On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 7:56 AM, Martin Franco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> You imply that a business owner should take all the risks but at best >> break even, while only his employees make money? > I meant to imply that there should be no business owner, that the > business should be owned by its employees, not by a single/few > individuals. My experience has been that very few people want to take on the responsibilities and risks of ownership. People want to share profits but rarely losses. In a world where all risk cannot be avoided one must come up with a mechanism for compensating the risk takers. How do you propose to do this? >> Obviously, I and empirical data disagree. Not /all/ corporations exist >> simply in order to satisfy their greed. BTW, there are many, many >> corporations which consist of only a half-dozen* or fewer people. I'll >> bet that case accounts for a large percentage of corporations. Are all >> those people evil too? > People have a wide range of motives, but the criteria for success under > capitalism includes the pursuit of profit, and... that's pretty much it. > If people can pursue profit and thier other ideals at the same time, > great. It's the rest of the time that worries me. Profit = Resources retained for future use. Inequity of distribution exists in all known human systems. Inequity of risk also exists. Unfortunately classical Marxist analysis of all of these problems is superficial and impedes and real understanding of the problems. The Marxist systems have tended to degenerate into bureaucratic state monopolies of the worst possible kind. Anarchism, in the sense that you used it, has not ever been found to be persistent. A sustainable, equitable economy remains an open problem. An open problem not likely to succumb to old dogmas. >>> Watch _The Corporation_[1] and _The Story of Stuff_[2] and tell me the >>> system isn't screwed up. (They are free to download) It does not follow from the fact, which I accept, that the system is screwed up, that your suggestions contain even the hint of a solution. The problems that you are discussing (unfortunately with an incredibly poor grasp of basic accounting) are a small part of a much larger problem. > > I'm a computer guy first, and it wasn't long ago that I was apathetic to > politics and economics. If you're not satisfied with my arguments, the > Anarchy Faq goes into much greater detail in its arguments against > capitalism and government, and ideas for thier replacement. You might do well to learn a little something about accounting before you make a statement as absurd as: "Profit is the difference between what the employees of a company are paid and the value they produce." And the capital equipment they use? and its cost and depreciation? The risk of that capital? Please Martin learn some simple facts that apply to all forms of organization before you subject us to any more of this. Expenses != Money paid to employees. Revenues != Cash coming in. (Risk, timing, recognition, see futures, see derivatives.) Profit = Revenues - Expenses != value extorted from wage slaves. But let us say that your statement were correct. Then in an equitable world you would have the profit redistributed to the employees. Is this correct? How do you propose to measure "the value that they produce?" Now in every human situation that I have ever been involved in some people produced more than others. This was often hard to quantify, but is inarguably true. According to your principles, is it not theft to take from them and give to those who produce less? How do you propose to "solve" the problem of the inequitable distribution of talent? Of basic genetic gifts? Of the distribution of resources that result from the application of effort by a diverse species like ours? I applaud you for starting to think about these things. I suggest though that you might want to supplement your own thought with a few years of serious study. Buena suerte, BobLQ -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
