The One Cause of Poverty That’s Never Considered

[Revoltingest]

I get more and more the impression that you are not a socialist.

If we'd stop using unclear labels, I think we would agree on more things than we disagree.
E.g.: UBI. That is something you and @Revoltingest can agree upon.

The UBI is useful.

E.g.: "Money is speech, corporations are people." My guess is that @Revoltingest would agree that that is nonsense.

You're so wrongo pongo.

"Corporations are people" is a catchphrase the left so loves
to mock because it sounds absurd. But they don't understand
the issues of corporate personhood.
Consider....
- Corporations are owned by people. They aggregate to pool
their individual resources to achieve larger goals, without each
investor risking everything.
- Corporate personhood is an old concept, pre-dating USA's existence.
- Corporations include beloved leftish non/quasi-businesses,
eg, NPR, DNC.
- Corporations have some rights of people,
eg, to sue in court, equal protection, free speech.
- Corporations are not people per se,
eg, cannot vote, cannot marry, no 5th Amendment protection
Ref....

Corporate personhood - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Money is speech" is similarly mocked without understanding.
Money buys ads, funds internet platforms, prints flyers, & supports
other voices. It's why political parties seek donations....not just for
junkets & luxuries.
If government has the power to strip anyone of the right to spend
money to buy access to the public, they're effectively silenced.

E.g.: Taxation of income from capital. (@Revoltingest has a conflict of interest here but if he could stop thinking about himself even he could agree.)

Taxing income from capital is already the norm. But
I'd prefer that it be treated the same as other income.

 

[Stevicus]

I get more and more the impression that you are not a socialist.

If we'd stop using unclear labels, I think we would agree on more things than we disagree.
E.g.: UBI. That is something you and @Revoltingest can agree upon.
E.g.: "Money is speech, corporations are people." My guess is that @Revoltingest would agree that that is nonsense.
E.g.: Taxation of income from capital. (@Revoltingest has a conflict of interest here but if he could stop thinking about himself even he could agree.)

I would appear to be socialist to the extremist McCarthyites, Birchers, Reaganites, and Trumpists who have set the tone for the debate. I don't mind the label, although I realize in practice, there would be subtler shades of gray.

 

[Stevicus]

I get more and more the impression that you are not a socialist.

If we'd stop using unclear labels, I think we would agree on more things than we disagree.
E.g.: UBI. That is something you and @Revoltingest can agree upon.
E.g.: "Money is speech, corporations are people." My guess is that @Revoltingest would agree that that is nonsense.
E.g.: Taxation of income from capital. (@Revoltingest has a conflict of interest here but if he could stop thinking about himself even he could agree.)

One thing I will add is that I think the law should have teeth when it comes to capitalist mischief. That's one area where we are far too lax and soft on crime, and as a result, capitalists typically think that they're above the law. I do believe in wage/price/rent controls - and such is clearly possible under a capitalist society, since we've had it before. I believe in tough punishments for capitalist and corporate malfeasance. For example, the executives at Firestone who knew their tires were defective should have been charged with murder. If a health insurance company denies a procedure or a needed medication to a patient and that patient dies, then the CEO of that company should be charged with murder.

In other words, we can still have a capitalist system, but with stricter laws with tougher punishments to deal more swiftly with capitalist malfeasance.

 

[Heyo]

"Money is speech" is similarly mocked without understanding.
Money buys ads, funds internet platforms, prints flyers, & supports
other voices. It's why political parties seek donations....not just for
junkets & luxuries.
If government has the power to strip anyone of the right to spend
money to buy access to the public, they're effectively silenced.

One thing I will add is that I think the law should have teeth when it comes to capitalist mischief. That's one area where we are far too lax and soft on crime, and as a result, capitalists typically think that they're above the law. I do believe in wage/price/rent controls - and such is clearly possible under a capitalist society, since we've had it before. I believe in tough punishments for capitalist and corporate malfeasance. For example, the executives at Firestone who knew their tires were defective should have been charged with murder. If a health insurance company denies a procedure or a needed medication to a patient and that patient dies, then the CEO of that company should be charged with murder.

