Your Political ideology?

Cronus333

darkman2 wrote:

'endearing' thats it!! I really dont understand why the PD's get such bad press. IMHO its their economic policies that really put us on the road to change:rolleyes:

Hear hear!
If only more than 4% of the poulation thought that....

democrates

Cronus333 wrote:

Hear hear!
If only more than 4% of the poulation thought that....

freddyfreeload

Wow, 5 pages and no one's tried ripping any heads off yet! What a cool thread.

Just took the compass test:

Economic Left/Right: -5.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.67

I'd have thought of myself as a socialist with anarchic tendencies, but it looks like I could be the other way around!

Others in the same quadrant who believe in government from the bottom up might like to check out the parecon site at Znet, if you haven't already!

Parecon is short for Participatory Economics: a type of economy proposed as an alternative to contemporary capitalism. The underlying values are equity, solidarity, diversity, and participatory self management. The main institutions are workers and consumers councils utilizing self managed decision making, balanced job complexes, remuneration according to effort and sacrifice, and participatory planning.

Interestingly, Parecon is already working in practice on a small scale in a number of workplaces in the US and elsewhere.

I suspect this could be the way of the future...

ff

Sgt. Sensible

Cronus333 wrote:

So you would rather bands of looters and roving biker gangs to the protection of a state?

The absence of a state does not necessarily mean the absence of organisation or authority.

By the way, the US is the most powerful state in the world yet has 2 million people in prison and plenty of gangs running around armed to the teeth.

Cronus333

democrates wrote:

I'm sure you've gotten the fact yet that in politics I am a very biased individual.....

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

The absence of a state does not necessarily mean the absence of organisation or authority.

What kind of authority would you rather then?

Red Alert

I'm not sure what I am - I oppose the current system where essentially property developers and big businessmen have lined their pockets at the expense of others. I oppose the needless destruction of the landscape to build motorways, and i lament the anglicisation of our retailing sector.

Keep the semi-states, but make them work efficiently. No longer should BnM, CIE, RTE be easy gigs for those who get in. They should fulfill their economic and social function in the most efficient manner possible.

What does all this make me politically in a couple of words?

The Corinthian

freddyfreeload wrote:

Interestingly, Parecon is already working in practice on a small scale in a number of workplaces in the US and elsewhere.

I suspect this could be the way of the future...

Or the past. Looks like a variation on the same theme as cooperatives and the old Yugoslav worker managed enterprises.

I’m not dismissing the idea, but it’s not new and it does have certain drawbacks, such as the profit motivator that seeks to maximize total profit being replaced with an amended version that seeks to maximize profit per worker, which fails to maximize utility.

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

The absence of a state does not necessarily mean the absence of organisation or authority.

Ultimately it does. Direct democracy is a lovely idea on paper, but inevitably political opportunists will hijack it because the nature of the organisation or authority of such systems is transient and thus easy to overturn.

Red Alert wrote:

What does all this make me politically in a couple of words?

Contradictory.

On one hand you want to curtail an economic system that you consider too liberal and on the other side you want to improve efficiency in a sector that could only be done through liberalization.

democrates

The Corinthian wrote:

Or the past. Looks like a variation on the same theme as cooperatives and the old Yugoslav worker managed enterprises.

I’m not dismissing the idea, but it’s not new and it does have certain drawbacks, such as the profit motivator that seeks to maximize total profit being replaced with an amended version that seeks to maximize profit per worker, which fails to maximize utility.

The sub-optimisation is solvable though. In Brazilian, Argentinian, and Venezuelan examples I've looked at it was easy because they rejuvinated existing structures, there are still supervisors and a lot of people doing the jobs they did before the business was closed by the previous owners. Typically the board is replaced with elected delegates, and similar to an EGM the workers can convene and alter course if necessary. Though they seem very happy with their new egalitarian lot it's early days yet for these experiments.

Starting from scratch is another issue, the GP and farmer co-operatives operating here were existing individual operations with co-operation added later. I've started out on my own as any normal start-up but it's yet to be seen whether I can arrange a transition to an IT co-operative, it's not as well-lit a road as the owner/worker model.

