The most common sense answer to unemployment (by socialist party usa.)

[RGacky3]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqYEiQDnlts

This is another Thom video, he's interviewing the chairman of the socialist party, mainly about how Obama is not nearly a socialist, what socialism is and what socialist solutions would be. A lot of what he says is what we've been saying all the time (the commons should be publicly owned, national industries should be publicly owned, other companies should be worker owned and worker run), So he was saying that BP would be nationalized.

But what was very interesting was one solution to unemployment, give them government grants to start co-ops. When I heard that my first thought was, Why the hell have I not thought of that.

This is actually something that dickhead republicans should be in favor of, instead of more money for unemployment, economically support coops for umeployed people. How the hell is this not THE answer. It makes so much sense its almost painful.

[GPDP]

This is actually something that dickhead republicans should be in favor of, instead of more money for unemployment, economically support coops for umeployed people. How the hell is this not THE answer. It makes so much sense its almost painful.

Because Republicans and the right-wing in general are sadist fucks who would rather waste the precious tax dollars that they cry on and on about daily as opposed to seeing poor people succeed, maybe?

Not to mention, as steadfast, unapologetic protectors of power and privilege, the last thing they want is a series of successful examples of worker power manifesting itself in contrast to corporate power.

Remember, what matters most to a capitalist or a supporter of capital isn't efficiency, certainly not if it would mean diminishing their power.

[RGacky3]

You know, I understand that GPDP, but this is just SO common sense, but yeah, of coarse the republicans and most of the dmeocrats are corporate whores. This sort of thing is something that is absolutely workable in the US and should be pushed.

[Bud Struggle]

I like the idea of workers getting grants to operate businesses and then taking those businesses and running them themselves. I'm really nor in favor of the government running the businesses. The government running anything would be a disaster.

[RGacky3]

I'm really nor in favor of the government running the businesses. The government running anything would be a disaster.

Except that all evidence points to the contrary.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Worker cooperatives with state aid isn't a new idea. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/pre-cooperative-worker-t88629/index.html)

[RGacky3]

Yeah, I hav'nt heard it in public media discorse before.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I remember talking with Jimmy jazz on here about the idea a year or so ago, and how it could be a platform for a leftist group. The idea does have a lot of sense, if grants were given there are certainly many co-ops that could compete in markets where the corporate model is either obsolete, poorly managed, or both.

Buy yes, the idea is seldom ever talked about.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Hey finally got speakers--great vid lol


Except that all evidence points to the contrary.

To be fair, Conrail was a disaster for the few years the govt ran it. It's not that I couldn't see a govt sponsored co-op or corporation being successful, its the idea of congress writing the bidget and deciding exactly where the money goes that's scary. In conrails case, it took making it essentially a govtfuned private corporation and de-regulation of the industry before the company expanded.

In that case, it's clear that the money needed to be spent in order to keep a major part of our infrastructure intact, I believe the same case could be made for the industrial regions of this country which have been depleted.

[Havet]

economically support coops for umeployed people

What if the coops do not produce enough to be worth the salary of the unemployed?

Otherwise seems like a good idea overall.

[Klaatu]

In my state, there is a LOT of road construction going on (takes forever to drive anywhere)

It is a very good idea to do this during a recession, because it keeps people working. It occurred to me that public-works projects like this should ONLY be done during economic downturns, to keep people on the job, and NEVER done during good economic times (with a few exceptions like repairs, of course.) The construction crews could temporarily work for the private companies during upturns in the economy.

This means not only road-building, but all public projects, like schools, hospitals, etc as well. This is better than paying out money for inactivity.

[Klaatu]

I like the idea of workers getting grants to operate businesses and then taking those businesses and running them themselves. I'm really nor in favor of the government running the businesses. The government running anything would be a disaster.

I disagree. My school seems to do just fine, being government-run. Same for my local police and fire departments, government runs those, too.
I feel as though government-run health care, as well as a government-run banking system would be better also. Reason is that they don't pay taxes, dont make a profit, nor pay CEO's tens-of-million dollar bonuses, on top of an already-overbloated compensation scale. Some businesses may actually be cheaper to be publicly-run than private "collectivist" corporations now do. See my signature:"Capitalism itself is anti-democracy. What private company is not, in it's constitution, a genuine dictatorship?"

But I do agree with you in that worker-owned business would be much better than what we are stuck with now, such as a growing corporate power and influence, in humongous companies like Whale-Mart, BP, and other union-hating, pollution-generating private enterprises.

[Skooma Addict]

What private company is not, in it's constitution, a genuine dictatorship?

Every single existing American company?

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

In my state, there is a LOT of road construction going on (takes forever to drive anywhere)

It is a very good idea to do this during a recession, because it keeps people working. It occurred to me that public-works projects like this should ONLY be done during economic downturns, to keep people on the job, and NEVER done during good economic times (with a few exceptions like repairs, of course.) The construction crews could temporarily work for the private companies during upturns in the economy.

This means not only road-building, but all public projects, like schools, hospitals, etc as well. This is better than paying out money for inactivity.

That sounds a lot like Keynes basic outline, that when investment spending and consumer spending both decline govt spending is necessary to bring the economy back to an equilibrium (or so the very very basic keynsianish thing we were taught in schools). And yes, it seems to work quite a bit, though the New Deal didn't have enough behind it, in my opinion, it did a lot for the infrastructure (TVA, Hoover Dam, many highways, etc) and was used perhaps more effectively in Germany at the time with the mammoth armament, industrial, as well as projects like the autobahn creating loads of jobs.

But why should the work programs, reminiscient to FDR's CCC, be solely relied upon during downturns? Obviously a boost can be given by these projects but why should private contractors immediately resume handling everything once the economy sparks? I could see building for private enterprise but roads, hospitals, etc?

[Klaatu]

Every single existing American company?

Good question. I would say that the larger the company, the more likely it is to be dictator-like. Conversely, the smaller the company, the more partnership-like (hence "worker co-op" like) For example, if two people go into business, and are equal partners, that is a lot like a socialist co-op business. The thing is to get this purely-democratic form of business to work on a larger scale. A worker-owned co-op can be just as competitive as a capitalist business. That is, a company does not need a wealthy owner in order to function well.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Alright, this is certainly more democratic socialist than revolutionary communist, but,

The debate about throwing money into worker co-ops has never really been discussed in the discourses of the mainstream politicians/media/lobbying firms (which are generally owned by the same, relatively small number of people) but the notion of the US govt serving as a kind of venture capitalist ("venture cooperativist" lol) into worker co-ops should be an enticing one.

There are, however, several issues which come to mind. The first is, as Havet points out, the notion that some, if not most, worker co-ops may fail. In this case, it would appear that the govt has simply thrown away money at a failing project. However, the counter argument one could make is that even is some projects do not pan out, that is still dollars that have been pumped into the wallets of American workers in a much more direct fashion than many of the corporate bailouts we've seen recently. In this sense, the money spent would serve its most basic purpose.

The other issue I, for one, foresee deals with the relative foreigness of co-ops, real or perceived. It is one thing for an investor to go before a budget hearing in Congress and ask for billions to save their company, but rarely is ever have a group of workers gone before congress to ask for billions to save our company. Obviously, it is hard to foresee, in our current political clime, any such movement being succesful, however, even if that were the case, it is still somewhat hard to visualize. That is, the business model presented to show a corporations path to profitability is going would be quite different (to say the least) than a co-op explaining how it hopes to create sustainable, high quality jobs while making a competitive product.

The response to this, I think, must be much more nuanced and must focus around the many co-ops which have been succesful, ranging from small industries to nail salons. This needs to be reinforced in a economic culture of the US which has come to believe in nothing but the corporate model--which has failed us.

Personally, I have little doubt that such a program could be a great success, though if implemented I think it should be somewhat staggered, as in, the US govt should invest more in US business which give more benefits, more pay, better working conditions, and more democratic control of the workplace, though not necessarily being a co-op. I don't mean large corporations when I write this but rather small businesses in which there is little demand to become a co-op and in which buying out hard working and quick thinking owners may be more costly in terms of losing good management and lead to more unemployment (at least in the short term).

It seems a decent way to help jump start this movement would be, aside from awarding grants to co-ops which provide a decent vision and an appearingly viable plan for long-term success, would be to invest in areas which have been hurt most by the corporate model in the last few decades. I've mentioned recently how I find the lack of high quality industrial jobs to be hurting the work force today quite severely, so funding for co-ops which may move certain markets forward seems the most logical.

Grants may be awarded to co-ops which build solar panels, for instance, as this industry would benefit a coal devouring US but is very much under-represented in our industry. The same could be said of wind turbines as well as geothermal equipment. Perhaps the most tempting, an undobtedly most expensive, would be co-ops given grants to build electric cars and then sent to compete against one another, one perhaps rising to become a major market force.

This is, however, largely dreaming. But the notion of grants being used to start co-ops in every corner of the economy, from the burger joint to the ice skating rink to the health spa to the auto mechanic shop is a noble one and could work.

At least, I think so.

[ZeroNowhere]

The extent of current unemployment is caused by the crisis.
The underlying cause of the crisis, as Andrew Kliman showed, is an excessively low rate of profit.
Higher unemployment = Lower wages.
Lower wages = Higher rate of profit (for co-ops as much as anybody else).

So, not the best time to be solving unemployment while preserving capitalism, perhaps.

[Die Neue Zeit]

That's it - I'm gonna repost my article here in case nobody's visiting the link. The demand is this:

The genuine end of “free markets” – including in unemployment resulting from workplace closures, mass sackings, and mass layoffs – by first means of non-selective encouragement of, usage of eminent domain for, and unconditional economic assistance (both technical and financial) for, pre-cooperative worker buyouts of existing enterprises and enterprise operations as even an alternative to non-insolvency restrictions like legally binding workplace closure vetoes and coupling prohibitions on mass sackings or mass layoffs with socially secure transfers to more sustainable workplaces.



Eminent Domain for Pre-Cooperative Worker Buyouts

“Our ideal suggests a reform agenda, aimed at moving us in the direction of Economic Democracy. Among these reforms would be demands for [...] Technical and financial support for worker buyouts of existing enterprises.” (David Schweickart)

The term “reform agenda” sounds shocking at first, especially coming from an advocate of “market socialism” (the retention of a “free” consumer goods and services market while eliminating the capitalism-specific markets of labour and capital) like David Schweickart. However, the same dynamic oppositionist test that was applied to the aforementioned, proven-to-be-dynamic oppositionist demands is to be applied to this demand.

Does this reform facilitate the issuance of either intermediate or threshold demands? It does indeed meet the Hahnel criterion, since more general demands may eventually have to be made regarding unconditional economic assistance – from the more technical aspects of drafting startup plans and operations management issues to the legal mechanism of eminent domain or compulsory purchase (due monetary compensation but without prior owner consent) to the more financial aspects such as monetary and physical assets provided for cooperative startups of sufficient mass (as opposed to business partnerships without employees), and since demands will eventually have to be made regarding necessary restrictions on subcontracting (especially amongst workers’ cooperatives) and regarding the necessary restriction of competition amongst workers’ cooperatives. Even in a more limited application – such as countering a workplace closure, mass sacking, or mass layoff – this revival of one of the truly and radically social-democratic measures enacted by the Paris Commune suggests the need for more creative and pro-active approaches towards countering unemployment. More important, however, is the fate of “free markets” in general – their genuine elimination, and not mere regulation, arising from means other than dirigisme, or selective mercantilism. Even the anarchist Michael Bakunin had this to say about the historic Eisenach Program’s call for “state support of the cooperative system and state loans for free producers’ cooperatives subject to democratic guarantees”:

There are [...] planks in this program which free-enterprise capitalists will dislike [...] Clause 10, Article 3 – is even more important and socialistic. It demands state help, protection, and credit for workers’ cooperatives, particularly producers’ cooperatives, with all necessary guarantees, i.e., freedom to expand. Free enterprise is not afraid of successful competition from workers’ cooperatives because the capitalists know that workers, with their meager incomes, will never by themselves be able to accumulate enough capital to match the immense resources of the employing class... but the tables will be turned when the workers’ cooperatives, backed by the power and well-nigh unlimited credit of the State, begin to fight and gradually absorb both private and corporate capital (industrial and commercial). For the capitalist will in fact be competing with the State, and the State is, of course, the most powerful of all capitalists.

Does this reform enable the basic principles to be “kept consciously in view”? Well, this demand is historically loaded and can be extremely tricky. Consider a very similar demand raised in the Gotha Program, which was criticized heavily by Marx:

“The German Workers' party, in order to pave the way to the solution of the social question, demands the establishment of producers' co-operative societies with state aid under the democratic control of the toiling people. The producers' co-operative societies are to be called into being for industry and agriculture in such dimensions that the socialist organization of the total labor will arise from them.”

Instead of arising from the revolutionary process of transformation of society, the “socialist organization of the total labor” “arises” from the “state aid” that the state gives to the producers' co-operative societies and which the state, not the workers, “calls into being”. It is worthy of Lassalle's imagination that with state loans one can build a new society just as well as a new railway!

