Can we have a civil, thoughtful discussion on this?

That you think the American people (most of whom voted for Hillary) were ignorant for not electing Hillary, then you suffer from a special form of illogic. That you think everybody with a college degree is compelled to move to Chicago just further evidences that.

 

It was done in Spain and in Italy. In Spain it led to the establishment of The Mondragon Corporation which, today, is the 4th largest corporation in Spain, employs about 100,000 and has branches in 4 countries.

In Italy, it is the "Marcora Law" of 1985: https://classwarinamerica.wordpress.com/tag/marcora-law/
and http://www.wikipreneurship.eu/index.php/Marcora_Law

Just Google "Mondragon Corp" and "Marcora Law in Italy".

Why not? You would not object to paying unemployment benefits for 2 years. What's the difference except with a loan as you suggest the new business would be strapped with the obligation to amortize the loan. The unemployment benefits would be available and earmarked for payment to unemployed people. Why not use them? Clearly Spain and Italy found it to be an acceptable alternative.

I would find it difficult to link to my own past stock trades as examples.

Right.

Our economy is geared to enabling and supporting private ownership of business. I'm just saying we would do well to give collective ownership the same level of support and incentive.

 

Mondragon, was it initially known as Fagor Electrodomésticos?, as best I can find was founded in 1956 by graduates of a local technical college. I was unable to find any details on where the money came from to begin the co-op, or did a Spanish law similar to the Marcora law which came into existence in 1985 already exist in Spain?

I would and do/did object to paying unemployment benefits for 2 years, have they not been returned to 26 weeks yet? The difference, as I see it, is that money spent by government is acquired from a small portion of the population and the massive growth of our debt is the result of spending which results in inflation/devaluation of our currency, increasing wealth disparity, and making it progressively more difficult for each successive generation of adults to achieve financial success without more and more government intervention. Does Spain have a law similar to the Marcora law of Italy?

 

when we get so far, the only choice will be socialism.... but we are far from it, and it will be a rough ride before we get there

 

Supply side policies have always resulted in economic per capita growth of 2 - 3% in non recessionary years. That includes the second term of the Clinton Presidency. The Obama Presidency however grew the economy at a much lower per capita growth of ~ 1%.

 

"A special form of illogic". Wow!

Interesting contention. Which you've forgot to substantiate with fact ...

 

Fagor is apparently a "subsidiary" of the Mondragon Corp. and is one of its many companies. http://www.reuters.com/article/spain-fagor-idUSL5N0IY3K020131113

I don't know what the limit currently is on unemployment benefits but at one time not long ago it was 2 years. It's probably less now.

In post #73 I had said "That sort of approach could be studied, case-by-case. Maybe the value of shares would be much less since the business is in bankruptcy. Stock I've held in a company that went bankrupt went to pennies or fractions of a penny per share or even zero. So this is just one of a possible number of considerations that could be useful."

You replied: "Provide links to some of the examples you are referring to."

Now, if you would like some examples of businesses in receivership that were taken over by the employees, you are certainly free to research that.

If you look into it further you would find many diverse supporting structures for privately owned business and little (relatively speaking) for co-ops.

 

There are more ways to be productive than providing simple labor. We used to require men to turn a mill stone to make flour. When we automated that process, we got the same work done and those men were able to take on other challenges that resulted in a net increase in our productivity.

And you are mistaken about Robotics being the only other way to provide simple labor. Biofabrication, consumer participation, e-commerce, 3-D printing, self-assembling geometries, expert systems... sure robotics is a good way to accelerate our productivity with zero labor. But it's not even the most promising option. We have many.



​

 

So we're uncertain of 'how' and 'when' Mondragon came into existence?

Yes, from what I find it is now back to a maximum of 26 weeks and as little as 5 weeks in one State. In California the maximum benefit is $450 x 26 weeks or $11,700.

Creditors are usually the first to be paid from the sales in a bankruptcy, and shareholders are not necessarily entitled to receive anything at all. If you received anything at all then the sales of the assets exceeded the payments to the creditors which has nothing to do with the number of shares that were outstanding.

Okay, you're simply offering it as a suggestion, not based on any real world example.

I'm sure you would offer examples of any in support of your claim if that was true.

 

OP...the gov will have to give legal residents of a certain age a monthly allowance to live on. Those that can jobs can work. But if the robots take over, the illegals keep taking over the country and the dems get open borders as Hil would like...then prob not enough money for even a small allowance for the legal residents.