The Corinthian wrote:

Ultimately it does. Direct democracy is a lovely idea on paper, but inevitably political opportunists will hijack it because the nature of the organisation or authority of such systems is transient and thus easy to overturn.

In fairness the Swiss have prospered under direct democracy for centuries, transience has not been a problem in practice as it is policy, nice paradox, the people can get rid of anyone at any time if they step out of line, so politicians tend not to step out of line. It's not perfect, but it lowers the threshold of accountability relative to representative democracy. I believe we have the lesser system, but what can I do about it...

The Corinthian

democrates wrote:

The sub-optimisation is solvable though. In Brazilian, Argentinian, and Venezuelan examples I've looked at it was easy because they rejuvinated existing structures, there are still supervisors and a lot of people doing the jobs they did before the business was closed by the previous owners. Typically the board is replaced with elected delegates, and similar to an EGM the workers can convene and alter course if necessary. Though they seem very happy with their new egalitarian lot it's early days yet for these experiments.

How does this solve the sub-optimisation issue?

In fairness the Swiss have prospered under direct democracy for centuries, transience has not been a problem in practice as it is policy, nice paradox, the people can get rid of anyone at any time if they step out of line, so politicians tend not to step out of line. It's not perfect, but it lowers the threshold of accountability relative to representative democracy. I believe we have the lesser system, but what can I do about it...

And in fairness the Swiss model is a very limited form of direct democracy when compared to what would be necessary without a State. Swiss direct democracy still requires the ‘guiding hand’ of a State and it’s constituent statelets (or cantons) to ‘manage’ it - a far cry from the stateless form that was first attempted, and failed, with the original Russian Soviets.

Sgt. Sensible

The Corinthian wrote:

Ultimately it does. Direct democracy is a lovely idea on paper, but inevitably political opportunists will hijack it because the nature of the organisation or authority of such systems is transient and thus easy to overturn.

I wasn't referring to direct democracy or any particular type of hierarchical structure.

The Corinthian

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

I wasn't referring to direct democracy or any particular type of hierarchical structure.

Then you will have to enlighten us.

Sgt. Sensible

The Corinthian wrote:

And in fairness the Swiss model is a very limited form of direct democracy when compared to what would be necessary without a State. Swiss direct democracy still requires the ‘guiding hand’ of a State and it’s constituent statelets (or cantons) to ‘manage’ it - a far cry from the stateless form that was first attempted, and failed, with the original Russian Soviets.

The Russian revolution failed because of the fear of Tsarist counter-revolution and because the bolsheviks' intentions, even after the October 1917 coup, were severely misunderstood, not because it was a bad idea as such.

Sgt. Sensible

The Corinthian wrote:

Then you will have to enlighten us.

I do know of successful worker owned businesses here but primarily I was thinking of supra national organisations, religions, private enterprise, people who make 'stuff' and so on, rather than direct democracy.If you're talking about the sort of direct democracy that's espoused by anarchism I'd agree but most anarchists would be aware of what tends to happen when power ends up being centralised and would try to guard against it in any future scenario. But that's going into the realms of science fiction at this stage.

democrates

The Corinthian wrote:

How does this solve the sub-optimisation issue?

They all get paid based on the bottom line of the business, so the way to maximise your paycheck is to optimise the activity of the group and please your customers. Just instead of seperate owners driving it all the workers do.

The experience has been that productivity has gone up because workers are more actively engaged in seeking efficiencies, and this extends to engaging with the supply chain on quality and logistics, even micro-finance in some cases where it makes strategic sense.

The Corinthian wrote:

And in fairness the Swiss model is a very limited form of direct democracy when compared to what would be necessary without a State. Swiss direct democracy still requires the ‘guiding hand’ of a State and it’s constituent statelets (or cantons) to ‘manage’ it - a far cry from the stateless form that was first attempted, and failed, with the original Russian Soviets.

I agree, I was supporting DD in that, and strongly believe in optimal democracy from from local levels to global, the state is just one level.

I think a balance is the answer in all of this, central command oppresses individual freedom, while no state leaves a pure free-market with every man for himself.

