The rank hypocrisy of capitalist propaganda

Any chance you can at least thinly veil your socialist tendencies?

 

That's a strong response! Chortle, chortle. I'll give you time to check the surplus value approach. No problem!

 

ALL businesses are government regulated.
VW operates under US law in the US.
VW lied and deceived about the emissions data. Ford Explorer dodged and delayed corrections.
Equifax knew of the need for a patch to address the specific vulnerability long before the hack happened, but didn't do it. Execs sold shares days after the hack and prior to it being announced to the public.
Medical insurance companies did, in fact, push substitutes, those being opioids.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2017/02/13/ford-motor-co-defect/97856978/
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...al/vw-diesel-emissions-scandal-explained.html
http://www.ibtimes.com/political-ca...-breach-inadequate-insurance-coverage-2589974
http://www.businessinsider.com/doctors-insurance-companies-policies-opioid-use-2016-6

 

Why? Socialism is but rational economics. Of course I often don't have to refer to it. Neoclassical economics will typically laugh in your face. I apologise for that. It should be more sweet natured

 

I think it's covered in the legislation, but usually there are rules to keep the investments to a fair and reasonable amount, and the profits are distributed according to the Articles of Incorporation. The point is that the whole intention with regard to the legislation is to provide fairness to all member-workers and to allow member-workers to control and modify many rules based on one member, one vote.

 

...and do these member-workers share in company losses?

 

Rutgers University studied worker-owned/operated co-ops extensively and found that in such co-ops productivity is 4% higher and profits are 14% higher, on average, than in equivalent traditional corporations.
https://vtdigger.org/2017/05/17/senators-look-take-vermont-worker-owner-effort-nationwide/

 

In the US there are about 30,000 co-ops. Most of them are buyers' co-ops or producers' co-ops and have nothing to do with "Workers' Self-Directed Enterprises" (WSDEs). There are about 1,000 WSDEs in the US. The members' list in this webpage lists a few: https://usworker.coop/democratic-workplaces/

Publicly traded corporations are controlled by majority shares which are held by the CEO and Board of Directors, typically. The number of "owners" as indicated by stockholders is meaningless.

 

ESOPs and profit-sharing does not equal control. It is rather an incentive for the worker to work harder with more dedication for the enrichment of the owners.

 

You're carrying on extensively about this with very limited information, most of which is incorrect due to your lack of research. If you would rather debate intelligently, ask me for links to relevant information on these questions. I have plenty.

 

Your question reflects an outlook riveted to the idea of competition. WSDEs don't compete because they don't need to.

 

Profit sharing is just a reference to the principal-agent problem, providing payment to encourage compliance. I've always been amused that worker ownership is actually 100% celebration of Hayek's distributed knowledge (it eliminates coercive relations and enables mutually beneficial information flows within the firm owners)

 

Of course.

 

Any time you don't have competition maximizing productivity falls, which is directly contrary to the OP's hypothesis. Thanks for showing the fallacy of the OP.

 

So they will return part of their income to make it up. Just try telling the truth.

 

Nothing you said here is true. Nothing. Zero.
The OP does not hypothesize anything about productivity. It's about hypocrisy. The only "connection" is that both words begin with "hypo".
The truth, as I have posted already, is that studies show that WSDEs (which do not need nor practice competition as a strategy) have an average of 4% more productivity and produce 14% more profit than equivalent "top-down" privately-owned businesses.

Thanks for showing the depth of your desperation to oppose WSDEs and support capitalism at any cost.

 

Yes, they do. I see you have not looked into this at all.

 

Some business names would have been a preferred answer,

 

At age 82, in what way would I benefit from WSDEs?
I ask the question after viewing your link and looking into 'Once Again Nut Butter' to find they produce peanut butter and Amazon shows a price of $0.69 per ounce. Checking the price of profit focused competitor Skippy I found their peanut butter sold on Amazon for $0.23 per ounce, or one third the cost.

 

Wait. What are you comparing? Or maybe I should ask "what do you think you are comparing"? What does peanut butter, Amazon, and Skippy have to do with WSDEs?

 

I was comparing 'Once Again Nut Butter" from the link provided in your post #208 to 'Hormel Foods', both companies producing and selling peanut butter, the latter a public traded capitalist company and the former shown to be 100% ESOP in your link.
Looking at the price difference between their similar product, peanut butter, it would appear the capitalist company would be the better consumer choice by the general public who earn an average or median income or less.

 

Oh. Cool.

 

No comment then?

 

its rank hypocrisy to point out that communism starved 60 million to death and capitalism made 60 million rich in China?

 

These problems are created by corruption and criminality, not by the capitalism. You can find much bigger problems in the socialist/communist countries.
The solution is not to replace capitalism with another "ism" while maintaining the corruption and the criminality.
The solution is to de-criminalize the system. Do your job as a citizen and raise your voice against all the major abuses. Keep doing it until they solve it. Get together with others like you and build better communities: anarchist, communist, socialist or capitalist communities - whatever you like.

The Western medical system is deeply criminal. There are many positive sides though - when looking at the technological advancements, but overall, is a criminal system.
The entire nutrition scientific community was spreading lies about the sugar for 50 years. The mindset of this community is to keep the people sick by selling them the products of the food industry, and then to sell them drugs.
The nutrition scientists refuse to investigate raw food. There are numerous accounts of people eating raw food and reversing all kind of serious and deadly affections. Therefore what these "scientists" are doing is not science, but anti-science.
The result can be easily seen in the obesity epidemic in the USA. And in the high number of people suffering from all kind of illness like cancer, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes etc.