Look up die off and carrying capacity. In a finite world, pop and consumption cannot increase infinitely. If you have ever seen a bird pick its feathers off due to the stress of being locked in a cage...those are the symptoms you are starting to see in our world as society decomposes as our world model is starting to show its cracks.

As peak oil hits in the future and natural gas dries up things will only get worse. But as for now they are wringing the crude from the sand and cracking the rocks to find gas pockets, so my advice is drink and be merry until the end shows its ugly head. For no one has a crystal ball and can foresee the future.

 

One important part of the formula is
an elite class of people, (economists and leaders in business, industry and
politics), collaborating to keep an ignorant
mass of voters unaware of how simple economics actually is.

Extremely confusing ideas and technical jargon that is like a
foreign language is an important part of the scheme to keep
voters unaware of how easily their situation could be improved.

The two or three sentences in the following post that I bolded and
enlarged will make the Canadian model much easier to understand. The American model is similar.


http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=486137&page=3&p=1067059069#post1067059069

 

Biofabrication is not "simple labor", e-commerce is not labor so much as a marketing method, and 3D printing, self-assembling geometries, and expert systems are not "simple labor" activities. And I don't think they would employ a few million people. . . -more like a few thousand. And if so, they are not answers to employment needs for both reasons. We will still have higher and higher unemployment going forward. And this will ultimately force long-term solutions.

 

A simple inquiry with Google would find that and more. I believe Mondragon was started in 1956 or so.

Right. So how does this tie in to our discussion? Well, it means that a business in bankruptcy can be affordable in the circumstances I described. But there are other ways of converting businesses to worker-operated businesses too. For example, when a corporation announces that it will be laying off workers and moving operations overseas, a favorable government could tell them "fine, go ahead, but your factory and all the equipment stays here (eminent domain) and when you ship your production back here for sale, it will be hit with a tariff or tax to make it competitive with the locally-produced product." And these are just two possibilities that I'm sure we could dream up.

Mondragon was started that way. This is known as the "Marcora Law" in Italy. Wikipedia says 89 businesses were saved that way by 1992. Read it. It also lists some provisions that would be advantageous to the "cause". http://www.wikipreneurship.eu/index.php5?title=Marcora_Law

Then look at the reading material here! - http://bit.ly/2kxLLnZ

That would be a very mistaken assumption, although it plays well for nay-sayers. Refer back to the above link to the Wikipedia discussion of Marcora Law. You will find some interesting possibilities for legislation there.

Beyond that it is really just plain common sense to begin with that in the leading capitalist country there would be many legal provisions and agencies and other structures to promote and protect capitalist businesses and not so much for socialist-style businesses.

 

Biofabrication falls in a class of manufacturing generally described as zero labor models. The idea is to replace simple human labor in your process so as to be competitive with companies that have access to less expensive human labor.

E-commerce is another example, where the retail work is replaced with a system that uses little or no human labor to get the same job done. Same with models involving 3D printing, self-assembling geometries, consumer participation, and expert systems.

If we get the same work done as we are doing now with these models, we can maintain our current levels of productivity while freeing up a lot of people to contribute in ways other than simple labor. Like when we replaced workers turning a millstone with an oxen or windmill.

It would be unfortunate if some of those people chose not to find new ways to contribute, but many would. It would make us better off as a nation. The long term solution is what it's always been, if people want an improved society and want to enjoy an improved lifestyle they need to improve their contributions. We need to get more done with less labor.






​

 

"Freeing up"??? You're actually talking huge unemployment. I thought you believed you were suggesting ways to address the workers that would be displaced by robotics, -not add to them.

"Chose not to find new ways to contribute"??? It is the job of government to manage the economy to make it work for everyone. You are actually touting a hope and plan to make it very lucrative for big business owners and disastrous for 99%. As such I have zero respect for your ideas. But fear not. Given such conditions the people would indeed find a solution!

 

It's not the job of anyone but you, to find a way for you to contribute. Yes, freeing up. What's important is that we get the work done. If your activities provide no benefit (or slow down the process) we should free you up from that activity.

If the Roomba can keep the floors clean without you, why would it be better to have you do a job that get's nothing more done? Your activity would only have the value of keeping you busy. That's not a job. It's entertainment. It's no reasonable to slow down our net productivity, just so you can be entertained.