[...]

That the workers desire to establish the conditions for co-operative production on a social scale, and first of all on a national scale, in their own country, only means that they are working to revolutionize the present conditions of production, and it has nothing in common with the foundation of co-operative societies with state aid. But as far as the present co-operative societies are concerned, they are of value only insofar as they are the independent creations of the workers and not protégés either of the governments or of the bourgeois.

Notwithstanding the scathing criticism, this call for the formation of producer cooperatives with state aid had a class-strugglist advantage: while forcing the hand of the state, this call forced the feeble, sectional struggles for such cooperatives to become part of the political struggle of the worker-class movement (in short, open class struggle).

The demand for the encouragement of, and unconditional economic assistance (both technical and financial) for, pre-cooperative worker buyouts of existing enterprises and enterprise operations – particularly in light of the recent “occupied factory” movements – improves upon this history with regards to class independence. The very premise of pre-cooperative worker buyouts is that the workers themselves “call into being” these cooperatives like they did in the Paris Commune, especially if they are about to lose their jobs in the ensuing mass sacking, mass layoff, or some other similar scenario. In the case of closures of workplace establishments not threatened by insolvency, bold workers may “call into being” their own cooperatives if they feel that even legally binding closure vetoes are insufficient. Yes, there is encouragement but not actual establishment by the bourgeois-capitalist state, and there is also “state aid” to both the workers and the capitalist deserters, but given the necessity to get past the Erfurt Program’s precedent for both the excessive “orthodox Marxist” phobia of cooperativism and over-reliance on the state structure (i.e., continued over-emphasis on state-based social welfare schemes, topped with “Marxist”-based “socializations” all over the place, which in fact perpetuate wage labour and capitalism itself as a money-commodities-money process, or the famed M-C-M abbreviation), these are limited specifically to the pre-cooperative worker buyouts – thereby preserving the politico-ideological independence of the working class – and these are qualitatively superior to the “privatize the gains, socialize the losses” effects of perpetual corporate welfare (further examples of which have arisen recently in the financial services industry).

The aforementioned limitation needs to be contrasted with an example of perpetual “state aid,” the Inveval cooperative story, as reported by Kiraz Janicke of Venezuelanalysis.com and quoted in my earlier work:

Francisco Pinero, Inveval’s treasurer, explained that although Inveval is legally constituted as a cooperative with 51% owned by the state and 49% owned by the workers, “real power lies with the workers assembly.” Rather than supervisors, the workers at Inveval elect, through a workers assembly, recallable ‘coordinators of production,’ for a period of one year.

“Everyone here gets paid exactly the same, whether they work in administration, political formation, security or keeping the grounds clean,” another worker, Marino Mora added.

“We want the state to own 100%, but for the factory to be under workers control, for workers to control all production and administration. This is how we see the new productive model; we don't want to create new capitalists here,” Pinero made clear.

All in all, this reform does indeed meet that all-important Kautsky criterion, by providing workers the opportunity to exercise cooperative ownership and control as a preliminary to social ownership and control, as noted by Marx himself on the Paris Commune:

If united co-operative societies are to regulate national production upon common plan, thus taking it under their own control, and putting an end to the constant anarchy and periodical convulsions which are the fatality of capitalist production – what else, gentlemen, would it be but communism, “possible” communism?



REFERENCES



In What May We Hope? by David Schweickart [http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng89.html#anchor650664]http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng89.html#anchor650664[/url]]

The Civil War in France: First Draft by Karl Marx [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/drafts/ch01.htm#D1s2]

Programme of the Social-Democratic Workers’ Party of Germany (Eisenach Programme) by August Bebel [http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/sub_document.cfm?document_id=688]

A Critique of the German Social-Democratic Program by Michael Bakunin [http://libcom.org/library/a-critique-of-the-german-social-democratic-program-bakunin]

Critique of the Gotha Programme by Karl Marx [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/index.htm]

Venezuela’s Co-Managed Inveval: Surviving in a Sea of Capitalism by Kiraz Janicke, Venezuelanalysis.com [http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/2520]

The Civil War in France by Karl Marx [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/ch05.htm]

[Die Neue Zeit]

Critique for Direction Towards Cooperative Production

"Cooperative productions [...] were defeated not only by British corporations, but by a larger force: the mammoth German state capitalism. In fact, even English corporations declined during the process of heavy industrialization, defeated by the same force [...] Observing this, Engels as well as the Germany Social-Democratic Party came to appreciate mammoth corporations and conceived that socialization (state ownership) of them would necessarily lead to socialism, ignoring cooperative production." (Kojin Karatani)

Again in his usage of the philosopher Immanuel Kant to read Marx and vice versa, Kojin Karatani put into context how the so-called “nationalization” question achieved its historically disproportionate programmatic standing relative to other, more disparate economic demands raised by the class-strugglist left. This disproportion expressed itself fullest in the Programme of the Communist International. Here, co-authors Bukharin and Stalin himself outdid Trotsky in outlining an almost maximalist transitional program for “the revolutionary transformation of the property relations of capitalism into relationships of the socialist mode of production” based almost exclusively on “the expropriation of the landlords and capitalists, i.e., the conversion of the monopolist property of the bourgeoisie into the property of the proletarian State” in industry, transport and communication services, land estates, wholesale and retail trade, finance, housing, and “means of ideological influence” (the mass media).

Nowadays, the class-strugglist left is quite divided on this question, and would probably remain so after the introduction of “national-democratization” even on the level of reforms. Consider the Weekly Worker’s Draft Program for a revived Communist Party of Great Britain:

The historic task of the working class is to fully socialise the giant transnational corporations, not break them up into inefficient national units. Our starting point is the most advanced achievements of capitalism. Globalised production needs global social control […] However, specific acts of nationalisation can serve the interests of workers. We support the nationalisation of the land, banks and financial services, along with basic infrastructure such as public transport, electricity, gas and water supplies.

There is still too much discussion on nationalization, too little on the festering problem of small-scale production and the continued hiring of labour for profit at that level, and now too much vacillating on the huge grey area filled by “medium enterprises” in between small-scale production and the commanding heights.

On the other hand, the long-lived cooperative movement itself is far from blameless. Instead of adopting and improving upon one of the earlier “Socialist” political economies like “Ricardian Socialism” (the basis of economic republicanism), it spawned class-conciliationist distractions: consumer cooperatives such as The Co-operative Group in the UK, housing cooperatives, mutual insurance, and all forms of cooperative banking (since employee-owned cooperative banks still extract from society economic rent in the classical sense). It is no accident that the cooperative movement has avoided and continues to avoid political struggles! As Yuri Steklov noted in his book on the International Workingmen’s Association:

At that time, most of the German workers still accepted the views and the political leadership of the liberal bourgeoisie which, denominating itself the Progressive Party (Fortschrittspartei) was then carrying on a struggle with the Prussian Government to secure the franchise. At the same time the Government, of which Bismarck, the reactionary junker, was the chief, was endeavouring to win the support of the workers and to use them as tools in its contest with the bourgeois liberals.

The very few circles then extant for the promotion of the political education of the workers were dragged along in the wake of bourgeois liberalism. In the economic field, bourgeois propagandists urged proletarians to practise “self-help” and “thrift,” declaring that this was the only way of improving the workers’ lot. The chief exponent of this sort of humbug was Schulze-Delitzsch, a Prussian official, founder of co-operative associations and a people’s bank – a Prussian counterpart of the French bourgeois economist, Bastiat.

In their attempts to secure independence of thought, the German workers had to free themselves from the influence both of conservative demagogy and of liberal sophistry. A notable part in the liberation of the German proletariat from bourgeois influence in political matters was played by Ferdinand Lassalle, who was instrumental in founding the first independent working-class political organisation in Germany. This was known as the General Union of German Workers (Allgemeiner Deutscher Arbeiterverein – A.D.A.V.) and it came into being on May 23, 1853. The aim of the Association was to conduct a “peaceful and legal” agitation on behalf of manhood suffrage. This, Lassalle thought, would lead to extensive working-class representation in parliament, and eventually to the passing of a number of desirable laws. One of these would be a law for the State aid of productive associations, whereby the workers would be freed from the tyranny of capital.

Lassalle was unable to fulfil his hopes for the speedy creation of a mass party of the workers. In the autumn of 1864, the membership was 4,600, and by the end of November, 1865, it was no more than 9,420, when the Association comprised fifty-eight branches. But his brief and stormy agitation had the effect, in large measure of freeing the German workers from the dominion of liberal bourgeois ideas.

Thus, this programmatic thesis has attempted to accommodate cooperative solutions within a rent-free and class-strugglist framework by listing three immediate reforms, one threshold reform, and one directional measure – all of which emphasize cooperative production:

1) The redistribution as cooperative property of not some but all productive property where the related business has contract or formally hired labour, and where such property would otherwise be immediately inherited through legal will or through gifting and other loopholes;
2) The non-selective encouragement of, usage of eminent domain for, and unconditional economic assistance (both technical and financial) for, pre-cooperative worker buyouts of existing enterprises and enterprise operations;
3) The heavy appropriation of economic rent in the broadcast spectrum, unconditional economic assistance (both technical and financial) for independent mass media cooperative startups – especially at more local levels, for purposes of media decentralization – and anti-inheritance transformation of all the relevant mass media properties under private ownership into cooperative property;
4) The protection of workers’ cooperatives from degenerating into mere business partnerships by means of prohibiting all subcontracting of labour, including whereby at least one contractual party is a workers’ cooperative; and
5) The enabling of society's cooperative production of goods and services to be regulated by cooperatives under their common plans.

The festering problem of small-scale production and the continued hiring of labour for profit at that level could be addressed by modifying the directional measure:

The full replacement of the hiring of labour for small-business profit by cooperative production, and also the enabling of society’s cooperative production of goods and services to be regulated by cooperatives under their common plans.

Should there be agreement upon and not mere acceptance of this directional measure, it can facilitate the nationalization debate but in a way such that private ownership of productive and non-possessive property is altogether outside the boundaries of debate; there can be no advocacy on the class-strugglist left for a combination of small-scale cooperative production with “medium enterprises” still under private ownership.



REFERENCES



Transcritique: On Kant and Marx by Kojin Karatani [http://books.google.com/books?id=mR1HIJVoy6wC]

Programme of the Communist International by Nikolai Bukharin and Joseph Stalin [http://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/6th-congress/index.htm]

Draft Programme of the Communist Party of Great Britain by the Provisional Central Committee [http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1002562]

History of the First International by Yuri Steklov [http://www.marxists.org/archive/steklov/history-first-international/ch03.htm]

[RGacky3]

What if the coops do not produce enough to be worth the salary of the unemployed?

Otherwise seems like a good idea overall.

Their salery is chosen by themselves, they can't pay themselves more than they earn, a government grant is just that.

[M-26-7]

Why would a co-op be able to survive (and apparently thrive) under the same market conditions where capitalist firms cannot? Sorry, but this is no solution at all, because it is dependent on the market--the same competitive market which has compelled capitalist firms to reduce their demand for labor.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Why would a co-op be able to survive (and apparently thrive) under the same market conditions where capitalist firms cannot? Sorry, but this is no solution at all, because it is dependent on the market--the same competitive market which has compelled capitalist firms to reduce their demand for labor.

Cannot survive? Perhaps co-ops are not able to introduce new products and services into the market which don't "belong."

But the debate isn't about jobs which were lost because the need for some product or service disappeared. It's about the jobs which have been lost because of the corporate desire for ever increasing profits, ie shrinking the workforce despite making money.

Secondly, a co-op is an entirely different model of organization as compared to the corporate model(s) prevelant in the market place today. There are several major examples of co-ops in the marketplace today, though they are under represented in the US as of yet.

[RGacky3]

Why would a co-op be able to survive (and apparently thrive) under the same market conditions where capitalist firms cannot? Sorry, but this is no solution at all, because it is dependent on the market--the same competitive market which has compelled capitalist firms to reduce their demand for labor.

First of all, they HAVE survived, there are a lot of them around.

Second, with government grants and, low interest loans, they have a step up.

But your right, obviously co-ops will have some problems but there are some upsides, one, they don't need a larger profit since they don't need to worry about stock prices, they are democratic, which means more loyalty from the employees, and also you don't have huge executive pay.

[Skooma Addict]

First of all, they HAVE survived, there are a lot of them around.

Second, with government grants and, low interest loans, they have a step up.

But your right, obviously co-ops will have some problems but there are some upsides, one, they don't need a larger profit since they don't need to worry about stock prices, they are democratic, which means more loyalty from the employees, and also you don't have huge executive pay.

Sometimes coops are more efficient, and sometimes they are not. They can exist side by side with "hierarchical" firms.

[Conquer or Die]

Why spend government money when you can cut into it?

Eliminate all subsidies for home ownership. Why is this so hard to understand? Renters and the homeless are the most vulnerable and powerless in society. Their labor and presence is unjustly persecuted by this welfare for the rich. Simply cut this fat out of the budget and force the middle class to pick a side.