In other words, we can still have a capitalist system, but with stricter laws with tougher punishments to deal more swiftly with capitalist malfeasance.

These are related issues. When money is speech, the rich have a louder voice in government, i.e. they are more equal than other animals. And with that louder voice comes that laws and application of laws are fitted to the rich.
Getting money out of politics is one of the most important tasks to make the US into a functioning democracy.

 

[PureX]

These are related issues. When money is speech, the rich have a louder voice in government, i.e. they are more equal than other animals. And with that louder voice comes that laws and application of laws are fitted to the rich.
Getting money out of politics is one of the most important tasks to make the US into a functioning democracy.

But you are talking to a capitalist, and to a capitalist, money buys control. They believe it like it's a kind of natural law. You buy it, you own it, you control it according to your own desires. And nothing should ever be allowed to stand in the way of this natural law.

 

[Stevicus]

These are related issues. When money is speech, the rich have a louder voice in government, i.e. they are more equal than other animals. And with that louder voice comes that laws and application of laws are fitted to the rich.
Getting money out of politics is one of the most important tasks to make the US into a functioning democracy.

Yes, but when a situation like that goes on unchecked, it tends to fester and lead to greater corruption to the point where society could hit a breaking point. That's what some people appear to be worried about nowadays, particularly those who have been in a panic over Trump and events like Jan. 6. But they don't seem to understand the cause and effect between capitalist malfeasance contributing to human misery and the public anger and mayhem which result from it. The Trump fans aren't socialists, though. They seem more nationalistically-inclined, which is fully in keeping with the principles of natural law which also justify capitalism, yet the capitalists believe they can have it both ways. That's where they are wrong, and if they're not careful, their choices could lead to serious long-term repercussions for America and the world.

 

[Revoltingest]

These are related issues. When money is speech, the rich have a louder voice in government, i.e. they are more equal than other animals. And with that louder voice comes that laws and application of laws are fitted to the rich.
Getting money out of politics is one of the most important tasks to make the US into a functioning democracy.

"Getting money out of politics" has dubious consequences....
- It runs afoul of the 1st Amendment, ie, government decides
just how much speech is allowed each of us. Should the 1st
Amendment be amended to allow government to limit how
much a person or group can spend to air views? Will politicians
get the power to decide which groups or views can be limited?
You're in dangerous territory there.
- It's already caused problems when government goes after
broadcasters whose speech is considered a "contribution in
kind", which triggers limitations of candidate support.
- It gives broadcasters, internet sites, & newspapers proportionately
greater power because their spending is merely overhead. They
tend to have money, & this would provide a venue for the wealthy,
ie, buy a platform from which to speak.

It just creates a different mix of un-equality, with government
having more power over speech. Is this a power that you'd
risk giving Trump if he wins in 2024?

 

[Kfox]

As for your questions:

"Who funds the initial expense of starting the business? I imagine it could come from any number of possible sources - private or public. I suppose it would depend on the type of business. I never said I wanted to eliminate capitalism entirely, although my general philosophy is that when it comes to the basic human necessities, it should be socialism, and capitalism can be for luxuries and fluff.

So let’s say Jim and Jane invest their life savings to open a restaurant. They hire 3 people to help them run the restaurant. Do the 3 people they hire need to reimburse Jim and Jane 80% of the initial cost so they each own a 20% share? Or do they just get to walk into a business started by someone else’s effort.

"Who decides who gets hired?"

Well, as with any organization, private or public, there's usually some sort of HR department or personnel director to handle those things.

HR departments or personnel directors come years later after the business has already become established. In the beginning it’s just Jim and Jane. Again who decides who gets hired?

"Who makes the decisions on how the business is run?"

It may not be a matter of who as much as how. One aspect of socialism which has been often criticized is that process of centralization which took place. When they said "all power to the Soviets," it originally meant to give power to the local councils which had formed up in local jurisdictions around the country. They weren't supposed to have centralized power as it later became.

In my scenario, it’s just Jim, Jane, and 3 other people. Who decides how the business is run?

So, as far as who makes the decisions on how the business is run, it should be someone local to where the business operates.

Suppose the someone local decides the restaurant should be a vegan restaurant, where as Jim and Jane want a restaurant that serves steak and burgers; who decides?

