Socialism works every time it's tried.

Do you know of a corporation in which the workers hire and fire the CEO? Do you know of one in which the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws specify that the Board of Directors must be 50% workers who are elected by the workers for a term? Sheesh.

 

You're asking me how a democratic firm should run? Have a word with yourself! That's up to the company. I do know, mind you, that their choices leads to higher productivity rates.

No, rent seeking is the driving force. See, for example, Schumpterian creative destruction.

We know that isn't the case. See, for example, the various forms of inefficient wage underpayment (including discrimination). That capitalism doesn't drive out such inefficiency is a matter of empirical fact.

Crikey, even orthodox microeconomics understands how market failures operate in technical progress. Sounds like you need to brush up on your basics!

A silly claim. State capitalism has no need to be efficient. Naff all to do with socialism. Why do you think worker owned companies are more productive? Why do you think traditionally owned companies are more reliant on economic rent? Have a think!

 

SS and Medicare have some socialistic characteristics, but they are not socialism, like the federal pension program is no different that private pension programs and is not socialism. They are both annuity programs managed and controlled by the government. People contribute to the annuities and later draw money out of their annuities. In my case, so far, I have put more money into both than I have taken out. That is getting less common only because the SS plan was not designed for people living longer. When FDR signed the social security act life expectancy was about 66. The idea was that government would collect tons of SS taxes but not have to return much at all -- hardly socialism.

 

In theory, governments have very different motives than for profit enterprises. In practice, the actual people involved in governments and for profit enterprises are motivated by the exact same spectrum of incentives. They are no better, or worse, than us. There is no good reason to cede to them authority over or responsibility for us. There is, however, a very good reason to retain for ourselves our right to makes decisions for ourselves. The absolute worst way to make decisions is to put them into the hands of those who pay no price for being wrong.

 

Sounds like you need to read some Galbraith. He refers to the blurring of the public and private sectors, describing how market concentration (a natural part of capitalism) impairs government policy-making. Naff all to do with socialism mind you....

 

There is one GLARING difference. SS, Medicare and public pension programs would all be criminally underfunded, and therefore highly illegal, if they were not exempt from the laws that govern such things.

 

This is a distinction without a lot of difference. Do you know how many workers own stock in their company? (Almost all of them if they have a pension plan.) Are you aware that shareholders elect the board? You just want the small shareholders to have more power, I assume by confiscating the power and control from major share owners and doling it out to workers. (Who all would that be? full-time and part-time? newly hired and retired? highly rated and poorly rated? contract workers? ............ What happens when a worker quits or is fired? Does he lose or keep his shares? If he keeps his shares that means that for new hires the company needs to have a stock offering........ Get's really messy very fast.) You know, like Obama did we he confiscated wealth from bond holders and stock holders of GM and gave the union about 1/3 of the company.

 

Since public companies are run by the sharholders, that is pretty much a democratic process. But under your socialism the government i the sole owner and I was just asking how the government will execute the democratic process for this or that company. Yes, choices that management make can lead to either higher or lower productivity, but I don't get your point.

You are confusing rent seeking with the profit motive. Yes capitalism seeks to maximize profits and that means charging what the market will bear. But if the market won't bear his price, then he has got to do it better -- more efficiently. Hence it is efficiency that drives the capitalism. Economic rent means charging more than what society or economics thinks it is worth. That raises two questions: who decides, other than the company and its customers if the price is too high? I assume in your socialism that would be some agency appointed by government officials who will decide that Nabisco (now of course owned by the government) is charging 8 cents too much for Oreo cookies. Do you think that is more efficient that the customers telling Nabisco, "drop your price or I won't buy any"?

Why is wage underpayment inefficient? It might be very efficient if it lowers the cost of production. It might be very inefficient if the underpaid workers are not motivated to do their job. In either case the labor market give and take will sort that out. If you are saying some labor practices are plain wrong I agree, and there should be laws that control such action. Such laws would apply equally to socialist and capitalist enterprises, though the government would be less incentivized to over-regulate their owned companies.

What makes you think worker (employee) owned companies are more efficient? You have no basis for that assertion. Since a company that is focused primarily on economic rent is doomed, why do you think company owners rely on that?

 

If you wanted to be extremely naive, then you could say that. Information flows within the company are hindered through capitalism. One reason for that?: Hierarchical relations, independent of any division of labour criteria, are crucial for maintaining economic rent.