Public housing has been converted to co-operatives, welfare has been transformed into workfare, and this scheme of spending money to put the "poor" to work by giving them more power in a marketplace that is inherently flawed is simply ridiculous. Outside of educational value there is nothing that interests labor in this scheme. It's humanitarian justification and a progressive side-step from the pressing questions about the superstructure.

Another comment on this thread was that government enabling appropriate commerce should be limited to Depressions. What a terrible idea. The state of my birth, Nevada, pussyfooted on a high speed rail system when it was raking in cash pre 2008 and now it's one of the worst states in the country in unemployment. If Vegas had a third alternative route for cheap it easily would've stimulated much more commerce and prevented a significant loss of jobs.

[Bud Struggle]

Eliminate all subsidies for home ownership.

If you do that I would venture to assume that 1000 people/companies would end up owning all the property in the USA. Without subsidies almost all mortages would bet forclosed on--and the people with money would buy up the homes for pennies on the dollar.

It's actually being done already with this housing crisis.

[RGacky3]

I gotta agree with Bud here, although in principle I don't agree with home subsidies perse, right now the property market is so centralized (in reality, the major banks have a stranglehold on the market), subsidies could be one tool.

However that does'nt mean you ignore renters and the homeless.

I think think that public housing should be a major issue being pushed, and that there should be much harder regulations on morgages and usery.

On the grassroots level, I think a debters and renters movement is in order, forclosures should not be accepted.


Their labor and presence is unjustly persecuted by this welfare for the rich. Simply cut this fat out of the budget and force the middle class to pick a side.

Its not picking a side, is getting a place to live, no one WANTS to be exploited.

Also if you want to cut fat out of hte budget, there are a million more worth places than homeowner subsidies.

[Bud Struggle]

I gotta agree with Bud here, although in principle I don't agree with home subsidies perse, right now the property market is so centralized (in reality, the major banks have a stranglehold on the market), subsidies could be one tool.

RE's my business--and it's a party out there. Banks are foreclosing and little by little all that housing is being bought up inexpensively by people with large amounts of cash. It's a long term investment--but in the next 10-20 years if things aren't fixed you will see home ownership being controled by a few operators.

Like the way of cars and shampoo and dog food--housing and Real Estate may be getting centralized with this last crisis. I'm seeing a lot of (non Real Estate) money being moved in to this market. I don't know what's comming--but it won't be good for the single home buyer

You heard it here first folks!

[Jimmie Higgins]

As relief from unemployment a government sponsored co-op system just seems like a loosing proposition. Who would this be done in effect? You would have to somehow convince the state to take over abandoned or unused means of production, then you would have to convince them to give start-up money to these co-ops. Considering Obama's non-desire to "stand up" to the banks or give people real relief from foreclosures, I don't see how this would be possible as a top-down reform. Just ideologically (the same reasons we never hear about existing co-ops in the US) the ruling class in the US would not allow it and so it would take a huge fight so we might as well use all that organizing and effort to build a radical movement.

If there was a movement from below like in Argentina, then by all means we should support that because it would be:
1) showing the inadequacies and irrationality of capitalism (unemployed workers and empty workplaces side-by-side) although the top-down plan would also do the same. However being worker-initiated rather than a reform would be much better in showing who needs to and can take the initiative.
2) such a movement would undoubtedly train all the workers involved to become more militant, independent, and self-organizied and some of them would develop a radical mindset out of the experience.

But as a top-down scheme for unemployment, I'm not convinced it would do much to actually help the working class struggle, other than helping the workers involved.

I also think in the long-run, the co-opts of bust-times would become the private acquisitions of major companies in the boom times - so it would simply be a round-about way of using government funds and worker labor to help increase the value controlled by the capitalists.

[Baseball]

There are, however, several issues which come to mind. The first is, as Havet points out, the notion that some, if not most, worker co-ops may fail. In this case, it would appear that the govt has simply thrown away money at a failing project. However, the counter argument one could make is that even is some projects do not pan out, that is still dollars that have been pumped into the wallets of American workers in a much more direct fashion than many of the corporate bailouts we've seen recently. In this sense, the money spent would serve its most basic purpose.


so.

If this was true, then it must be true smashing windows, computers, and then purchasing new ones would benefit the economy. To the extreme, the destruction of cities could be a wonderful opportunity for economic progress and improvement. think of all the money which could be pumped into the economy!
The truth, such wasteful spending is not economically beneficial, since it ignores the money which would have been spent.

[Baseball]

Cannot survive? Perhaps co-ops are not able to introduce new products and services into the market which don't "belong."

But the debate isn't about jobs which were lost because the need for some product or service disappeared. It's about the jobs which have been lost because of the corporate desire for ever increasing profits, ie shrinking the workforce despite making money.

Secondly, a co-op is an entirely different model of organization as compared to the corporate model(s) prevelant in the market place today. There are several major examples of co-ops in the marketplace today, though they are under represented in the US as of yet.

perhaps the reason for increased profits is because the workforce has been shrunk (the business can provide goods and services using fewer people. Why is that a bad thing?)

three can be however models of coops one wishes, however their central organizing principle will have to be delivering needed goods and services to those who want them in the most efficient way possible (which means produce greatest quantities of goods with the lowest cost). Which is no different than the corporate model which is otherwise disparaged.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

To the extreme, the destruction of cities could be a wonderful opportunity for economic progress and improvement. think of all the money which could be pumped into the economy!

Yes, think of how it would benefit the economy, and our daily lives, if our often times ghastly inefficient systems of transportation and housing were abolished and built in a more efficient manner. Of course, this isn't practical to be done on a large scale (though there are several housing units and freeways I know of that should be demolished), but instead building new inner and intra city transportation systems to supplant the current model is something I believe should be done. Both, as Enviro Whacko pointed out, to create jobs in the short term as well as to help alleviate a long term problem. Also, I'm a firm believer in smartly designed public housing so naturally I support the building of that as well.


The truth, such wasteful spending is not economically beneficial, since it ignores the money which would have been spent.

What do you mean by this? Money that would have been spent by who, exactly, in a recession in areas of the market which are currently contracting if not by the govt?

If there are no industrial jobs, as there would certainly not be in several areas without govt funding, who is going to be doing the spending in the areas hardest hit by the loss of these traditionally stable jobs? The bank robbers who emerge from the mess? The drug dealers who make money as the market for their products explode?

Finally, investing in the infrastructure, for example, is hardly wasteful when considering the vast amounts of waste created by the current system as well as the fact that a strong infrastructure, whether it is in regards to transport, electrical distribution, education, or medical facilities, is certainly conducive to the society and workforce we should want to have.


perhaps the reason for increased profits is because the workforce has been shrunk (the business can provide goods and services using fewer people. Why is that a bad thing?)

I'm not suggesting that in every case it is, increased efficiency is certainly not a bad thing in many cases.

However, perhaps the reason for many increases in profit is due to corporations shipping jobs to nations with despotic regimes who give workers little or no rights, and which corporations have found a workforce they can pay far less.


three can be however models of coops one wishes, however their central organizing principle will have to be delivering needed goods and services to those who want them in the most efficient way possible (which means produce greatest quantities of goods with the lowest cost). Which is no different than the corporate model which is otherwise disparaged.

Except that the profit gained from working efficiently and for laboring hard hours is reflected in what the workers take home, not what the shareholders, who do not actually work towards making the product itself, take home nor the CEO/upper management.

[ckaihatsu]

If you do that I would venture to assume that 1000 people/companies would end up owning all the property in the USA. Without subsidies almost all mortages would bet forclosed on--and the people with money would buy up the homes for pennies on the dollar.

It's actually being done already with this housing crisis.


Yeah, and then nationalize / socialize the banks, and then the revolution's done and we can all go home (to now-publicly held residential properties). The capitalists have already tightly centralized the financial-bureaucratic mechanisms for mass asset management, so let's say "thanks" and show them the door.

[Die Neue Zeit]

If you do that I would venture to assume that 1000 people/companies would end up owning all the property in the USA. Without subsidies almost all mortages would bet forclosed on--and the people with money would buy up the homes for pennies on the dollar.

It's actually being done already with this housing crisis.


RE's my business--and it's a party out there. Banks are foreclosing and little by little all that housing is being bought up inexpensively by people with large amounts of cash. It's a long term investment--but in the next 10-20 years if things aren't fixed you will see home ownership being controled by a few operators.

Like the way of cars and shampoo and dog food--housing and Real Estate may be getting centralized with this last crisis. I'm seeing a lot of (non Real Estate) money being moved in to this market. I don't know what's comming--but it won't be good for the single home buyer

You heard it here first folks!

By itself the concentration arising from scrapping home ownership subsidies is a problem. However:

"The Right to the City"

“One step towards unification of these struggles is to focus on the right to the city as both a working slogan and a political ideal, precisely because it focuses on who it is that commands the inner connection that has prevailed from time immemorial between urbanization and surplus production and use. The democratization of the right to the city and the construction of a broad social movement to enforce its will is imperative, if the dispossessed are to take back control of the city from which they have for so long been excluded and if new modes of controlling capital surpluses as they work through urbanization processes are to be instituted.” (David Harvey)

In response to gentrification and displacement of low-income people from their traditional urban neighbourhoods, Right to the City was formed in 2007 and has sought to make an impact in questions of housing, urban land, community development, civic engagement, and criminal justice, among others. The Marxist geographer David Harvey devotes his political activity to this organization.

In March 2010, a report was released by the United Nations expressing concerns over forced evictions leading up to major sporting events, which are more publicized than gentrification and displacement in places like New York City:

“I am particularly concerned about the practice of forced evictions, criminalization of homeless persons and informal activities, and the dismantling of informal settlements in the context of mega-events,” said Raquel Rolnik, the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing.

[…]

Displacement can also arise from steps taken by local authorities to swiftly remove unsightly slums from areas visible to visitors, it noted, citing how 15 per cent of the population of Seoul, Republic of Korea, was evicted and 48,000 buildings torn down to prepare for the 1988 Olympic Games.

Redevelopment can also sharply reduce the availability of social and low-cost housing, including State-subsidized residences, the publication pointed out. In Atlanta, United States, 1,200 social housing units for the poor were destroyed in the run-up to the 1996 Olympics, while it is possible that plans to build hundreds of thousands of new low-cost homes could be affected by shifting budget demands ahead of this summer’s FIFA World Cup soccer tournament.

[…]

The report called on both bodies to consider the consequences of mega-events on the enjoyment of human rights. The selection of host cities should be open to scrutiny by civil society, and housing provisions should be incorporated into any hosting agreements – which must be in line with international and national standards – entered into.

Authorities must protect people from forced evictions, discrimination and harassment, as well as provide redress for victims, it added.

Since bourgeois authorities have problems with the aforementioned obligations, it is up to potential victims themselves to organize. However, at the present time typical resident associations happen to be homeowner associations, usually far removed from the urban gentrification and displacement problem. The expansion of resident association guarantees (as opposed to the ethical concept of right) beyond such homeowner privilege and towards the formation of separate tenant associations would go a long way towards combating gentrification and displacement, and in the intermediate run the very rationale for absentee landlordism. In politically revolutionary periods, periods that combine mass support to highly organized revolutionary movements hostile towards their own rulers with instability in the rulers’ own institutions – tenant associations have been capable of extending the participatory-democratic premise of parallelism. To quote Mike Macnair:

Now, actually, [revolutionary Russia] also had factory committees, elected factory committees, and God knows what else, elected block – tenants had the elected block committee for their housing block or street committee, or something like that. Masses of these organizational forms running in parallel…

This alone, however, is not enough to deal with residential gentrification. Moreover, even if residential landlords were under economic pressure to develop vacant and underutilized land (by means of land value taxation as discussed earlier in this chapter, and by other means), as opposed to legal pressure from grassroots occupations of vacant land and their subsequent development by non-profit community development organizations, there is still the problem of speculation on fully developed residential real estate. Sit-in protests from the 1960s to the present have occurred because of such speculation. Consider the case of financially stable renters being evicted simply because of landlord defaults, as reported by Bridget Huber of the Christian Science Monitor:

Nationwide, as many as 40 percent of families facing foreclosure-related evictions are renters [...] Congress and 13 states are considering laws to protect responsible renters and prevent communities from the blight of abandoned buildings that are stripped even of their copper fittings by scavengers, driving down property values.

[...]

The problem is particularly acute in the Northeast, according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition. By their estimates more than 50 percent of foreclosure-related evictions in some Northeastern cities involve renters.

[...]

In New Haven, Conn., property values have declined by 50 to 90 percent in the neighborhoods hardest hit by foreclosure, says Amy Marx, a staff attorney with New Haven Legal Assistance, which works with many tenants of bank-owned buildings. She suggests that the best way to stop the downward spiral of property values is to let renters stay in their homes.