As a socialist, I would advocate for universal basic income, at least for the basic necessities of life.

So your idea would only work if there is a Universal Basic Income? Suppose the UBI is not a living wage? And if it is a living wage, what is the motivation for those 3 hired people to work 8 hrs a day knowing they may not get paid if the business doesn’t make money?

 

[Revoltingest]

So let’s say Jim and Jane invest their life savings to open a restaurant. They hire 3 people to help them run the restaurant. Do the 3 people they hire need to reimburse Jim and Jane 80% of the initial cost so they each own a 20% share? Or do they just get to walk into a business started by someone else’s effort.

HR departments or personnel directors come years later after the business has already become established. In the beginning it’s just Jim and Jane. Again who decides who gets hired?

In my scenario, it’s just Jim, Jane, and 3 other people. Who decides how the business is run?

Suppose the someone local decides the restaurant should be a vegan restaurant, where as Jim and Jane want a restaurant that serves steak and burgers; who decides?

So your idea would only work if there is a Universal Basic Income? Suppose the UBI is not a living wage? And if it is a living wage, what is the motivation for those 3 hired people to work 8 hrs a day knowing they may not get paid if the business doesn’t make money?

Problems with giving employees a say in running a business...
- It limits who the company would want to hire.
Such power granted to them would change requirements.
- Employees by their nature typically aren't business operators.
That's why they're employees. Many of us who own businesses
start out as employees, but we leave our old employers.
- Employees don't contribute to capital or start-up effort,
& they risk little or nothing. Lack of skin in the game, other
than a reliable paycheck is bad.

 

[Kfox]

You haven't. None of your questions pertain to anything I was explaining - and they obviously aren't specific to me and what I was saying because you asked the exact same set of questions to other posters.

The reason I haven’t addressed your response it because I don’t disagree with what you said. You described socialism and I agree with your definition. Problem is, I don’t think it could ever work. But rather than just saying it will never work, I presented a scenario which will either give you the opportunity to explain how it can work, or me the opportunity to articulate why it will not work.

Where on earth have you heard to me talk about business management?

That’s the problem; you haven’t! If you gonna talk about how business run, you gotta talk about management.

And do you understand that managing a business and owning a business are two different things?

Yes. But in the beginning, both are usually done by the same people; so you cannot separate the two.

 

[Kfox]

I assume you are looking for some sort of socialist model, here.

The owner/investors do. These can be a private individual or a whole public community.

That depends on who the investors are, and what the business is. But they wouldn't necessarily be "hiring" someone so much as they would be looking for partners to oprate the business enterprise.

Let’s say Jim and Jane invest their life savings to open a restaurant. They want to hire 3 people to help run the restaurant, but all the good cooks are lousy business operators, and all the good business operators are lousy cooks! Which should they choose?

Ideally, everyone involved in running the business, with some input from the community being served by it.

Suppose there is disagreement; Jim and Jane want a restaurant that serves burgers and fries, but the 3 workers want a vegetarian restaurant. Suppose Jim and Jane are convinced the burger and fries restaurant will be more successful in the community than the vegetarian restaurant, bur the 3 workers disagree. Who decides?

Everyone. When the business fails, it fails. Until it fails everyone involved will see the books and decide who gets paid how much.

In the USA, 50% of start up business fail within the first 5 years due to lack of profit.
Council Post: What Percentage Of Small Businesses Fail -- And How Can You Avoid Being One Of Them?

Where are they supposed to find 3 people willing to work at their restaurant knowing they may not get paid any of the first 5 years? Is that realistic?

 

[Kfox]

But you are talking to a capitalist, and to a capitalist, money buys control. They believe it like it's a kind of natural law. You buy it, you own it, you control it according to your own desires. And nothing should ever be allowed to stand in the way of this natural law.

I think it is a mistake to assume with today's technology it is mostly the extreme wealthy who have all the power, when you look at movements like Black Lives Matter, #tax the rich, act up, me too, defund the police and many other movements, these movements have had a tremendous effect on the laws of today and it is obvious with today’s social media, anybody with a computer and opinion can have major influence. Ya don't have to be rich.

