The rank hypocrisy of capitalist propaganda

More inane attempt! Smith rejected hyper-rationality, referring to the exact same aspect that I'm applied to democracy within the firm.

 

I don't see how any of this proves that a WSDE wouldn't exploit those outside their firm. Can you explain?

 

Already have! Exploitation becomes a disutility. Decision making, unlike with hyper-rationality based only on maximisation behaviour, will naturally shy away from it.

So we have worker exploitation removed. We also have, through the impact of democracy within the firm, decision-making removed from zero sum rent seeking behaviour.

 

Ahem...Mondragon has a plethora of non-owner employees. In the supermarket chains alone, the majority of workers are not owners.

 

So since exploitation becomes a disutility, nobody would engage in it, right? Neither WSDEs nor corporations?

 

Nope. Corporations are closer to hyper-rationality. They exploit workers and they deliberately generate harm in return of higher profit. Without democracy within the company, where socially minded behaviour dictates, we merely have rent seekers. The only debate is the extent of that rent seeking. Some companies, for example, will deliberately pay below minimum wages. Others would find such brazen exploitation uncomfortable.

 

Corporations wouldn't do that, since exploitation becomes a disutility. Who would do something that's a disutility?

 

100% absurd. capitalism is competitive. they can no more exploit workers than customers. If fact they are slaves to both and must please both with the best jobs and products in the world to survive!

 

You continue to make ludicrous claims irrelevant to real world economics. Worker exploitation occurs without any doubt: from dynamic monopsony to discrimination, the productivity wage gap is the norm.

 

then so must customer exploitation?
here's a question on your level. What happens if one company tries to exploit their workers or customers and a competitor doesn't? See how easy that was?

 

You're not making sense. Try and construct a fully formed argument

 

What happens if one company tries to exploit their workers or customers and a competitor doesn't? See how easy that was?

 

You're still not making sense. I've referred to labour markets, you're attempting- and failing- to refer to product markets. We know that there isn't a market wage in labour markets. There is a distribution. If you underpay more you can expect more turnover, but you also of course also receive more rent.

 

for second time: What happens if one company tries to exploit their workers or customers and a competitor doesn't? See how easy that was? If you don't answer the question you are held in contempt and jailed, and court assumes you don't answer because you cant

 

Already answered. See above!

 

gibberish above

for 3rd time: What happens if one company tries to exploit their workers or customers and a competitor doesn't? See how easy that was? If you don't answer the question you are held in contempt and jailed, and court assumes you don't answer because you cant

Answer: the company that tries to exploit workers or customers goes bankrupt because Republican capitalism is self correcting.

 

You didn't understand it? Why, gosh! Where did you struggle? I'll break it down for you:

(1) There isn't a market wage (and therefore the concept of a perfectly elastic labour supply curve, such that firms are wage takers, is rejected)
(2) Greater underpayment (fancy neoclassical language for exploitation) will indeed encourage turnover, as workers seek to be exploited less
(3) Exploiting firms will often have no incentive to increase their wage offers as, while turnover is a cost, they are compensated through higher rents.

 

sure there is, its the wage buyer and seller agree to when free.

 

but employers don't like turnover so will raise wages to prevent it. This is sole reason Henry Ford raised wages so much. Do you understand?

 

all firms must increase wages maximum amount possible or lose best workers to firms that pay more. This is why jobs don't pay $1/hour. Do you understand?