But lenders see vacating the buildings as a necessary step in getting the properties fixed up and resold, says Rick Simon, a spokesman for Bank of America. “We believe it’s better for the community to have the property prepared for resale as soon as possible,” he says. “It’s generally more effective to market a property that is vacant than one occupied by a tenant.”

There have been rare cases whereby, as long as the tenant pays rent and does not neglect the property, the law provides for perpetual possession. The limitation of all residential writs of possession and eviction for the benefit of private parties to cases of tenant neglect would go a long way towards curbing residential gentrification and speculation, and when combined with the existence of tenant associations would facilitate (perhaps greater) property management by the tenants themselves in the intermediate run. In cases of non-renewals for purposes other than gentrification or speculation, most notably the replacement of a decaying apartment with a newer one of similar quality, there would still be no need for residential writs of possession and eviction for the benefit of private parties, so long as there exist tenant associations for landlords to engage in direct negotiations with.

It may be the case that the two demands above can be enacted exclusively by local governments. If so, the slogan “Right to the City” may even be suspected of promoting local politics over higher-level politics, the latter of which class struggle is based upon. What role, then, can governments at higher levels play? Part of what caused the subprime crisis in the US is the income tax deductibility of certain items pertaining to mortgages, such as mortgage interest and mortgage insurance premiums. This was aggravated further by former President George W. Bush when he promoted policies aimed at achieving an “ownership society” (private health care, education, and pensions, plus the proliferation of home ownership). In other countries, an “ownership society” has not been promoted as aggressively, if at all. As noted by Anushka Asthana of The Observer, the Institute of Public Policy Research in the UK has conducted research leading to a conclusion directly opposite an “ownership society”:

The study, by the Institute for Public Policy Research, exposes the day-to-day reality for low-income families across the UK.

By following 58 of them from boom to bust, through regular, in-depth interviews, and detailed diaries of what they spent and when, it reveals how small events could have a profound impact. Saddled with credit cards, mortgages (many self-certified) and high-interest loans, many of the families struggled to cope with things such as a washing machine breaking down, a leaking water pipe, a car needing its MOT, or children wanting warmer clothes in winter.

As a result of its research, the IPPR is calling for low-income families to be given life-long savings accounts, more affordable credit initiatives, a website on which to compare lenders and free and impartial financial advice. It also argues that policies to broaden the appeal of renting should be investigated. "Our reliance on debt – far from creating opportunity – has created vulnerability during this recession," the study concludes.

While income tax deductibility for mortgage interest and mortgage insurance premiums do not exist in other countries’ income tax laws, neither does income tax deductibility for residential rent payments, to complement traditional rental subsidies. The establishment of such tax deductibility (while scrapping the aforementioned US tax deductions), and the general establishment of comprehensive tax and other financial preferences for renting over home ownership, enables the basic principles regarding class struggle to be “kept consciously in view” through emphasizing higher-level politics.

As demonstrated by the UN report, “the right to the city,” perhaps envisaged originally as being the basis for a series of only local struggles, has transcended even national boundaries.



REFERENCES



The Right to the City by David Harvey [http://davidharvey.org/media/righttothecity.pdf]

About Right to the City by Right to the City (RTTC) [http://www.righttothecity.org/]

Olympics and World Cup soccer must take up cause of right to housing – UN expert by UN News Service [http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=34028]

Revolutionary Strategy (video) by Mike Macnair [http://vimeo.com/6249441]

Even renters who are paid up are getting kicked out by Bridget Huber, Christian Science Monitor [http://www.csmonitor.com/Money/2009/0324/even-renters-who-are-paid-up-are-getting-kicked-out]

Cheap credit has pulled the UK's poorest families into a spiral of debt by Anushka Asthana, Observer [http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/feb/07/cheap-credit-poorest-spiral-debt]

[ckaihatsu]

As demonstrated by the UN report, “the right to the city,” perhaps envisaged originally as being the basis for a series of only local struggles, has transcended even national boundaries.




While income tax deductibility for mortgage interest and mortgage insurance premiums do not exist in other countries’ income tax laws, neither does income tax deductibility for residential rent payments, to complement traditional rental subsidies. The establishment of such tax deductibility (while scrapping the aforementioned US tax deductions), and *the general establishment of comprehensive tax and other financial preferences for renting over home ownership, enables the basic principles regarding class struggle to be “kept consciously in view” through emphasizing higher-level politics*.



It's encouraging to see the outline of a *demand*-sided orientation -- as opposed to the hegemonic *supply*-side orientation of bourgeois economic policy -- but I think we need to insert the disclaimer that class struggle does *not* revolve around non-productive assets like residential real estate. Ultimately the class struggle has to address, and take control of, *productive* assets like factories, etc.

(And if limited concessions *are* eventually provided to tenants through official public policy that would merely be *reforms*, or *reformism*.)








In New Haven, Conn., property values have declined by 50 to 90 percent in the neighborhoods hardest hit by foreclosure, says Amy Marx, a staff attorney with New Haven Legal Assistance, which works with many tenants of bank-owned buildings. She suggests that the best way to stop the downward spiral of property values is to let renters stay in their homes.

But lenders see vacating the buildings as a necessary step in getting the properties fixed up and resold, says Rick Simon, a spokesman for Bank of America. “We believe it’s better for the community to have the property prepared for resale as soon as possible,” he says. *“It’s generally more effective to market a property that is vacant than one occupied by a tenant.”*


This portion is a defining example of the intractability of the interests of capital versus those of tenants / workers / surplus-value-providers.

[ckaihatsu]

The GDP report culminated a week of economic data confirming that the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression is continuing and, if anything, deepening. Reports issued Tuesday and Wednesday on existing home sales and new home sales in July reflected a housing market that is in free-fall. Existing home sales plummeted a record 27.2 percent from June to hit their lowest levels since 1995. New home sales fell 12 percent from the prior month and were down 32.4 percent from July of 2009 to their lowest levels since records began in 1963.

On Wednesday, the Commerce Department reported that orders for durable goods rose from June to July by a mere 0.3 percent. Economists had forecast a 3.0 percent rise. Core orders, excluding transportation items, fell 3.8 percent, the biggest decline since January 2009. Orders for machinery fell 15 percent and those for computers and electronics also fell by 2.4 percent.

http://wsws.org/articles/2010/aug2010/econ-a28.shtml

[RGacky3]

If this was true, then it must be true smashing windows, computers, and then purchasing new ones would benefit the economy. To the extreme, the destruction of cities could be a wonderful opportunity for economic progress and improvement. think of all the money which could be pumped into the economy!
The truth, such wasteful spending is not economically beneficial, since it ignores the money which would have been spent.

Not at all, because he's not talking about destorying anything, starting a buisiness and not succeding is not the same as destroying a buisiness.


perhaps the reason for increased profits is because the workforce has been shrunk (the business can provide goods and services using fewer people. Why is that a bad thing?)

three can be however models of coops one wishes, however their central organizing principle will have to be delivering needed goods and services to those who want them in the most efficient way possible (which means produce greatest quantities of goods with the lowest cost). Which is no different than the corporate model which is otherwise disparaged.

It would be a bad thing because people would be out of work, the way the economy should be organized would be that if more is produced, people should need to work less for the same amount, rather than laying people off (the way it is under capitalism).

The difference between the corporate model and the coop one is the corporate model requires profit, and its highly centralized in power and profit.

[Die Neue Zeit]

As relief from unemployment a government sponsored co-op system just seems like a loosing proposition. Who would this be done in effect? You would have to somehow convince the state to take over abandoned or unused means of production, then you would have to convince them to give start-up money to these co-ops. Considering Obama's non-desire to "stand up" to the banks or give people real relief from foreclosures, I don't see how this would be possible as a top-down reform. Just ideologically (the same reasons we never hear about existing co-ops in the US) the ruling class in the US would not allow it and so it would take a huge fight so we might as well use all that organizing and effort to build a radical movement.

Producer cooperatives with state aid is working fine and dandy in Venezuela, as I wrote above (with qualifications, of course).

[ckaihatsu]

the way the economy should be organized would be that if more is produced, people should need to work less for the same amount, rather than laying people off (the way it is under capitalism).


I'm always interested in the question of what kinds of higher-level, resource-speculative work roles might be enabled by a "surplus" of available labor -- the unemployed. Capitalism, as you noted, simply dispenses with those it doesn't need, but how would a proletariat planned economy handle it exactly, and how much "material risk" might it indulge, and to what purposes?

(Consider that much scientific research at the cutting-edge is "only" investigative, or speculative, and cannot always promise tangible results to humanity. How might *these* kinds of work be valued and tasked in the absence / failure of capitalism?)

[RGacky3]

Capitalism, as you noted, simply dispenses with those it doesn't need, but how would a proletariat planned economy handle it exactly, and how much "material risk" might it indulge, and to what purposes?

Theres no way of knowing, its democracy, I'd probably think the first thing they'd do is just have everyone work less.


(Consider that much scientific research at the cutting-edge is "only" investigative, or speculative, and cannot always promise tangible results to humanity. How might *these* kinds of work be valued and tasked in the absence / failure of capitalism?)

You have scientists under communism and capitalism, it would be valued by the community or whether things are needed, as opposed to what makes a profit (meaning what the rich wants).

But that has nothing to do with the unemployed, there are many many things needed by society that are simply ignored by the market.

[Havet]

Their salery is chosen by themselves, they can't pay themselves more than they earn, a government grant is just that.

I understand what you're saying but that was not what I was talking about. I was refering to the possibility that that certain co-op might be operating on a market where the potential revenue is not enough to cover all the costs (including the worker's salaries). What do you think should be done in that situation?

[Dean]

I understand what you're saying but that was not what I was talking about. I was refering to the possibility that that certain co-op might be operating on a market where the potential revenue is not enough to cover all the costs (including the worker's salaries). What do you think should be done in that situation?
A tax credit system which offsets those costs, or any other system of government reimbursement. Also, different industries can be prioritized to meet the needs of the economy or to offset the potential for your example to occur.

[Skooma Addict]

You have scientists under communism and capitalism, it would be valued by the community or whether things are needed, as opposed to what makes a profit (meaning what the rich wants).Yea, Walmart got to where it is today by catering to the rich.

[RGacky3]

I was refering to the possibility that that certain co-op might be operating on a market where the potential revenue is not enough to cover all the costs (including the worker's salaries). What do you think should be done in that situation?

then they lessen their saleries.


Yea, Walmart got to where it is today by catering to the rich.

They got there by taking out all their competition.

[Dean]

Yea, Walmart got to where it is today by catering to the rich.
Well, it certainly didn't get there by dispersing its earnings to its employees and consumers.

[Skooma Addict]

They got there by taking out all their competition.

Wal-Mart still has competitors.


Well, it certainly didn't get there by dispersing its earnings to its employees and consumers.

Why would it disperse its earnings to consumers?

[RGacky3]

Wal-Mart still has competitors.

Not where it matters.

[Skooma Addict]

Not where it matters.

Walmart still has competitors in the retail industry. Stop lying to yourself.

[Comrade Anarchist]

Wait what is the socialist cure for unemployment, make everything public and give everyone a job no matter how unqualified they may be. Or is it to force people to work against their will for little to no compensation in return. Its a both just to let you know, but on a serious point, if you want to create jobs then do away with all taxes and all regulations so that companies won't be afraid to hire toxic workers and will have more money to hire more workers. And also do away with the minimum wage and instead make wages something that each individual worker and employer decides, this means that people whose work is less important and requires less work will be paid less so this will loosen up capital and allow for the hiring of more workers.

[RGacky3]

Walmart still has competitors in the retail industry. Stop lying to yourself.

Not in hundreds of small towns, and not that much for the demographic they target.


Wait what is the socialist cure for unemployment, make everything public and give everyone a job no matter how unqualified they may be. Or is it to force people to work against their will for little to no compensation in return.

Why don't you watch the video you moron and actually see what the cure is instead of making it up.


if you want to create jobs then do away with all taxes and all regulations so that companies won't be afraid to hire toxic workers and will have more money to hire more workers.

You don't know how capitalism works, capitalists are not hiring workers because they don't have enough money, they are not hiring workers because they can make more money not hiring workers.


And also do away with the minimum wage and instead make wages something that each individual worker and employer decides, this means that people whose work is less important and requires less work will be paid less so this will loosen up capital and allow for the hiring of more workers.

What it means is that everyone will get paid less, Capitalists don't decide pay based on what work is important or not so hard, its what they can get away with paying, and again, they won't hire more workers unless it will make them more money, and before that they'll make the workers they have work harder for less.

Oh and when you have a huge underclass not making a lot of money who's gonna buy the products?

[Comrade Anarchist]

Why don't you watch the video you moron and actually see what the cure is instead of making it up.

Okay i watched it and the solution sounded asinine to say the least. Get unemployed people to work together and give them money, wow what time and effort went into that idea. Oh wait that is the first thing i said, give people jobs no matter qualifications.



You don't know how capitalism works, capitalists are not hiring workers because they don't have enough money, they are not hiring workers because they can make more money not hiring workers.

