Economics is Taught with a Left Wing Bias

Rubbish.

Most people work anywhere they can. Nobody has any real "choice" in the job-market.

One concocts a resume, sends it around and hopes for the best. If it doesn't work, they start a business and hope for the best. There is no ideal recipe for success. One just lucks-out, or they don't.

A far, far better solution would be if the law required that any remuneration beyond salary be obliged at all levels of the corporation, including:

• salary
• short-term incentives (STIs), sometimes known as bonuses
• long-term incentive plans (LTIPs)
• employee benefits
• paid expenses (perquisites)
• insurance.

In any company, all members contribute to its success. There is no justifiable reason why STI and LTIP remuneration should be reserved for Top-Management and throughout the company top-to-bottom. This is basically unfair - so many working for the profits that only a relative few share as incentives.

Not all equally, but all equitably ...

 

1) You said: the poor are "unable to afford quality food"
2) I said bananas (and other foods) are very very cheap quality foods
3) you panicked at losing another debate to a libertarian, which always happens because libMarxism is based in ignorance, and tried to change the subject 4 times
4) then you changed your position to: the poor eat junk food because they lack education, not because they cant afford quality food.



[/QUOTE]

 

OMG!!100% wrong and lib Marxist of course. A Harvard MBA can get a job almost anywhere starting at 200k/year. A graduate of a 3 month computer programming course can get jobs easily starting at $60k . The list is endless!! What planet have you been on??

 

how Marxist of you to want to share the profits at gunpoint!! What you want is to transform society from one based on peaceful relationships to one based on violent relationships enforced at gunpoint. Only a few share the profits? No problem men with a liberal guns can solve that problem.

Why not start a share the profits corporation as see how well it does? If co-ops and communism worked it would spread peacefully without need for the constant violence that you love so much!

 

OMG!! obviously there is a reason!!! Owners think they make the most profit that way, satisfy the most customers that way, and employ the most people that way. There are 100 million corporations and barely one finds a justification for sharing the profits as you would like. That must tell you it would do more harm than good. You are a Marxist tool but cant understand how you are being used

 

not really the poor are poor because they are liberals. Liberalism causes poverty. When China switched from libsocialism to capitalism 40% of the poverty on earth was eliminated. Simple enough?

 

I said, "If someone doesn't like being a worker because they feel the value of their labor is being stolen, then they should start their own business or start/work for a worker-owned business."

To which you replied, "Rubbish."

Are you disagreeing with my statement?

 

how odd to voluntarily go to work every day and have your work value stolen. Wonder why people don't stop doing that, band together peacefully, and do something wherein their work value is not stolen?

 

Violated my neighbor's person and/or property. I'm in favor of limited government, secure property rights, individual liberty, freer markets, so I can't get on board with your suggestion to initiate violence against otherwise peaceful people.

 

1) you said robber barron era " was a hell hole"
2) I pointed out that John D Rockefeller turned night into day for the masses for first time in history and you realized he was more a Republican capitalist saint than a Robber Baron as the libMarxist meme directed you to believe.

 

if so they were liberals for very very tiny govt unlike modern liberals who are for always growing taxes and govt without end??

 

so we would have been worse off preventing the rapid change that Hitler Stalin and Mao brought? Do you see why conservatives are 100% positive that liberalism is based in pure ignorance.

 

oh?? if true why not present your best example of this?? Surely you have just one good example of this??

 

People need more than bananas. But then again, some people are bananas.

 

Irrelevant. The robber baron era " was a hell hole" for the people.

 

Yes, you are. It's asinine to claim that the poor are poor because they are liberals. Most poor folks are poor because of lack of education. And because they are not very educated they are not interested in politics. If they do vote, they tend to vote Democratic because they know there's no future for them with Republicans in power. But most of them are not interested in politics, they're not liberals, and they're not conservatives. Go check a poll and stop speculating just to stroke your biases.