Try to make sense. I've referred to market socialism. If anything that reduces the role of discretionary government.

More naivety! Rent is inefficient profit. Worker underpayment counts. Market power counts etc etc etc.

Given market failure, orthodox economics agrees that you support rent seeking!

Absolute nonsense. You'd have to assume some spectacularly textbook simplicity such as perfect competition.

Again, you only show you don't understand the basic economics. Market power will derive rent. That exists with monopoly power and it certainly exists in the labour market, via monopsonistic power.

You set up a question based on your own knowledge deficiency over rent. That won't wash!

Wrong again! The market isn't specific to capitalism. I've had to say this several times now: The clue is in the title, market socialism.

You merely confirm that you don't understand rent. Wage underpayment necessarily means that compensation does not reflect supply and demand criteria. That automatically means an inefficient outcome. Of course you might want to deny the importance of supply and demand? Go ahead!

No, I'm saying the obvious. Workers aren't paid according to the value of their labour. This is accepted by orthodox economics and also by empirical evidence. It must therefore be the case that capitalism, by definition, is inefficient.

First, rent is a crucial part of capitalism. We merely have different flavours. The orthodox view is that rent automatically means inefficiency (through concepts such as deadweight loss). The heterodox view is that it could drive innovation (but Schumpeter argued the end result is necessarily socialism). Second, I've already said that the empirical evidence has already shown higher productivity rates from worker ownership. See the publications, for example, by Logue and Yates.

 

There is no similarity to annuities.

 

That's not really true through. The US has always been somewhat socialist. We've always had a economy that was mostly capitalist, but with certain elements of socialism. For example, regulate utilities, and we license certain companies to tell the, but we also regulate how those companies are allowed to operate. It's the same with AMTRAK. They are technically a private corporation, but they are heavily regulated, and receive alot of public funding.

 

But those workers don't run the business in any way. They never collectively hold a controlling interest. You don't seem to know about stock facts or probably that even in ESOPs the workers don't hold a controlling interest.

In worker co-ops each member worker may own only one share, which provides one vote. But you think all this is a "distinction without a difference". LOL!!!! Keep thinking that. It will keep you from fighting against worker control when it grows.

As a person who once held a series 6 securities license, I could probably teach you a few things. OOPS! I just did.

I want workers to hold the power, so keep assuming.

 

They could hold a controlling interest if they owned enough stock. It is not the job of workers to run the business, owners and managers do that, if they want to run it, they need the proper education and apply for management positions. I held a series 7 license, you ready for school?

 

duh

Well you just sit back and tell us all what workers need as they take control of business one co-op at a time.

 

A lot of cash they don't have.

 

I see you don't understand WSDEs.

 

I see you don't understand businesses have value and that needs to be paid for, before you get to run it. The only way a company gives up that right is by government stepping in and seizing control.

 

Not only are your assumptions about me wrong, they're also irrelevant. But you don't understand how or why.

 

"Market socialism" is an oxymoron.
......

 

well, other than the fact that both Social Security and Medicare are both annuities......., not including the politicians stealing from them, of course.

 

They were presented to the SCOTUS as taxes, so was Obamacare.

 

You just want the small shareholders to have more power, I assume by confiscating the power and control from major share owners and doling it out to workers.[QUOTE="Kode, post: 1070213609, member: 70481"........ I want workers to hold the power, so keep assuming.[/QUOTE]Exactly what I said. Confiscate from the assumed wealthy and give to the unsuccessful. Let them run the show; they have been so great up to now!

 

Ironically, there's nothing to stop Kode from doing that, yet he doesn't do that. Rather, he puts all of his efforts into trying to compel others to do it by force of law. But not Kode, no. He won't do it himself. He won't start businesses and run them the 'right way'. I do. You do, but not Kode. He just rants and wails.

 

Exactly how are they annuities? And annuities are not characterized by theft of their values. So how are they annuities? There is no registration of ownership, no penalty term, no stipulated interest rate, no ability to annuitize, and no assignment of beneficiary. So how are they annuities in your mind?

 

(I'll see if I can fix your wuoting problems)

There is no confiscation in worker co-ops. The workers depend on their own innovation and management.

You want individual capitalist to hold the power over their workers. That is why I said I want the workers to hold the power. And so far you haven't made one valid criticism of WSDEs.