And good for them, they are serving the market. There is not a large market out there for new goods so why should they hire new people when they are making less money.



What it means is that everyone will get paid less, Capitalists don't decide pay based on what work is important or not so hard, its what they can get away with paying, and again, they won't hire more workers unless it will make them more money, and before that they'll make the workers they have work harder for less.

No it means those who work harder can come to the bargaining table with more leverage. If the capitalist does what you say they are doing, paying everyone the lowest fee, then how will he keep any workers. Nothing is stopping a competitor from paying more and in turn getting better workers. If a capitalist is just trying to see how low he can pay then who will want to work for them. If those workers are working harder then they can go and ask for a raise, stay the same, or quit.


Oh and when you have a huge underclass not making a lot of money who's gonna buy the products?

Umm they are. Capitalists have to fit the market if the market consists of mainly lower class people who have limited resources then the capitalist is going to make good they are cheap and needed instead of more luxury type items.

See this gets to the bottom of all socialist problems, they don't understand individual action. IF a worker is being exploited HE CAN QUIT. If the worker is a highly needed worker then he has the clout to DEMAND MORE. What you are not getting is the fact that workers are a piece of the pie and are needed in order to create goods and services. IN capitalism they are not a race of worker slaves that are forced to work against their will for one employer, instead thats the case under socialism.

[Dean]

Why would it disperse its earnings to consumers?
Why indeed? This is how WalMart caters to the rich. If it catered to another class, it would be that class that enjoyed its earnings.

WalMart's capital is employed in the furtherance of the interests of "the rich," those who own significant stock, managerial positions and the like. If it didn't cater to these interests, it wouldn't dispere its earnings - and other benefits - amongst them.

Likewise, tobacco and drug industrialists do not "cater to the poor" just because their primary consumer base exists there (nor simply because the wares may be sold for cheap).

[Skooma Addict]

Why indeed? This is how WalMart caters to the rich. If it catered to another class, it would be that class that enjoyed its earnings.

WalMart's capital is employed in the furtherance of the interests of "the rich," those who own significant stock, managerial positions and the like. If it didn't cater to these interests, it wouldn't dispere its earnings - and other benefits - amongst them.

Likewise, tobacco and drug industrialists do not "cater to the poor" just because their primary consumer base exists there (nor simply because the wares may be sold for cheap).

Obviously it doesn't disperse its earnings to consumers. Ill tell you what, I want to buy a T.V. from you, and then you disperse your earnings to the consumers (aka me). Deal?

[Dean]

Obviously it doesn't disperse its earnings to consumers. Ill tell you what, I want to buy a T.V. from you, and then you disperse your earnings to the consumers (aka me). Deal?
What are you trying to prove here? You're merely trying to justify the moral character of the point you originally refuted.

In your example (and it was always rough since "Wal Mart caters to the rich/poor" is a terrible example in the first place) I am "Wal Mart" and you are "the poor" or "the consumer." The latter ('consumer') is a better example because it serves a direct relationship with Wal Mart, and more correctly can be associated with "the poor" (or not "the rich" as you put it).

RGacky3 points out that the business model of Wal Mart (and subsequently its sale of TVs) serves the interests of "the rich," or those who have capital and other assets as I describe above. I don't think he's incorrect anywhere in this, nor do I see where you have really refuted the point.

The simple fact is that the sale of the TV in your example serves my interests first and foremost (though atomized economic activities can exist contrary to this - that's my next point). If I had an economic framework and a business model built around the sale of TVs, then it is more or less guaranteed that my interests would be served primarily (or, "I would be primarily catered to"). I don't see you refuting this, but rather trying to justify it.


You've merely pointed out that the consumer base is not primarily "the rich." Which is a lousy argument, since it does nothing to counteract the oint at hand - namely, that economic activity is done at the behest of empowered economic actors (namely, "the rich"). That Wal Mart "serves the poor" is rather an ironic twist on the fact of the matter: it is precisely ones share of currency, capital and the like which empowers one in terms of consumer activity. If the consumers of Wal Mart were of the global underclass - that 70% of the global population, the same class of people who live on less than 2$USD/day or so, Wal Mart would have a totally different business model, if it had one at all, since there is so little value to extract from that population.

If you reject this premise, as I believe you may have in the past (or merely ignored it where it is convenient) you're simply rejecting the laws of supply and demand as they relate to currency &c.. Its really quite absurd, and again, ultimately, you're only engaged in this point in the furtherance of some moral imperative to apply to the capitalist mode of production.

[Dean]

Wait what is the socialist cure for unemployment, make everything public and give everyone a job no matter how unqualified they may be. Or is it to force people to work against their will for little to no compensation in return. Its a both just to let you know, but on a serious point, if you want to create jobs then do away with all taxes and all regulations so that companies won't be afraid to hire toxic workers and will have more money to hire more workers. And also do away with the minimum wage and instead make wages something that each individual worker and employer decides, this means that people whose work is less important and requires less work will be paid less so this will loosen up capital and allow for the hiring of more workers.

Actually, higher real wages and lower employment are better - a model which the social democracies of Europe have shown to be fairly successful. It seems like the primary reason that the US Gov't pushes for full employment is to create a more robust labor market, which cheapens the cost of labor and ultimately serves the interests of capitalists - those for whom economic policy is written.

[Skooma Addict]

What are you trying to prove here?That it is stupid to criticize a business for not distributing earnings to consumers.


You're merely trying to justify the moral character of the point you originally refuted.
Huh? All I am doing is explaining why your criticism is baseless.

In your example (and it was always rough since "Wal Mart caters to the rich/poor" is a terrible example in the first place) I am "Wal Mart" and you are "the poor" or "the consumer." The latter ('consumer') is a better example because it serves a direct relationship with Wal Mart, and more correctly can be associated with "the poor" (or not "the rich" as you put it).


RGacky3 points out that the business model of Wal Mart (and subsequently its sale of TVs) serves the interests of "the rich," or those who have capital and other assets as I describe above. I don't think he's incorrect anywhere in this, nor do I see where you have really refuted the point.

The simple fact is that the sale of the TV in your example serves my interests first and foremost (though atomized economic activities can exist contrary to this - that's my next point). If I had an economic framework and a business model built around the sale of TVs, then it is more or less guaranteed that my interests would be served primarily (or, "I would be primarily catered to"). I don't see you refuting this, but rather trying to justify it.


You've merely pointed out that the consumer base is not primarily "the rich." Which is a lousy argument, since it does nothing to counteract the oint at hand - namely, that economic activity is done at the behest of empowered economic actors (namely, "the rich"). That Wal Mart "serves the poor" is rather an ironic twist on the fact of the matter: it is precisely ones share of currency, capital and the like which empowers one in terms of consumer activity. If the consumers of Wal Mart were of the global underclass - that 70% of the global population, the same class of people who live on less than 2$USD/day or so, Wal Mart would have a totally different business model, if it had one at all, since there is so little value to extract from that population. You are really overthinking this.

All I am saying is that criticizing a business for not distributing its earnings to the people who buy their products makes no sense. What you are essentially doing is criticizing a business for not giving stuff away for free.

[Dean]

All I am saying is that criticizing a business for not distributing its earnings to the people who buy their products makes no sense. What you are essentially doing is criticizing a business for not giving stuff away for free.
You are being way too moralistic. RGacky3 was specifically criticisng a system which serves the interests of the propertied as a direct function of their respective property.

You decided to "refute the fact" by describing a single business and attempting to claim that it caters "not to the rich."

Well, that's false, a point which you've basically accepted (I guess, you won't address the point directly). So now you want to say "it only makes sense."

Guess what? That's what RGacky3 was saying all along. If I own and utilize capital for my own profit, I'm not going to share the rewards with you. Somehow you think this justifies the fact - "the means justify the end" - and you really want us to know how "economic actor serves own interests" can justify itself. But its ludicrous moralistic posturing and nobody cares.

You accept that Wal Mart engages in economic activity for its own interests? Good: you, me & RGacky3 are all in agreement.

[Skooma Addict]

You are being way too moralistic. RGacky3 was specifically criticisng a system which serves the interests of the propertied as a direct function of their respective property.

You decided to "refute the fact" by describing a single business and attempting to claim that it caters "not to the rich."

Well, that's false, a point which you've basically accepted (I guess, you won't address the point directly). So now you want to say "it only makes sense."

I was responding to your comment that Walmart does not distribute earnings to consumers. Also, Walmart does not cater to the rich. I mean I honestly cannot understand how someone would not know this. Walmarts main customers are not rich people. Also, "it only makes sense" that Walmart wouldn't disperse its earnings to consumers. But that is a separate issue from whether or not Walmart caters to the rich (which it doesn't).

[Dean]

I was responding to your comment that Walmart does not distribute earnings to consumers. Also, Walmart does not cater to the rich. I mean I honestly cannot understand how someone would not know this. Walmarts main customers are not rich people.
This is where you really get ridiculous. I've repeatedly made the point that "caters to" as an example of "consumer" is not relevant to the point at hand, namely:


You have scientists under communism and capitalism, it would be valued by the community or whether things are needed, as opposed to what makes a profit (meaning what the rich wants).

So you're simply ignoring the fact that the subject was always for whom economic activity is executed. If it was about consumers, he wouldn't have mentioned profit as a motivator!

And the consumer interests represented in Wal Mart's model are merely artifacts of the market for the end-product: the business model itself is engineered for those who own and manage the business. That is to say, Wal Mart sells you the TV in the furtherance of its own interests, not yours.


Also, "it only makes sense" that Walmart wouldn't disperse its earnings to consumers. But that is a separate issue from whether or not Walmart caters to the rich (which it doesn't).
You made up the "Wal Mart doesn't cater to the rich" model in response to the above. It falls apart if we are discussing for whom economic activity is engaged (that is, the owners, the enriched in this model).

The fact that Wal Mart would cease to sell TVs if the firm started to lose money on fact of product sales (not to be confused with simply taking a loss on it), despite consumer interest in the product, explains in terms simple enough, I think, for you to see that the model is designed in the furtherance of the interests of the owners.

Which, you know, was the point. Trying to discredit this fact (and claim some kind of "consumer empowerment" or something) does nothing to disprove the fact of which interests are represented in economic activity.

Representation of which, again, is a direct function of held assets, positions and political influence.

[RGacky3]

Oh wait that is the first thing i said, give people jobs no matter qualifications.

Its not giving them a job numbnuts, its giving them capital to start a co-op.


There is not a large market out there for new goods so why should they hire new people when they are making less money.

Well, they should'nt, but thats why its a crappy system, what they would do if they were accountable to the workers, is have the workers work less and not lay off people.

BTW, thats another problem with capitalism, it REQUIRES perpetual growth, which is kind of impossible.


Nothing is stopping a competitor from paying more and in turn getting better workers. If a capitalist is just trying to see how low he can pay then who will want to work for them. If those workers are working harder then they can go and ask for a raise, stay the same, or quit.


Except that you have 11% unemployment and for every job available there are 5 applicants.


Capitalists have to fit the market if the market consists of mainly lower class people who have limited resources then the capitalist is going to make good they are cheap and needed instead of more luxury type items.

When the top 1% own more wealth than the bottom 95%, they own the market.

The market is'nt made of up people, its made of of money. 1 guy with $50 is worth more than 10 guys with $1, but you should know this, I'm not gonna teach you elementry economics.


If the worker is a highly needed worker then he has the clout to DEMAND MORE. What you are not getting is the fact that workers are a piece of the pie and are needed in order to create goods and services.

Except that as an individual the worker has almost no power because he has no capital, and with high unemployment, his very small labor power is'nt really there either (unless they organize together that is).

[Skooma Addict]

This is where you really get ridiculous. I've repeatedly made the point that "caters to" as an example of "consumer" is not relevant to the point at hand

Dean, you are the one who brought up the point, and I was simply responding to it. You are the one who originally mentioned the fact that Walmart does not redistribute earnings to consumers. I then explained why this point was meaningless.


You have scientists under communism and capitalism, it would be valued by the community or whether things are needed, as opposed to what makes a profit (meaning what the rich wants).

And I mentioned that making a profit is often times more than catering to the rich. Walmart is one example.


So you're simply ignoring the fact that the subject was always for whom economic activity is executed. If it was about consumers, he wouldn't have mentioned profit as a motivator!

What? People can make a profit by catering to consumers who are not wealthy. Take Walmart for example.


And the consumer interests represented in Wal Mart's model are merely artifacts of the market for the end-product: the business model itself is engineered for those who own and manage the business. That is to say, Wal Mart sells you the TV in the furtherance of its own interests, not yours.

The business model is engineered around making a profit. They do this by catering to middle/lower class consumers. I could care less if the people in their company were honestly looking out for my interests (which they wouldn't know in the first place). I am not looking out for their interests when I buy something from them.


You made up the "Wal Mart doesn't cater to the rich" model in response to the above. It falls apart if we are discussing for whom economic activity is engaged (that is, the owners, the enriched in this model).