I'm not asking you to respect these models. They will occur regardless of your disrespect. Same way windmills replaced people rolling a millstone.




​

 

In 1955, a young Catholic priest, José María Arizmendiarrieta, in Mondragón, Spain established a technical college and selected five young people to set up the first co-operative company which was named Talleres Ulgor, an acronym derived from their surnames, known today as Fagor Electrodomésticos. It's unclear if a Mondragon Corporation existed prior to this or came into existence as a result. More important, my question of 'how' remains unanswered. From where did the funding to begin come from? Beginning with 5 persons, were added employees given co-ownership or was there a process by which they gained equality with the original 5? Could a bad employee be let go or would they have to be bought out even if they never were productive?

In response to - In post #73 I had said "That sort of approach could be studied, case-by-case. Maybe the value of shares would be much less since the business is in bankruptcy. Stock I've held in a company that went bankrupt went to pennies or fractions of a penny per share or even zero. So this is just one of a possible number of considerations that could be useful."

Yes, the shares can become absolutely worthless, but the assets belonging to the business could be worth a great amount and even in the billions. Let's try and stick to reality and avoid dreaming. While government can use force to try and achieve some seemingly desirable results, there are often undesirable consequences that result in government creating more laws which end up persecuting/prosecuting persons who are simply trying to exist within their means or earn a living.

Mondragon started, if the wiki is correct, as I wrote at the beginning of this response. The Italian Marcora law came into existence in 1985, and not all employees of Mondragon today are co-owners. The sale of a failing businesses assets should focus on resolving the debts owed to creditors, employees even if and more so especially if they are co-owners in the failing business should have no preferential treatment, unless of course they can make an acceptable offer to the creditors exceeding that of all others.

A very valid, realistic, and rational assumption none the less.

You seem to continually want to mix Mondragon and Marcora law, when they are unrelated to each other. Why would we need more legislation when there is nothing prohibiting employees from taking over a company, if they can make an offer acceptable to the creditors who should be the only ones with a right of refusal to any offers being made?

The fact that our government has numerous agencies and other structures for protection of businesses and people is somewhat socialist in that all taxpayers are held liable for the funding of what may or may not benefit them or be of any importance to them at all. When we pay our taxes we have no say at all as to where and on what that money will be spent. I doubt there is a single person who would support every expenditure made by our government.

 

Me? You spoke of "they" and "them". I answered accordingly.

Then it's true that you are not talking about either reducing unemployment or providing for unemployment, but saying "we don't need you, go die".

I never said it would be.

That's why I never say such things.

And I'm not asking you to engage in conversation. I can see it leads nowhere.

 

Any strategies developed for converting a failing business to a worker-owned/operated business will not work in every case. That is reality. Mondragon is an interesting case in that it is a worker-owned/operated business and it has been very successful, even to the point of absorbing some privately owned businesses. You may find it to be as interesting as I did. I think we could begin to find our way out of our repeating round of economic problems if we could get some laws passed to incentivize worker ownership. Currently it is a hard path to walk. And having taxpayers foot the bill for running the country does not make the country socialist. The public pays the costs of running every type of society, so that doesn’t help at all in the determination of whether it’s socialism or something else. The question of what the relationship of business owner to the business’s workers is, is what determines whether the business is capitalist or socialist.

 

And I never said people should go die.

I am focused on something other than reducing unemployment. Reducing unemployment will not help this country unless it also increases net productivity. Increasing net productivity will. I say the two are not the same and it's counter productive to focus on the wrong one.



​

 

That's obvious.

As I understand, Mondragon was created as a worker-owned/operated business, not a failing business that was taken over by the employees who then became owner/operators.

It's unclear how you are combining economic problems with incentivizing worker ownership. What do you mean it's a hard path to walk. As I see it, there are two possibilities, a number of persons can pool their resources and start a business from scratch making it a worker-owned/operated business, or the employees of a failing business can pool their resources and outbid or work out an agreement acceptable to the creditors allowing them to take over the business which they could then operate as a worker-owned/operated business. Primarily it is a matter of accumulating the resources needed to start or take over a business.

"The fact that our government has numerous agencies and other structures for protection of businesses and people is somewhat socialist in that all taxpayers are held liable for the funding of what may or may not benefit them or be of any importance to them at all. When we pay our taxes we have no say at all as to where and on what that money will be spent. I doubt there is a single person who would support every expenditure made by our government. "

Nor did I say it did. Perhaps collectivist would be a better term?