 

[Kfox]

Problems with giving employees a say in running a business...
- It limits who the company would want to hire.
Such power granted to them would change requirements.
- Employees by their nature typically aren't business operators.
That's why they're employees. Many of us who own businesses
start out as employees, but we leave our old employers.
- Employees don't contribute to capital or start-up effort,
& they risk little or nothing. Lack of skin in the game, other
than a reliable paycheck is bad.

I agree! The problem is trying to get some of these other guys to understand this.

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree! The problem is trying to get some of these other guys to understand this.

Ya canna easily kill a beloved dream by citing reality.
We've much work ahead.

 

[PureX]

Let’s say Jim and Jane invest their life savings to open a restaurant. They want to hire 3 people to help run the restaurant, but all the good cooks are lousy business operators, and all the good business operators are lousy cooks! Which should they choose?

Jim and Jane need to find partners that can do whatever they cannot. And that know what they don't.

Suppose there is disagreement; Jim and Jane want a restaurant that serves burgers and fries, but the 3 workers want a vegetarian restaurant. Suppose Jim and Jane are convinced the burger and fries restaurant will be more successful in the community than the vegetarian restaurant, bur the 3 workers disagree. Who decides?

They can all decide together. They all want this business to succeed. They can debate the possibilities, and then choose a menu. If it doesn't work, they can choose a different menu.

n the USA, 50% of start up business fail within the first 5 years due to lack of profit.
Council Post: What Percentage Of Small Businesses Fail -- And How Can You Avoid Being One Of Them?

Where are they supposed to find 3 people willing to work at their restaurant knowing they may not get paid any of the first 5 years? Is that realistic?

A business enterprise that cannot support the people involved in it is a failed business enterprise.

 

[PureX]

I think it is a mistake to assume with today's technology it is mostly the extreme wealthy who have all the power, when you look at movements like Black Lives Matter, #tax the rich, act up, me too, defund the police and many other movements, these movements have had a tremendous effect on the laws of today and it is obvious with today’s social media, anybody with a computer and opinion can have major influence. Ya don't have to be rich.

That's complete BS. Making noise on the internet is not having a tremendous effect on anything or anyone. Neither are riots and protests in the streets. The people in power don't give a crap about any of this. All they care about is that the giant money pump we call "America" keeps on pumping the money into their bank accounts.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The difference is that I've been clear.
You just don't understand my argument,
nor even your own.

Well, you call health care a social service when it in fact requires capital, workers, resources and produces a product.
It is like calling a hairdressing a social service, yet it in fact requires capital, workers, resources and produces a product.
So you are in fact a mixed economy proponent of socialism and capitalism, yet the propaganda you have internalized because it impossible for you to understand that.

 

[Kfox]

Jim and Jane need to find partners that can do whatever they cannot. And that know what they don't.

So they settle for lousy food in their restaurant because the people who are good managers are lousy cooks?

They can all decide together. They all want this business to succeed. They can debate the possibilities, and then choose a menu. If it doesn't work, they can choose a different menu.

Groups of people rarely agree on everything. So who decides? The 2 people who started the business or the 3 that got hired.

A business enterprise that cannot support the people involved in it is a failed business enterprise.

Going by that definition, most business are failures in the begining even though they have the potential to become successful eventually. Again; where are they supposed to find people willing to work 5 years without a paycheck? Does this sound realistic to you?

 

[Kfox]

That's complete BS. Making noise on the internet is not having a tremendous effect on anything or anyone. Neither are riots and protests in the streets. The people in power don't give a crap about any of this. All they care about is that the giant money pump we call "America" keeps on pumping the money into their bank accounts.

Are you seriously gonna tell me the BLM protests and riots of 2020 had zero effect on the laws of today? Are you kidding me? Do I need to point out laws in effect right now that resulted from these events?

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, you call health care a social service when it in fact requires capital, workers, resources and produces a product.
It is like calling a hairdressing a social service, yet it in fact requires capital, workers, resources and produces a product.
So you are in fact a mixed economy proponent of socialism and capitalism, yet the propaganda you have internalized because it impossible for you to understand that.

No point arguing over this.