No. Walmart does not cater to the rich. The fact that the owners and some of the managers are rich does not mean it caters to the rich. An example of a company which caters to the rich is a company which builds high class yachts. The rich are not Walmarts target consumer.

I am not going to lie. I do think you know that Walmart does not cater to the rich, but you are purposely trying to argue against it anyways.

[Dean]

I am not going to lie. I do think you know that Walmart does not cater to the rich, but you are purposely trying to argue against it anyways.
I am explaining that the actual fact that RGacky3 was describing for whom economic activity occurs.

The simple fact is that this point doesn't describe the consumer base, but the propertied, capitalist class.

I swear, your ignorance is unprecedented. You were the one who started describing consumers, not me. I was pointing out that the actual consumer base is not the point of discussion.

[Skooma Addict]

I am explaining that the actual fact that RGacky3 was describing for whom economic activity occurs.

The simple fact is that this point doesn't describe the consumer base, but the propertied, capitalist class.

I swear, your ignorance is unprecedented. You were the one who started describing consumers, not me. I was pointing out that the actual consumer base is not the point of discussion.

Rgacky claimed that making a profit means catering to the rich. I used Walmart as a counterexample. Then you claimed that Walmart didn't get to where it was by redistributing earnings to consumers. Then I mentioned that this was a moot point because "redistributing earnings to consumers" is equivalent to giving things away for free. As far as I am concerned, our discussion ended there. Everything else you said was a waste of time.

And the consumer base is the point of discussion, since the initial point was that companies make a profit by catering to the rich. You also mentioned the consumer base when you claimed that Walmart didn't get to where it was by redistributing earnings to consumers.

[Comrade Anarchist]

Its not giving them a job numbnuts, its giving them capital to start a co-op.

I have nothing against co-ops but i run into the problem that the government shouldn't be the fucking investor. The government creates nothing so it cannot create wealth only take it. Stealing from somebody who is working or successful and giving it to a bunch of unemployed people is FUCKING STEALING. And plus if these people don't have a job its b/c they were probably lower valued workers so how are they at all competent enough to run a business.


Well, they should'nt, but thats why its a crappy system, what they would do if they were accountable to the workers, is have the workers work less and not lay off people.

No one is accountable except for themselves. The employer hires workers to work in turn for compensation. No one is anybody elses responsibility. If the worker thinks hes being overworked then he can quit. It's a much better system then communism where your forced to work no matter what or in a collectivist anarchist society where there is no incentive so society falls apart. Or in syndicalism where there would just be warring cooperatives over the scarce resources or instead another state would arise.


BTW, thats another problem with capitalism, it REQUIRES perpetual growth, which is kind of impossible.

How does it require constant growth? A farmer grows an apple sells it to bob who in turn sells it to jim for a higher cost to cover his costs. NO where in a market scenario is growth needed. When markets grow it is a sign of success not some arbitrary principle of capitalism.



Except that you have 11% unemployment and for every job available there are 5 applicants.

Yes and if government didn't exist there would be more needs to be met so capitalists would rise up to serve these needs and with many more employers youll many more jobs. And another thing if there are 5 people for every job that doesn't mean that any of those people are qualified for that job. The first jobs to go in a government created recession are the lowest valued ones, so the lowest valued workers are let go and the jobs that are being offered now may require someone with more skill and expertise then a lower valued worker.


When the top 1% own more wealth than the bottom 95%, they own the market.

The market is'nt made of up people, its made of of money. 1 guy with $50 is worth more than 10 guys with $1, but you should know this, I'm not gonna teach you elementry economics.

Yes the top 1% do own the majority of the wealth and they are also the one's the create companies and jobs and invest. The economy however is not centered on them. Markets are centered on the majority demand for a good. It is as simple as that. IF the top 1% prefered HDdvd to bluray and the other 99% prefered bluray, then bluray would obviously become whats made. Markets are not made of money but instead money is just an exchangeable currency on the market. The wants and needs of the people are what markets service not the whims of the top 1%. And yes markets exist that cater solely to the top 1% but the majority cater to everyone else. And I know your not b/c you obviously don't know any economics yourself.


Except that as an individual the worker has almost no power because he has no capital, and with high unemployment, his very small labor power is'nt really there either (unless they organize together that is).

The fact of the matter is that without workers businesses don't exist. Workers should grateful to have job in this type of market just as employers should feel lucky that they are people working for them or they would have to downsize or go out of business. And there is nothing stopping new companies form starting and taking up new work force. It seems that no one understands that the creation of new businesses is a continuing thing that never ceases. And yes the lowest valued worker has a very low amount of clout but what is stopping him from furthering his education or just quiting if he feels exploited.

And one more thing that 11% is bullshit. There are jobs out there for lower valued workers but some people are just too lazy b/c they are getting a check from the government or b/c their overinflated ego prevents them from working at a lower establishment like mcdonalds.

[Dean]

Rgacky claimed that making a profit means catering to the rich. I used Walmart as a counterexample. Then you claimed that Walmart didn't get to where it was by redistributing earnings to consumers. Then I mentioned that this was a moot point because "redistributing earnings to consumers" is equivalent to giving things away for free. As far as I am concerned, our discussion ended there. Everything else you said was a waste of time.

And the consumer base is the point of discussion, since the initial point was that companies make a profit by catering to the rich. You also mentioned the consumer base when you claimed that Walmart didn't get to where it was by redistributing earnings to consumers.
No, it wasn't:

You have scientists under communism and capitalism, it would be valued by the community or whether things are needed, as opposed to what makes a profit (meaning what the rich wants).
means that Wal Mart makes what the rich want: products to sell and make a profit off of.

In fact, when we look at who is "catered to" the model is still the same: the more money you have, the more valuable yo are as a consumer. That is to say, taht 70% of the world population isn't valued by WalMart and its peers.

So, I'll take the high road and assume we're talking about consumers. You still fail, since the poor are by and large not catered to by Wal Mart and its peers in the retail industry.

And of course theres the fact of why economic activity is executed and who ultimately benefits, but that isn't important to you for obvious reasons.

The dense child fails again to see the facts. Unsurprising.

[Skooma Addict]

means that Wal Mart makes what the rich want: products to sell and make a profit off of.


"The Rich" do not have aligned interests. Some rich people associated with the competitors of Walmart do not like what Walmart is doing. So even in that extremely vague and misleading sense, you are still wrong.



In fact, when we look at who is "catered to" the model is still the same: the more money you have, the more valuable yo are as a consumer. That is to say, taht 70% of the world population isn't valued by WalMart and its peers.

You are wrong. A wealthy person who dislikes Walmart is not as valuable as a middle class person who is a potential repeat customer for Walmart. Also, it is clear that Walmart does not cater to rich consumers. This is practically self evident.


You still fail, since the poor are by and large not catered to by Wal Mart and its peers in the retail industry.


Except they are. Walmart is a mass retailer which offers a wide variety of products for low prices. Walmarts target consumer is not a wealthy person. It is the the consumer looking for a cheap buy. This is why they pioneered cross docking.


And of course theres the fact of why economic activity is executed and who ultimately benefits, but that isn't important to you for obvious reasons.

Everyone who doesn't actively desire for the collapse of civilization benefits from economic activity.

[Baseball]

RGacky3 points out that the business model of Wal Mart (and subsequently its sale of TVs) serves the interests of "the rich," or those who have capital and other assets as I describe above. I don't think he's incorrect anywhere in this, nor do I see where you have really refuted the point.

The simple fact is that the sale of the TV in your example serves my interests first and foremost (though atomized economic activities can exist contrary to this - that's my next point). If I had an economic framework and a business model built around the sale of TVs, then it is more or less guaranteed that my interests would be served primarily (or, "I would be primarily catered to"). I don't see you refuting this, but rather trying to justify Which is a

production.

I think the incomprehension of skooma addict has with this argument is it's total lack of sense. the complaint seems to be that a company such as walmart offers for sale items which people want as opposed to items which people do not want. A similiar socialist store would do the same thing. I guess the counterargument would be that the "people" would be determining what is for sale at the socialist store. But the counter-counterargument is that this answers nothing as one is still left with the problem how the "people" make these determinations-what information is used.

[Bud Struggle]

I think the incomprehension of skooma addict has with this argument is it's total lack of sense. the complaint seems to be that a company such as walmart offers for sale items which people want as opposed to items which people do not want. A similiar socialist store would do the same thing. I guess the counterargument would be that the "people" would be determining what is for sale at the socialist store. But the counter-counterargument is that this answers nothing as one is still left with the problem how the "people" make these determinations-what information is used.

Wall-Mart is the Communist store of the future--at least in the delivery end. They only sell what people want. If something doesn't sell they discontinue it. They do it effeciently and at a low cost. They offer good service and reliable products.

Wal-Mart is what a Communist store will look like after the Revolution--the only difference is that the profits will go to the workers not the Walton family.

The future is here--all we need to do is fine tune it.

[#FF0000]

Wall-Mart is the Communist store of the future--at least in the delivery end. They only sell what people want. If something doesn't sell they discontinue it. They do it effeciently and at a low cost. They offer good service and reliable products.

Yeah what's specifically interesting about Wal-Mart is their use of the "Pull Strategy". They're just hella good at keeping track of what people are buying and then dictating the demand to the producers.

[RGacky3]

Wall-Mart is the Communist store of the future--at least in the delivery end. They only sell what people want. If something doesn't sell they discontinue it. They do it effeciently and at a low cost. They offer good service and reliable products.

Wal-Mart is what a Communist store will look like after the Revolution--the only difference is that the profits will go to the workers not the Walton family.

The future is here--all we need to do is fine tune it.

They sell things cheaper, but theres no way of knowing if under democratic control they would have things differently.

Also, changin who controls is not fine tuning.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Yeah what's specifically interesting about Wal-Mart is their use of the "Pull Strategy". They're just hella good at keeping track of what people are buying and then dictating the demand to the producers.

Leaving completely aside the low wages and "associate" euphemisms, Bud's got a damn good point. [I like your use of that business term. :thumbup1: ]

Also, wasn't WAL-MART one of the first companies to go with barcodes?

[RGacky3]

I have nothing against co-ops but i run into the problem that the government shouldn't be the fucking investor. The government creates nothing so it cannot create wealth only take it. Stealing from somebody who is working or successful and giving it to a bunch of unemployed people is FUCKING STEALING. And plus if these people don't have a job its b/c they were probably lower valued workers so how are they at all competent enough to run a business.

The government investing is exactly the same as private tyrranies investing, excpet that its under democratic control (which I guess is your problem).

As for your second point, it juts shows you are rediculously ignorant about what causes unemployment and about the market.


No one is accountable except for themselves. The employer hires workers to work in turn for compensation. No one is anybody elses responsibility. If the worker thinks hes being overworked then he can quit. It's a much better system then communism where your forced to work no matter what or in a collectivist anarchist society where there is no incentive so society falls apart. Or in syndicalism where there would just be warring cooperatives over the scarce resources or instead another state would arise.


The workers are accountable to their employer, not the other way around (thats called unchecked power).

You can't just quit with over 10% unemployment and bills to pay.

As far all your dooms day predictions, empirical evidence proves you wrong. But we do also have empirical evidence for ultra free-market based economies (remember argentina, chile, the United States).


How does it require constant growth? A farmer grows an apple sells it to bob who in turn sells it to jim for a higher cost to cover his costs. NO where in a market scenario is growth needed. When markets grow it is a sign of success not some arbitrary principle of capitalism.

WIth no growth, theres no investment, without investment the banks start to fail because they can't make money, unemployment grows as industries stabalize. The general consensus is 3% growth is a healthy economy.


Yes and if government didn't exist there would be more needs to be met so capitalists would rise up to serve these needs and with many more employers youll many more jobs. And another thing if there are 5 people for every job that doesn't mean that any of those people are qualified for that job. The first jobs to go in a government created recession are the lowest valued ones, so the lowest valued workers are let go and the jobs that are being offered now may require someone with more skill and expertise then a lower valued worker.


Capitalists only serve needs that are profitable, which is why affordable housing and food for the poor are not mett by capitalists.

As far as government creating lowest valued jobs? I don't know, I value roads.

Also lowest valued workers? Valued for who? Thats the issue. ALso many workers are overqualified for jobs available, which is why comapnies won't hire them because they are afraid that they are unstable because of their qualifications.

But you need to read about how markets and the economy work.


Yes the top 1% do own the majority of the wealth and they are also the one's the create companies and jobs and invest. The economy however is not centered on them. Markets are centered on the majority demand for a good. It is as simple as that. IF the top 1% prefered HDdvd to bluray and the other 99% prefered bluray, then bluray would obviously become whats made. Markets are not made of money but instead money is just an exchangeable currency on the market. The wants and needs of the people are what markets service not the whims of the top 1%. And yes markets exist that cater solely to the top 1% but the majority cater to everyone else. And I know your not b/c you obviously don't know any economics yourself.


They don't CREATE jobs, they invest, which means they just choose what the economydoes. If the top 1% all died tommorow, people would still work.