The Corinthian

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

I do know of successful worker owned businesses here but primarily I was thinking of supra national organisations, religions, private enterprise, people who make 'stuff' and so on, rather than direct democracy.

How is this relevant to your earlier claim that “the absence of a state does not necessarily mean the absence of organisation or authority”?

If you're talking about the sort of direct democracy that's espoused by anarchism I'd agree but most anarchists would be aware of what tends to happen when power ends up being centralised and would try to guard against it in any future scenario. But that's going into the realms of science fiction at this stage.

Indeed.

The Russian revolution failed because of the fear of Tsarist counter-revolution and because the bolsheviks' intentions, even after the October 1917 coup, were severely misunderstood, not because it was a bad idea as such.

Which contradicts the above statement by you about direct democracy.

democrates wrote:

They all get paid based on the bottom line of the business, so the way to maximise your paycheck is to optimise the activity of the group and please your customers. Just instead of seperate owners driving it all the workers do.

No, that does not solve the sub-optimisation issue as maximizing profit is not the same as maximizing profit per worker. The law of diminishing marginal returns is such that employing a new worker to increase production may increase overall profit, but as this marginal increase is diminishing, after a certain point, per worker employed, it means that you are at the same time decreasing your profit per worker.

Thus a labour managed enterprise will seek to maximise profit per worker and will not expand to the point that this will decrease - even if more profit overall could be gained. Hence optimisation is not reached.

democrates

Originally Posted by democrates
They all get paid based on the bottom line of the business, so the way to maximise your paycheck is to optimise the activity of the group and please your customers. Just instead of seperate owners driving it all the workers do.

The Corinthian wrote:

No, that does not solve the sub-optimisation issue as maximizing profit is not the same as maximizing profit per worker. The law of diminishing marginal returns is such that employing a new worker to increase production may increase overall profit, but as this marginal increase is diminishing, after a certain point, per worker employed, it means that you are at the same time decreasing your profit per worker.

Thus a labour managed enterprise will seek to maximise profit per worker and will not expand to the point that this will decrease - even if more profit overall could be gained. Hence optimisation is not reached.

I think diminished returns reflect a sub-optimal mix of resources.

For any given amount of non-human resources eg machinery which have fixed costs on the P&L a/c, if HR are too low profit per worker is low because production/revenue per worker is low, if HR are too high, profit per worker is low as they can't all access the non-HR simultaneously. But if they hit the sweet spot matching HR to non-HR they have optimised the resource mix and maximised profit per worker.

Regardless of wheter the business is worker owned or a seperately owned, sub-optimisation tends to occur periodically due to the vagaries of demand, but the resource mix will be adjusted over time toward optimal to avoid either unnecessary overhead or idle workers.

The Corinthian

democrates wrote:

I think diminished returns reflect a sub-optimal mix of resources.

Sorry, but I think you’re misunderstanding the term.

Let me give you a simple example model. A factory employs 10 workers who produce 1,000 units of goods per day, each selling for €5. Fixed overheads are, say, €1,000 per day and €200 per day for the workers.

If the factory employs an additional 10 workers, production will increase to 1,500 per day - because the law of diminishing returns kicks in.

Thus in a standard capitalist model this would see total profit increase from €2,000 to €2,500 per day. However in a worker managed model profit per worker decreases from €200 to €125 per day. Only the first model would choose to optimise (maximise profit) - the second would not.

I don’t really want to get into a major discussion on comparative microeconomics or even dismiss the model you're proposing, but it is fair to say that what you’re proposing is not such a new concept and is not without its drawbacks, of which the above is one.

democrates

The Corinthian wrote:

Sorry, but I think you’re misunderstanding the term.

Let me give you a simple example model. A factory employs 10 workers who produce 1,000 units of goods per day, each selling for €5. Fixed overheads are, say, €1,000 per day and €200 per day for the workers.

If the factory employs an additional 10 workers, production will increase to 1,500 per day - because the law of diminishing returns kicks in.

Thus in a standard capitalist model this would see total profit increase from €2,000 to €2,500 per day. However in a worker managed model profit per worker decreases from €200 to €125 per day. Only the first model would choose to optimise (maximise profit) - the second would not.