 

Conservatives are against anti-capitalist movements and revolutions and were even against right wingers like Hitler if they are imperialist. US conservatives want to reserve imperialism for themselves. Do you see why non-righties are 100% positive that conservatism is based in pure ignorance?

 

No, since you ask.

 

BTW, some senators see the need and are stepping up to the plate to provide a more level playing field:
https://www.commondreams.org/newswi...introduced-encourage-employee-owned-companies

But it's important to know that ESOPs are not the answer to the problem as ESOPs don't normally provide for worker control of the business. Typically ESOPs stick with the structure of electing a Board of Directors to run the company, and so, of course, when they search for capable people to run the company they usually find the best-qualified people are those who already sit on the Board. So worker control is never established and the business remains with a capitalist structure. Granted, the employees are usually better off in several ways and there is a lower frequency of layoffs, but control remains in the hands of the existing Board members.

 

I would add one more. No coop can be privatized and in case of resale it would be as a cooperative enterprise.

Also, to promote the idea, loans at favorable rights but with public officials on the BoD for oversight for the period of time the loan is repaid at 80%.

Enough of the Silicon Valley Millionaires Mill ...

 

I would agree, however, I note as well that the US was populated (for the most part) originally by Europeans. If the EU is now a Social Democracy, it is because European values prefered that ethic over either Communism or pure Capitalism.

But, that same evolution did not occur in the US. I find that a bit strange. Because all that has happened is that we evolved from a budding nation where the rich friends of a King owned everything to a democratic capitalist country where the rich still dominate politics AND the generation of Wealth.

And with one of their own in the Oval Office promising a further reduction in upper-income taxation, the situation can only get worse.

Unless of course, the Dems get their act together and take the HofR away from the Replicants in next year's election ...

 

I may not be understanding your final point here well, but I think we have to be careful about preventing any BoD from being one driven by profit. That flaw would conflict with the notion of being a business of the workers, by the workers, and for the workers. If the BoD includes workers who are qualified due to a history in finance and accounting then that would seem to accomplish your goal. Agree?

 

But "state run" businesses are not socialist businesses. The problematical aspect of capitalism is the relationship between management and labor. And that is one in which management is in the hands of a few people per corporation who are not workers and they run the business driven by profit. Under real socialism, which is worker control of business, the management is the workers. No scheme of private control can be considered socialism. And when government runs a business the relationship remains a capitalist one. The state has replaced the Board of Directors and the workers remain without ownership and control. Workers in that case are not the ones who decide what to produce, where to produce, how to produce, and what to do with the profits. So, as Marx and Lenin warned, when government is running businesses you have state capitalism, -not socialism.

The early models of organization and methodology seen everywhere including Russia and China have failed or are failing. The lessons learned are now pointing a new direction. And regarding name, there is not need to name it. The new direction is evolving to be one of worker self-directed enterprises (WSDEs), owned and controlled by those who work there.

(I'm going to assume that by "that name" you mean "socialism".) So then Britain suffers the same problem that the US suffers: public ignorance of politics and economics and heavy influence of long-standing propaganda that has indoctrinated them with false ideas of the subject. Hence they are disarmed and cannot organize popular sentiments and movements to solve their problems, -which is the goal and purpose of such propaganda.

Probably the greatest lesson the public needs is that what we have seen that was called "socialism" did not produce socialism. It failed. And we ned to go in a new direction of WSDEs. Best example: Mondragon Corporation.

There you have it. You're calling state capitalism "socialism" and finding it corrupt. Socialism is not inherently corrupt and the world has little understanding of socialism due to propaganda. To learn what socialism really is takes an honest search, time, learning, and discovery, and it is best done in a group with other sincere, open, seekers of truth.

I would resist and oppose that too. What more do we need to know that isn't a truly democratic government of the people, by the people, and for the people ("socialism")?

 

No they weren't.

And today's "conservatives" grow government just as fast as liberals. They are against taxes, but LOVE to spend on the countries credit card.

 

True. Debt is not a Party problem. It's a capitalism problem.