Markets are not centered on the majority demand, its centered on monitary demand, its the money. Markets ARE made of money, if you don't have any disposable income you don't matter in the market place, the more money you have the more control you have over the market place. Money is a medium of exchange but its representative of wealth and market power.

But let me quote dean, who made my point better than I made it.


I am explaining that the actual fact that RGacky3 was describing for whom economic activity occurs.

The simple fact is that this point doesn't describe the consumer base, but the propertied, capitalist class.

I swear, your ignorance is unprecedented. You were the one who started describing consumers, not me. I was pointing out that the actual consumer base is not the point of discussion.

The top 1% ultimately have control over the economy, they are the ones that own companies, and profit from the economy, they are the ones that choose distribution. (which is why when a company fails, the CEOs do ok, but the workers get laid off).

But if you don't understand the role money plays in the market, I don't know what to say to you.


The fact of the matter is that without workers businesses don't exist. Workers should grateful to have job in this type of market just as employers should feel lucky that they are people working for them or they would have to downsize or go out of business. And there is nothing stopping new companies form starting and taking up new work force. It seems that no one understands that the creation of new businesses is a continuing thing that never ceases. And yes the lowest valued worker has a very low amount of clout but what is stopping him from furthering his education or just quiting if he feels exploited.


Market mystisism.

THere is someting stopping them, its called teh market.
The creation of new buisinesses requires economic growth btw, and even that is controlled by investors (i.e. the rich).

For your second point about the lowest "valued" (again valued by who), manybe lack of money, needing to pay bills, i.e. being poor.


And one more thing that 11% is bullshit. There are jobs out there for lower valued workers but some people are just too lazy b/c they are getting a check from the government or b/c their overinflated ego prevents them from working at a lower establishment like mcdonalds.

let me repreat, 5 applicants for every job available.

But again, this is the attidude of Capitalists, and its dispicable. The disdain for the poor shown here is something expected of a class society, but is no less discusting.

[Dean]

Except they are. Walmart is a mass retailer which offers a wide variety of products for low prices. Walmarts target consumer is not a wealthy person. It is the the consumer looking for a cheap buy. This is why they pioneered cross docking.

Except that they aren't. 70% or so of people are missing basic necessities - primarily on the African and Asian continents. From the perspective of the global economy, Wal Mart does not cater to the poor at all.

[Dean]

I think the incomprehension of skooma addict has with this argument is it's total lack of sense. the complaint seems to be that a company such as walmart offers for sale items which people want as opposed to items which people do not want. A similiar socialist store would do the same thing. I guess the counterargument would be that the "people" would be determining what is for sale at the socialist store. But the counter-counterargument is that this answers nothing as one is still left with the problem how the "people" make these determinations-what information is used.

No its not. His incomprehension rests on his false-reading of the argument and backwards notion of how currency works. He has some ludicrous notion that being poor makes you an empowered consumer. He's just relaying childish justifications for a capitalist paradigm.

[Baseball]

No its not. His incomprehension rests on his false-reading of the argument and backwards notion of how currency works. He has some ludicrous notion that being poor makes you an empowered consumer. He's just relaying childish justifications for a capitalist paradigm.



I think he is pointing out that the consumer is the party which drives capitalism, not the capitalist.

[CommunityBeliever]

I think he is pointing out that the consumer is the party which drives capitalism, not the capitalist. Who drives the consumer? :cool:

Individually though, consumers are basically powerless entities in capitalism, they have no political power, and their decision to buy something different out of the choices presented to them doesn't do much good.

Consumers may be able to select from 20 different flavors of ice cream, however, when it comes to important decisions they are essentially powerless. Capitalists can invest, create new ventures, etc, so Capitalists have an enormous amount of power to do whatever they want under capitalism


somebody who is working or successful and giving it to a bunch of unemployed people is FUCKING STEALINGWhat? Who the fuck would steal from working people and give that to unemployed people?

We got to fucking stop that! If any stolen money is being put to use, it should be put to use maintaining one of Bill Gates or Warren Buffets private jets, not helping some stupid unemployed motherfucker!


And plus if these people don't have a job its b/c they were probably lower valued workers so how are they at all competent enough to run a business. Yes those unemployed idiots are not valuable workers, fuck them, why should I give a shit about the world's people and their suffering?

And so what if they couldn't afford college? If those unemployed people were smart they would've taken out loans and spent the rest of their life working two jobs trying to pay off the debt.


If the worker thinks hes being overworked then he can quit.In the Andromeda Galaxy a worker can quit out of his job whenever he wants, and he won't have to worry about being evicted and starving, because in that galaxy when you lose your job you can almost instantly get another one!


Yes and if government didn't exist there would be more needs to be met so capitalists would rise up to serve these needs

Capitalists of the world unite and solve the world's problems!

Oh I forgot, Capitalists don't give a shit about the world's problems, maybe if you spawn a wormhole to the Andromeda Galaxy you can go try that shit over there.


government created recession

Oh yes, those government created recessions, that is because the government creates all the recessions and all the world's problems and not the glorious and meritorious capitalists right?


someone with more skill and expertise

Capitalism is not built to create people with skill and expertise, and what about all those skilled experts? Do you think those skilled experts like to have all the work become the property of some corporate douche?


they are also the one's the create companies and jobs and invest.

In all seriousness, we would be far better off without the top 1% of the population.

Also don't forget that most of those people in the top 1% had parents that were already in that 1% or at least petit-bourgeoisie.


IF the top 1% prefered HDdvd to bluray and the other 99% prefered bluray, then bluray would obviously become whats made.

Since the top 1% has all the power, controls the governments, basically all the money, and the corporations, I think they are the ones who will get their interests met, because they are the ones who are fucking deciding whose interests to meet lol


Workers should grateful to have job

Yes workers of the world, feel grateful that you can spend most of your free time working for some douchebag who owns all the products of your labor.


what is stopping him from furthering his education or just quiting if he feels exploited.

Lack of money.


too lazy b/c they are getting a check from the government

This rarely actually happens.


It's a much better system then communism where your forced to work

Okay I am going to try to answer this one in all seriousness.

In Capitalism most of the world's workers are forced to do jobs that they don't want to do (the people on the bottom of the pyramid) at threat of starvation, eviction, homelessness, and all of that. People don't volunteer to be homeless because trust me, being homeless is not a fun thing, you will spend most of your time searching for food, and if you are in a cold climate you could freeze to death.

In the more-friendly climates (like Hawaii) homelessness still sucks because you will get shit from criminals who go around beating up homeless people, and from the police abuse homeless people. So yeah, people are forced to work because the alternative is way worse.

So if people are forced to work under capitalism, and people are forced to work under communism, how does that make capitalism "way better"??

I would say communism is way better because we don't have that 1% on the top of the pyramid exploiting everyone, the means of production and the private property are controlled by the workers, and to a far greater extent workers will be working jobs they actually want to work in.


collectivist anarchist society where there is no incentive so society falls apartLets suppose this is true, I suspect that Robotic workers will take over all jobs in the next 1,000 years anyways. Robots will work 24/7 without blinking, sleeping, or complaining one bit.

Robots will even be far better scientists then humans because they will be able to pursue all forms of science without concern for personal interests, or an interest in being successful, which is a bad thing in science, as science should be conducted with disinterestedness. So robots will take over natural science, social science and administration, mathematics, and even computer science.

And they will even be able to be far more collective then humans ever have been because each robot will be wireless connected with every other robot, so they will be able to share all their memories, every frame that they observed with their eyes, etc.

The scientific robots will have all their scientific evidence immediately uploaded and processed by a central database that contains all scientific evidence and discoveries and determines what it can conclude. So robots will take over all productive jobs, from mining gold to conducting scientific experiments.

So in the year 3000 I suspect humans will just be devoted to pure entertainment and doing whatever they find to be fun, perhaps some of them will live in a virtual reality.

[Baseball]

Who drives the consumer? :cool:

Individually though, consumers are basically powerless entities in capitalism, they have no political power, and their decision to buy something different out of the choices presented to them doesn't do much good.

Consumers may be able to select from 20 different flavors of ice cream, however, when it comes to important decisions they are essentially powerless. Capitalists can invest, create new ventures, etc, so Capitalists have an enormous amount of power

reality.

All those powers which capitalists supposedly have is about seeking out profit, which can only come about by satisfying consumer demand.

[Baseball]

They sell things cheaper, but theres no way of knowing if under democratic control they would have things differently.

Also, changin who controls is not fine tuning.

considering that the walmart system is designed to function in a capitalist environment, it would be fair to say that a "democratic" socialist community would indeed do things differently.

[CommunityBeliever]

All those powers which capitalists supposedly have is about seeking out profit, which can only come about by satisfying consumer demand. That is not true because Capitalists can and often do form non-profit organizations which they use to get what they want done.

And the consumer's ability to choose between 20 different flavors of ice cream isn't a real power.

[RGacky3]

All those powers which capitalists supposedly have is about seeking out profit, which can only come about by satisfying consumer demand.

FOR A PROFIT, taking as much and giving as little as possible,

thats one,

also when you say consumer you have to clerify, because 1% of the population controls more than the bottom 95%, and thats ONLY in America, in the world its much much much more extreme, so 'consumer' is a useless term.

[Dean]

I think he is pointing out that the consumer is the party which drives capitalism, not the capitalist.
And such a claim would have two consequences:

The method by which consumers drive the economy (purchases) are directly related to purchasing power, which is of course appropriated in terms of the net held finances and assets in society.

So consumer power is directly relative to the amount of money you have.

Having more money therefore empowers one more in terms of one's ability to drive the economy.

However, you completely ignore the relevance of investment, reduction in prices and marketing in terms of their ability to drive the economy. Even from a completely demand-side characterization of the economy, your "consumer empowerment" model does not really hold up, nor does it translate into a "poor power" model like Skooma would love to infer.

Furthermore, consumers buy and labor in a market which is not defined by them except in terms of consumer confidence and shift of market shares. The complete lack of any empowered consumer structure (such as a consumers' union) which is capable of dictating models and facts of production prove that consumers do not, in fact, have as much power as the capitalist idealists would love us to think.

The simple fact is that control over power - be it political power, media power, capital, finances or other prevalent economic institutions is the manifestation of power today. For this reason, when labor was in massive demand in the US, labor organizations developed significant power - since then, labor has been in massive decline and faces irrelevancy in the US.

You see, there are real ways to measure power in society. Frivolous moralizing about "choice" and the like do nothing to shed light on what power exists today and in what relation to the means of production.

[Baseball]

That is not true because Capitalists can and often do form non-profit organizations which they use to get what they want done.

And the consumer's ability to choose between 20 different flavors of ice cream isn't a real power.

The error in your thinking continues to be that the capitalists control production. They don't. They continue to respond to consumer demand. that is why there are 20 different flavors of ice cream, and not 15 or 30.

[Baseball]

And such a claim would have two consequences:

The method by which consumers drive the economy (purchases) are directly related to purchasing power, which is of course appropriated in terms of the net held finances and assets in society.

So consumer power is directly relative to the amount of money you have.

production.

False. A business such as walmart does nor cater to the clientele of a store like Nordstrom's. Yet the former does a fair job in providing goods and services to poorer people.

[Baseball]

However, you completely ignore the relevance of investment, reduction in prices and marketing in terms of their ability to drive the economy.


production.


All of which is done in response to, or anticipation of, consumer demand.

[Baseball]

Furthermore, consumers buy and labor in a market which is not defined by them except in terms of consumer confidence and shift of market shares. The complete lack of any empowered consumer structure (such as a consumers' union) which is capable of dictating models and facts of production prove that consumers do not, in fact, have as much power as the capitalist idealists would love us to think.

production.

You keep trying to deny that consumers drive the economy by arguing- that consumers drive the economy.

It would be curious to see how a consumer council would function in a democratic socialist community, considering such dictating by a consumer council to the workers of a particular factory would tend to degrade the democratic nature of the community.

[RGacky3]

The error in your thinking continues to be that the capitalists control production. They don't. They continue to respond to consumer demand. that is why there are 20 different flavors of ice cream, and not 15 or 30.

Tey respond to consumer demand, and a consumers demand is only as loud as his wealth, and the wealthiest people tend to be capitalits, who also profit the most. WHen your at the bargening table, the more money you have, the stronger your position, the more you can demand, thats how Capitalism works.


False. A business such as walmart does nor cater to the clientele of a store like Nordstrom's. Yet the former does a fair job in providing goods and services to poorer people.

Thats one example, yeah, but what Walmart does is take advantage of their poverty to wipe out competition, an exploit poor people (their workforce) and profit from them, so Walmart is'nt exactly benefiting poor people.

But look at the general flow of wealth, its consistantly, the more market based the economy, upward, toward the rich, from the poor, theres a reason for that, its that the rich control the economy and make it so that it profits them. Just as how someone with a machine gun negotiation with someone with a knife will most likely get the better end of the deal. :)


You keep trying to deny that consumers drive the economy by arguing- that consumers drive the economy.