I don’t really want to get into a major discussion on comparative microeconomics or even dismiss the model you're proposing, but it is fair to say that what you’re proposing is not such a new concept and is not without its drawbacks, of which the above is one.

The example works if you go no further, but for either ownership model it makes sense to go to example 3 and optimise the resource mix: 20 workers, fixed costs 1800 due to economies of scale, 2000 units produced per day.

Total profit is now 4200, capitalist happy, and profit per worker is 210, workers happy. Also bear in mind in the worker owned model that the 210 is on top of their 200 salary, I know which one I'd prefer to work in. In real world examples a portion is a staff dividend and the rest is re-invested in the business.

It's fair to concede that the capitalist is personally more motivated by an extra 2200 to double the business than any individual worker for an extra 10, so despite the micro-economic advantage that makes this part of my political ideology, the macro-economic implications have to be taken into account.

Contrary to expectations based on the usual rational economic assumptions, all of the latin american outfits are firmly focussed on growth and replication. One reason stated is that they have become aware of the contrast between what they were and what they are, and want to keep their new found freedom and prosperity. They see capitalism as having failed them but remaining a threat, so for safety in numbers they want to convert others to the cause, they are now highly politicised.

The main principle behind expansion they give is CSR. They use the business to help their communities in all sorts of ways, it's not just a salary generator but a means to a healthy society.

The few examples I've studied are far from a proof of macro-economic benefit but for me the signs are mostly good. My greatest concern has been that evolving the world economy to this model would create more people actively driving global consumption and pollution bringing further ecological problems, but their behaviour so far suggests that responsible choices are standard practice, it's live and let live rather than every man for himself.

The Corinthian

democrates wrote:

The example works if you go no further, but for either ownership model it makes sense to go to example 3 and optimise the resource mix: 20 workers, fixed costs 1800 due to economies of scale, 2000 units produced per day.

Sorry but that is still not optimisation.

It's fair to concede that the capitalist is personally more motivated by an extra 2200 to double the business than any individual worker for an extra 10, so despite the micro-economic advantage that makes this part of my political ideology, the macro-economic implications have to be taken into account.

Because they have the good will to do so, I suppose.

democrates

The Corinthian wrote:

Sorry but that is still not optimisation.

Well let's not get caught in an academic quagmire over the meaning of the word optimisation. For me it relates to the mix of resources employed in a business so that all are eqaully employed in production and none are subject to diminishing returns, ie, utility is maximised. If another word is more apt let me know and I'll use it henceforth, but word definitions won't alter the practical benefits of example 3 or worker co-operatives in general as I've outlined.

The fact that with as sharp a mind as yours you don't slice and dice the other points I've made says a lot. All I care about is what are the best models of socio-economic activity, if anyone can demonstrate better alternatives to what I've found count me in.

The Corinthian

democrates wrote:

Well let's not get caught in an academic quagmire over the meaning of the word optimisation.

It’s actually very simple, optimisation is where inputs of production are combined in such a manner so as to maximise profit.

For me it relates to the mix of resources employed in a business so that all are eqaully employed in production and none are subject to diminishing returns, ie, utility is maximised.

Actually returns will typically begin to diminish in most industries very early on, relatively speaking. In manufacturing, in particular, this can happen the moment you get beyond the minimum number needed to man the factory.

If another word is more apt let me know and I'll use it henceforth, but word definitions won't alter the practical benefits of example 3 or worker co-operatives in general as I've outlined.

You suggested “20 workers, fixed costs 1800 due to economies of scale, 2000 units produced per day”, which bared no relation to mine which involved 20 workers, fixed costs of 1,000, variable costs (wages) of 4,000, 1,500 units produced per day. At best you were saying you didn’t like the numbers in my model, but even then you didn’t make any comparison where you add workers to the mix and their effect of total and marginal profit, which is the point of the examination.

So in short, your example did not actually say anything.

Your conclusion was that even if the model you proposed didn’t maximise profit it was better for “macro-economic” reasons, which may or may not be true, but is nonetheless irrelevant to the point I was arguing.

The fact that with as sharp a mind as yours you don't slice and dice the other points I've made says a lot. All I care about is what are the best models of socio-economic activity, if anyone can demonstrate better alternatives to what I've found count me in.