Ideally, the public should get what it is paying for, and feel they have got their monies worth. Considering the fact that the Federal government is spending about $10,800 per person (2016) with the average family size of 2.54 persons, the average family should be paying about $27,432 in taxes each year. And most people complain that their taxes are too high or that government should spend more money on programs that would benefit them individually, while a growing number of the population are paying no taxes at all. Sure everyone pays taxes if they spend money but if the money being spent was not earned by those spending it, their only complaint is that government should provide them more to cover the higher taxes on spending.

Do we really want government 'running' society or a society 'running' the government? We throw the term 'democracy' around when we, the U.S.A. is according to our Constitution a 'republic' which as I was taught many years ago meant that sovereignty begins with the people and our government is subordinate to the people. It is my opinion that all that changed in 1913 under Woodrow Wilson, with the creation of the Federal reserve and passage of the 16th and 17th amendments which changed power from beginning with the people then the States and finally the Federal government into a Centralized form from which sovereignty became wrested in the hands of the Federal government, flowing to the States, and finally to the people who now only have a voice in 'who' will rule them, allowing our taxes to be spent/misused/wasted as the means by which politicians assume and retain their power over us. From where in our Constitution is "From each according to their ability to each according to their needs" found?

 

Ok, great. What can be produced that will fill a demand? What is wanted? What is needed?

I can think of a huge alternative energy project that will create many jobs and address a need too.

 

Currently our economic system is not sustainable. It required increasing production, increasing market shares, increasing profits, increasing, increasing, increasing. This is the root of our economic problems. They all lead back to capitalism being in trouble due to difficulties with needed increases, and worker-owned/operated businesses would not require such increases. They would be sustainable.

There are many incentives and aids for private business startups but very few incentives for worker-owned businesses to get started. We could have a "W-OSBA" as we have a "SBA". We could have eminent domain laws modified to serve the formation of W-O businesses from failing corporations. We could have any number of laws and agencies to match the advantages for private business. And no, I'm not knowledgeable of all the various laws and agencies we have for business. So that would have to be developed by a task force or other team for the purpose.

A socialist government puts workers first and corporations must serve the society as a whole. "Socialist-type reforms" of a capitalist system to keep it "friendly" and keep it working is not a socialist system. They have been used since at least early in the 1900s.



Ideally, the public should get what it is paying for, and feel they have got their monies worth. Considering the fact that the Federal government is spending about $10,800 per person (2016) with the average family size of 2.54 persons, the average family should be paying about $27,432 in taxes each year. And most people complain that their taxes are too high or that government should spend more money on programs that would benefit them individually, while a growing number of the population are paying no taxes at all. ....[/quote]
Sounds like the government is desperately trying to keep it together and is losing the battle, doesn't it?

Always remember to ask "for whom?" I think the best example of government running society is seen right here in the USA. The government creates policies (with big corporate guidance) to keep things running for big business and it is not so beneficial to the society (people), like our healthcare, obstacles to workers trying to organize, failing education, bloated prison system, low taxes on the rich resulting in inequality and inadequate revenue, etc. The government is not subordinate to the people; it is subordinate to big money interests. And yes, as the people have lost their influence on government, the rich have consolidated their grip on it. Since 1913? I'm not sure.

 

I agree there is a lot of work to be done in designing and developing alternative models for powering many of our needs.



​

 

You need to clarify the above opinion, while I agree that our constant increasing debt is unsustainable, what is it that drives the need for all the increases you mention above?

Again, you are posing an opinion lacking any factual foundation. Inflation affects all businesses, private or collectively owned similarly.

Again you make claims without providing any basis of supporting facts.

I agree, "Socialist-type reforms" began to be applied to our Federal government in 1913. And as a result we have a nearly $20 trillion debt to show for it.

Sounds like the government is desperately trying to keep it together and is losing the battle, doesn't it?[/QUOTE]

My post

Sounds more like government, Woodrow Wilson 1913, has created a monster, "The Creature from Jekyll Island", along with the 16th and 17th amendments which 'fundamentally changed our government and has produced perpetual growth of undesirable consequences which government continually tries to fix with increased spending and debt.

A centralized sovereign government provides those with money a one stop place to do their shopping.
Since 1913?; follow the money beginning with our founding, currency, government spending, debt, recessions, depressions, inflation, deflation, prices, wages, etc.