It would be curious to see how a consumer council would function in a democratic socialist community, considering such dictating by a consumer council to the workers of a particular factory would tend to degrade the democratic nature of the community.

CONSUMERS ARE NOT A BLOCK OF PEOPLE, everyone is a consumer, under capitalism the vast majority of consumers have almost no economic power, and just take what they can get, whereas a small minority have much of the control, and use it to profit.

Workers and captialists are both consumers, consumers are not a class.

[Dean]

All of which is done in response to, or anticipation of, consumer demand.
All of which is a consequence of or anticipation of income.

We could go around in circles forever. Repeating your false, one-sided model of economic activity won't get you anywhere in terms of understanding the economy nor in justifying the capitalist paradigm we live in.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;1862226]Tey respond to consumer demand, and a consumers demand is only as loud as his wealth

It would be more accurate to say what a particular consumer chose to spend his or wealth upon.


and the wealthiest people tend to be capitalits, who also profit the most.

I would think a consumer who wishes a particular flavor of ice cream benefits as well as the capitalist producing the ice cream. Both received what they wished.



Thats one example, yeah, but what Walmart does is take advantage of their poverty

Its true Walmart has figured out a way to become highly profitable by providing poorer people inexpensive goods. I am not sure how the person who was able to purchase cheaper goods was taken advantage of.


to wipe out competition,

There are plenty of supermarkets and other discount stores around.


an exploit poor people (their workforce)

Walmart workers tend to earn more than the mom and pop operations they replaced.



But look at the general flow of wealth, its consistantly, the more market based the economy, upward, toward the rich, from the poor,

Actually, the evidence shows nothing of the sort.





CONSUMERS ARE NOT A BLOCK OF PEOPLE, everyone is a consumer, under capitalism the vast majority of consumers have almost no economic power, and just take what they can get

Considering that socialim proposes to place economic power in the hands of the producers, even if your claims of status of the consumer under capitalism is correct, socialism does nothing to change that situation. Probably makes it worse.

[Baseball]

All of which is a consequence of or anticipation of income.

We could go around in circles forever. Repeating your false, one-sided model of economic activity won't get you anywhere in terms of understanding the economy nor in justifying the capitalist paradigm we live in.

Justifying, or not, the "capitalist paradigm" says nothing about the justification of the "socialist paradigm."

[RGacky3]

It would be more accurate to say what a particular consumer chose to spend his or wealth upon.

yeah, but it all depens on how much wealth you have.


I would think a consumer who wishes a particular flavor of ice cream benefits as well as the capitalist producing the ice cream. Both received what they wished.

If you can't afford ice cream, then it does'nt matter, if 1 guy with a lot of money wants to control the ice cream market he'll be able to do it over 9 poor ice cream lovers.


Walmart workers tend to earn more than the mom and pop operations they replaced.


Evidence?


Actually, the evidence shows nothing of the sort.


Again, show me that evidence



What you STILL fail to understand, is that some consumers have tons and tons and tons of money, and most of them barely have any at all. So just saying "its the consumers that choose" is rediculous.

[CommunityBeliever]

I rather like Chocolate flavored ice cream. I didn't really choose this, my tastes aren't some conscious decision, it is just a mindless instinct that I have developed. This can be said of most foods.

Perhaps I like the color green, so I get myself a green-colored mechanical pencil for use at school rather then like a red one. So what? Most consumers won't think twice about these things, they are just mindless decisions.

Show me poor consumers that are actually making mindful conscious decisions with the intent of driving the economy.

All this is besides the point though. A small group of people have control of all the world's land, the machines that are pumping out the goods, etc, and they can keep them forever because it is there private property, and they can just give that stuff to their children afterwards through inheritance. So its almost like a royal family, a small family benefits significantly well everyone else is screwed. So that land and those means of production should be collectively controlled rather then owned by some small group.

[Dean]

Justifying, or not, the "capitalist paradigm" says nothing about the justification of the "socialist paradigm."
Ok, I'll repeat my point: all consumer activity is done at the acquisition - or the anticipation of income - which is primarily in the form of wages, etc.

[RGacky3]

Ok, I'll repeat my point: all consumer activity is done at the acquisition - or the anticipation of income - which is primarily in the form of wages, etc.

I can't understand what it is that makes free-market people miss this most basic common sense fact.

[Skooma Addict]

Just because one group of people has more net wealth, that alone does not mean it is more profitable to appeal to those people. If the top 1% prefer chocolate ice cream, while the bottom 99% prefer vanilla, that alone does not mean it is more profitable to produce chocolate ice cream over vanilla in a society where the top 1% owns more than the bottom 99%.

Companies will make products to appeal to all kinds of different people. For example, there are multiple producers of Challah. It is not like everything revolves around the rich like you guys are saying.


Show me poor consumers that are actually making mindful conscious decisions with the intent of driving the economy.Not many consumers, poor or rich, are making their purchasing decisions with the intent of driving the economy.

[RGacky3]

Just because one group of people has more net wealth, that alone does not mean it is more profitable to appeal to those people. If the top 1% prefer chocolate ice cream, while the bottom 99% prefer vanilla, that alone does not mean it is more profitable to produce chocolate ice cream over vanilla in a society where the top 1% owns more than the bottom 99%.


Its not unversal, but overall, it is, not in all industries, but in most.

However with wealthy people, they have more options, which means that they will always get the better deal.


Not many consumers, poor or rich, are making their purchasing decisions with the intent of driving the economy.

Capitalists do, its investment for the purpose of capital gains.

[Dean]

Just because one group of people has more net wealth, that alone does not mean it is more profitable to appeal to those people.
You're only looking at consumer activity in terms of purchased goods. In fact, investment by the wealthy is probably much more relevant even to your limited question.

However, the "consumer population" has never been a very good measure of economic power or of control over the economy. If you analyzed the net expenditure of income - including savings - and include in consumption the sale of financial products - you'll find that the poor are, indeed, the least-catered to portion of the consumer population, and further, that their consumer activity leaves them with little or no savings or financial expansiveness.

[Skooma Addict]

Its not unversal, but overall, it is, not in all industries, but in most.Not really. Maybe in like the Yacht and the private jet industries. But not in most industries.


However with wealthy people, they have more options, which means that they will always get the better deal.
They won't always get the better deal. Businesses use price discrimination all the time to attract lower income consumers into their store. Take coupons for example.


Capitalists do, its investment for the purpose of capital gains. The goal of a capitalist is not to "drive economic activity." His goal is merely to profit. the great thing about capitalism is that it does not require people to care about the good of others in order to actually help others.


You're only looking at consumer activity in terms of purchased goods. In fact, investment by the wealthy is probably much more relevant even to your limited question.Investment is not more relevant, and I didn't pose any question. You can invest in chocolate ice cream all you want, but that means nothing if 99% of the population prefers vanilla.


However, the "consumer population" has never been a very good measure of economic power or of control over the economy. If you analyzed the net expenditure of income - including savings - and include in consumption the sale of financial products - you'll find that the poor are, indeed, the least-catered to portion of the consumer population, and further, that their consumer activity leaves them with little or no savings or financial expansiveness. In other words, the rich spend more than the poor? That is all you are saying. Just like there are companies which attempt fulfill the needs of certain consumer groups such as people with allergies, vegan people, people trying to gain/lose weight, there are companies which cater to the rich. There is nothing wrong with that. There are also companies which cater to the poor. It is not as though every company is going to try to cater to the rich because they have the most money. This idea can easily be refuted empirically.

[Dean]

Investment is not more relevant, and I didn't pose any question. You can invest in chocolate ice cream all you want, but that means nothing if 99% of the population prefers vanilla.
If 70% of the population is out of the picture and lacks basic infrastructure, such "overwhelming majority" figures don't apply.

You still ignore this global application of your flawed model, which makes it fail, of course.


In other words, the rich spend more than the poor? That is all you are saying. Just like there are companies which attempt fulfill the needs of certain consumer groups such as people with allergies, vegan people, people trying to gain/lose weight, there are companies which cater to the rich. There is nothing wrong with that. There are also companies which cater to the poor. It is not as though every company is going to try to cater to the rich because they have the most money. This idea can easily be refuted empirically.
No, the rich do not spend more as far as I'm aware - not per capita, at least. The rich save more and divert more of their funds to products which provide financial returns.

[Baseball]

[
QUOTE=RGacky3;1862486]yeah, but it all depens on how much wealth you have.

No. A capitalist can still turn a profit providing goods and services to poorer folks.




If you can't afford ice cream, then it does'nt matter, if 1 guy with a lot of money wants to control the ice cream market he'll be able to do it over 9 poor ice cream lovers.


No. As above.





What you STILL fail to understand, is that some consumers have tons and tons and tons of money, and most of them barely have any at all. So just saying "its the consumers that choose" is rediculous.


It doesn't matter. A capitalist can't a profit on an item people do not purchase.

[Skooma Addict]

If 70% of the population is out of the picture and lacks basic infrastructure, such "overwhelming majority" figures don't apply.

You still ignore this global application of your flawed model, which makes it fail, of course.What do you mean 4.8 billion people are just "out of the picture?"

Homeless people in America buy fast food. They are not "out of the picture" in that industry. Whether or not one is out of the picture depends on the industry. I am out of the picture regarding the private jet industry for example.

As I said, companies can attempt to appeal to a specific group of people. Companies which make food for Vegans are not trying to appeal to the rich. Walmart attempts to appeal to the general consumer looking for a cheap buy. 7 11 is appealing to the consumer desiring convenience. It does not have to be "rich" or "poor." There could be significant overlap.


No, the rich do not spend more as far as I'm aware - not per capita, at least. The rich save more and divert more of their funds to products which provide financial returns. And this i significant....how?

[Dean]

What do you mean 4.8 billion people are just "out of the picture?"
Roughly that number of people are lacking basic necessities - and most of them live in areas which I'm willing to bet have no access to significant retail industry.

Let alone Wal-Mart, as was pointed out, was your example.

So the poorest 70% of the world have no access to Wal-Mart's goods. Your "Wal Mart caters to the poor" argument crashes to the ground. Its primarily the working classes which Wal-Mart caters to, and given that the working classes accrue income, I don't think any communist would argue that no industry caters to them in terms of consumer constituency.


Homeless people in America buy fast food. They are not "out of the picture" in that industry. Whether or not one is out of the picture depends on the industry. I am out of the picture regarding the private jet industry for example.

As I said, companies can attempt to appeal to a specific group of people. Companies which make food for Vegans are not trying to appeal to the rich. Walmart attempts to appeal to the general consumer looking for a cheap buy. 7 11 is appealing to the consumer desiring convenience. It does not have to be "rich" or "poor." There could be significant overlap.

And this i significant....how?

Its significant because engaging in economic activity does not make one a relevant power broker in the economic system - which, as I've been pointing out all along, is the real measure of any economic model, or "for whom economic activity is done". This emboldened question is key, because if we only define it on consumer terms (as you attempt to) it leave out the significant workings of power in the economy.

So you can say "x company caters to the poor" (and there are probably niche orgs that cater to the destitute populations in some fashion). But that says nothing to the question, "whose interests are primarily represented in economic activity?"

Not, "what is the net result of retail items sold to the working class?"

The capitalist model requires production and consumption, and this function further serves to reacquire income that has been dispersed to the working class. This is why the investment value of some people is key - those who cannot afford to invest or save are incapable of expanding their wealth, and represent a portion of the population for whom the net consequence of their economic lives is perpetual wage enslavement.

Credit, and all the other systems involved in consumer finances, primarily serve to expand the prices salable to the consumer population, and further aggregate wealth and economic power in the hands of those empowered in the retail and finance industries.

[RGacky3]

They won't always get the better deal. Businesses use price discrimination all the time to attract lower income consumers into their store. Take coupons for example.

Rich people can use coupons too, if they so decide, many poor people can ONLY use coupons.


The goal of a capitalist is not to "drive economic activity." His goal is merely to profit. the great thing about capitalism is that it does not require people to care about the good of others in order to actually help others.

Driving the economy FOR his profit, is driving the economy.

He helps people in the same way nobles HELP peasants by letting them use a plot of land.


Investment is not more relevant, and I didn't pose any question. You can invest in chocolate ice cream all you want, but that means nothing if 99% of the population prefers vanilla.


Investment controls who gets the profit, thats whats important, no one cares what sort of ice cream you make.

But there are other things, for example, if a mom and pop ice cream shop is bought out by a larger company, they might think they can make more money by liquidating it and taking the money some where else, (even though the ice cream shop was making a profit), then they do that, now a bunch of ice cream workers are out of work, and theres no ice cream shop.

That happens ALL THE TIME, its what happened to American industry.


No. A capitalist can still turn a profit providing goods and services to poorer folks.

A broken clock is right twice a day.

[Conquer or Die]

If you do that I would venture to assume that 1000 people/companies would end up owning all the property in the USA. Without subsidies almost all mortages would bet forclosed on--and the people with money would buy up the homes for pennies on the dollar.

Good.