I don’t really care about your other points. As I’ve repeatedly said, my primary contention is that what freddyfreeload proposed is not actually all that new or revolutionary as it has been done before in various guises.

My only other point is that worker managed enterprises do have their drawbacks, and I’ve pointed out one. I don’t need to point out any more or address any of your other points to do this as I am not trying to prove it is a bad system - only that it does have it’s limitations like any other.

Flukey

Getting back to the start point, as I have not read the thread in detail, I'd put myself left of centre. I've seen some websites around - maybe some have been mentioned in the thread, but I have not checked - that ask you questions and put you place you according to the views you give. Any I have done, have confirmed that I am left of centre.

GreenDoor

I'm simply an Irish nationalist. Not a 'Brits out' one like Gerry Adams but a real Irish nationalist. There isn't too many Irish nationalists here on boards it seems.

The Corinthian

GreenDoor wrote:

I'm simply an Irish nationalist. Not a 'Brits out' one like Gerry Adams but a real Irish nationalist. There isn't too many Irish nationalists here on boards it seems.

That's not an ideology, that's a sentiment.

democrates

The Corinthian wrote:

It’s actually very simple, optimisation is where inputs of production are combined in such a manner so as to maximise profit.

Actually returns will typically begin to diminish in most industries very early on, relatively speaking. In manufacturing, in particular, this can happen the moment you get beyond the minimum number needed to man the factory.

Example 3 yields higher profit than example 2 for either owner, it simply doesn't suffer the constraint you seem to appy of non human resources being fixed. I still don't see example 2 with higher profit as optimising the resource mix for maximum profit. Put it this way, given 20 employees in example 2 how much plant is required for maximum profit? Voila! example 3.

The Corinthian wrote:

You suggested “20 workers, fixed costs 1800 due to economies of scale, 2000 units produced per day”, which bared no relation to mine which involved 20 workers, fixed costs of 1,000, variable costs (wages) of 4,000, 1,500 units produced per day. At best you were saying you didn’t like the numbers in my model, but even then you didn’t make any comparison where you add workers to the mix and their effect of total and marginal profit, which is the point of the examination.

So in short, your example did not actually say anything.

The point of the examination for you is fine for you, but that doesn't frame my thinking on it.

Example 3 is simply double your example 1 facility but with modest scale economies, my point is that it's a better earner than example 1 or 2 for the capitalist or workers in a co-operative. I'd no problem with your numbers I used them as a base in a spreadsheet, but I didn't stop tinkering at example 2 and then use that to generalise.

I accept your point that the capitalist has a well motivated growth path, he might not care too much whether resources are all fully employed with each unit added so long as profit keeps rising, no argument there.

However, while the model may therefore predict that a co-op would never move from example 1 for fear of lower ppw, in practice they do. Since profit per worker is seperate to their normal salary and as most if not all of total profit is re-invested in the business for growth, wages can remain constant, so the workers experience no personal drawback in adding employees without matching plant and equipment (for a time until they buy the next round of hardware and the resource mix is optimum again).

On the contrary, their community prospers from greater employment, and the only financial difference to the workers is that instead of profits being drawn off by the capitalist they are available to drive growth and CSR activities which benefit indirectly.

So while your model is fine for it's narrow purpose it's not a complete model for predicting human behaviour as it's assumptions ignore key variables for these workers in their decision as to whether or not to increase employment.

The Corinthian wrote:

Your conclusion was that even if the model you proposed didn’t maximise profit it was better for “macro-economic” reasons, which may or may not be true, but is nonetheless irrelevant to the point I was arguing.

Not quite, I still hold that it is better at the micro-economic level, and I'd pm you if all my points were for your eyes only.:D

The Corinthian wrote:

I don’t really care about your other points. As I’ve repeatedly said, my primary contention is that what freddyfreeload proposed is not actually all that new or revolutionary as it has been done before in various guises.

My only other point is that worker managed enterprises do have their drawbacks, and I’ve pointed out one. I don’t need to point out any more or address any of your other points to do this as I am not trying to prove it is a bad system - only that it does have it’s limitations like any other.

