

    It is still a 19th century analysis of a 21st century problem, which has no chance of being implemented and is distracting from the real discussion.

    Why are deliberately trying to de-rail conversations about potential actual changes that might be good (or might not be) with ideas that have zero chance of being implemented (apart from being bad in themselves).

  19. #59
    Breaking them up would be like a band-aid on an infected wound. The core issues of capitalism needs to be addressed instead, and some kind of democratisation of companies could be one route to address those.
    "In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance." Paradox of tolerance

  20. #60
    First thing; campaign finance reform.

Posting Permissions

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