That's fair enough, I don't think anyone is proposing anything as a model of perfection that cannot fail, such a thing is not possible given the involvement of imperfect beings. Workers co-ops have failed in the past due to foolish money-grabbing, so have capitalist businesses, but it's also possible to run a business wisely.

The key thrust of my posts is that according to those who have got their co-operatives working any drawbacks (and I'm not aware of any of significance) are far outweighed by the advantages, indeed their greatest fear is going back to relative serfdom of working for a capitalist one day. So far the micro-economic signs are positive, they are succeeding with businesses that capitalists had written off as failures. Two dvds on the topic some people might find interesting are 5 Factories and The Take.

I won't try to assert that this is proven beyond doubt and should be a key pillar of everyones political ideology, but so far I'm sufficiently persuaded to make it so in mine and to attempt it in business as soon as it's prepared for sufficient growth.

The Corinthian

democrates wrote:

I still don't see example 2 with higher profit as optimising the resource mix for maximum profit. Put it this way, given 20 employees in example 2 how much plant is required for maximum profit? Voila! example 3.

Profit maximisation depends on the rate of diminishing returns per worker employed, which I didn’t specify because all I was trying to demonstrate was that profit maximisation and profit maximisation per worker are not the same thing.

Example 3 is simply double your example 1 facility but with modest scale economies, my point is that it's a better earner than example 1 or 2 for the capitalist or workers in a co-operative. I'd no problem with your numbers I used them as a base in a spreadsheet, but I didn't stop tinkering at example 2 and then use that to generalise.

You’re making some gigantic assumptions though; principally that a larger facility would more than compensate for the law of diminishing returns, which may occur up to a point, but ultimately marginal returns shrink far faster than the cost of inputs - otherwise companies could expand forever.

So in a capitalist model, it remains attractive to expand until marginal returns shrink to zero, while in a worker-managed model it only remains attractive to expand to the point where marginal returns equal marginal costs.

However, while the model may therefore predict that a co-op would never move from example 1 for fear of lower ppw, in practice they do. Since profit per worker is seperate to their normal salary and as most if not all of total profit is re-invested in the business for growth, wages can remain constant, so the workers experience no personal drawback in adding employees without matching plant and equipment (for a time until they buy the next round of hardware and the resource mix is optimum again).

You assume far too much good will on the part of the workers, TBH. Whether or not they invest back into the company, what remains - even if it is independent of wages - is still going to shrink pro capita. Capitalists and shareholders hold equity - this means that they don’t mind diluting their share if the value of their share becomes disproportionately greater (this is why start-ups use VC money), however employees in a worker owned enterprise don’t have the same type of revenue and can only draw from the profits as they can never truly own equity.

So while your model is fine for it's narrow purpose it's not a complete model for predicting human behaviour as it's assumptions ignore key variables for these workers in their decision as to whether or not to increase employment.

It’s not narrow, it’s tried and tested and yours only works if we ignore some fundamental truths of economics.

Not quite, I still hold that it is better at the micro-economic level, and I'd pm you if all my points were for your eyes only.:D

If it works well for you and your company, then I’m happy for you. I’ve never said it cannot.

democrates

The Corinthian wrote:

Profit maximisation depends on the rate of diminishing returns per worker employed, which I didn’t specify because all I was trying to demonstrate was that profit maximisation and profit maximisation per worker are not the same thing.

Though I saw this :

The Corinthian wrote:

If the factory employs an additional 10 workers, production will increase to 1,500 per day - because the law of diminishing returns kicks in.

A snapshot in fairness just as I took with in example 3, in practice the rate of dimished returns per worker is rarely constant so I didn't expect one.

The Corinthian wrote:

You’re making some gigantic assumptions though; principally that a larger facility would more than compensate for the law of diminishing returns, which may occur up to a point, but ultimately marginal returns shrink far faster than the cost of inputs - otherwise companies could expand forever.

I think periodic diminished returns can be taken in stride, in practice the real hard growth decisions the co-ops I've looked at face are worse than anything you've raised, the ones where say factory space is maxed out and to expand you you need a new premises or to extend if you have the land, and also new machinery which may cost millions. Can capital intensive expansion be fully funded from accumulated profit or are borrowings or a bond issue required (as they won't do a share issue). Of course the easiest route may be to acquire businesses that capitalists have failed to run profitably, maybe if communities didn't support them...

As for infinite growth, any business is constrained by raw materials supplies and demand for product for starters, but also legislative intervention has been required to prevent monopolies being established through M&A activity, otherwise we could have one company taking over all production.

The Corinthian wrote:

So in a capitalist model, it remains attractive to expand until marginal returns shrink to zero, while in a worker-managed model it only remains attractive to expand to the point where marginal returns equal marginal costs.

If the workers were motivated solely by data from that model maybe they'd agree.

The Corinthian wrote:

You assume far too much good will on the part of the workers, TBH. Whether or not they invest back into the company, what remains - even if it is independent of wages - is still going to shrink pro capita.

They're still better off with democracy and helping their communities so any minor points are outweighed.

As for assuming goodwill it's also possible I've been taken in by an elaborate hoax, but I doubt it. You've raised an interesting aspect that is debated accross a range of political ideologies, the nature of man, from which and applying a value system are deduced the best means to organise civilisation. I believe people can serve their own best interests by co-operating for mutual benefit, that we don't need to depend on greed. From my background I'm well aware of the scumdog element, so I'm not proceeding from middle-class niaivity, I know scangers have to be educated, the easy way or the hard way is their choice.

The Corinthian wrote:

Capitalists and shareholders hold equity - this means that they don’t mind diluting their share if the value of their share becomes disproportionately greater (this is why start-ups use VC money), however employees in a worker owned enterprise don’t have the same type of revenue and can only draw from the profits as they can never truly own equity.

As noted above borrowings from the government have been used in venezuela and bond issues to pension funds etc are also feasible in the long term.

The Corinthian wrote:

It’s not narrow, it’s tried and tested and yours only works if we ignore some fundamental truths of economics.

Ok apologies if that was taken to infer you are narrow-minded, I don't believe that. There is some truth in saying I'm ignoring fundamental truths of economics. Those 'truths' have come and gone and in any major change invariably play catch-up to the reality of human behaviour. Those who do no learn from history are destined to repeat its mistakes so I don't ignore economic theory, but neither am I unquestioning and ruled by the dead hand of the past lest there be no progress.

The Corinthian wrote:

If it works well for you and your company, then I’m happy for you. I’ve never said it cannot.

Thanks! Given the the experimental nature I'm obliged to document it in detail, maybe there'll be two dvd's, one academic and one in 'the office' style. But that has to take a back seat to customers or I'm dead in the water. If I can prove it works there's still an uphill battle to people accepting it into their political ideology.

samb

sorry you two, your discussion seems interesting but I don't have the energy to catch up completely. Are you talking about the feasibility of solely empoyee owned companies. If so look at Golders Associates http://www.golder.com

Cronus333

I wasn't aware that economic optimisation was an ideology. Not that it isn't interesting...........

democrates

samb wrote:

sorry you two, your discussion seems interesting but I don't have the energy to catch up completely. Are you talking about the feasibility of solely empoyee owned companies. If so look at Golders Associates http://www.golder.com

Very impressive! That's some list of awards too. Nice to see it was Victor Milligan from N.I and educated at Queens who pushed for the staff ownership model.

cronus333 wrote:

I wasn't aware that economic optimisation was an ideology. Not that it isn't interesting...........

Sorry about the detail on what began as a poll-style thread . Economic optimisation was just one point about the broad idea of worker-owned business I've promoted, I guess sub-threads would be handy for bouts of delving.

A lot of people posted capitalism as part of their ideology, it's the most powerful force at work in the world, one of the biggest factors affecting our lives, and it's controlled by relatively few people.

If enough workers took democratic control of production it would be a tectonic shift in the world order, on balance for the better as far as I can see, that's why it's a key pillar of my political ideology, the other being how we influence politicians at all levels, and the best answer to that I've seen is direct democracy.

Aside from the bits I've obviously revelled in it looks like it's been a good thread, lot of readers as well as posts. So how is reading rand coming along? Would you be interested in taking the political compass test again after reading the book?