Libertarianism- the Middle Way?

[Bronte]

The economy and socioethical concerns appear to be distibuted in many wishes for the Worker to be free from beaurocracy, which appears to tie Socialism and Libertarianism together. Perhaps it could be possible for Libertarian and Socialist politics to be joined in Libertarian Socialism this way?

I mean Libertarians want ends to strict federal Governments. They want to allow State Governance over their socioethic pursuits. One could start a system of allowing for institutions of education to plan people's educations in order to start a more collaborative, socialist workforce, through this. Further, the end of the drug war will allow for individual Socialists to grow pain-relieving medications, like marijuana, amphetamines, methamphetamines, and they would be able to do this without government seizure of their plants.

Could Libertarian philosophy be taken up as neo-Socialism? Any thoughts?

[NewLeft]

No... Neoliberals love the state, when it protects them. Their drive is not to eliminate bureaucracy but to end bureaucracies that are in their way. They would not tolerate any form of socialism, utopian or otherwise. They will use market forces to enforce their hierarchies..

And what is a socialist workforce? Internally egalitarian? It would not matter in a market.

[Skooma Addict]

There are some issues where libertarians and socialists agree.

[kahimikarie]

There is nothing "middle" about right libertarianism. it is an extreme right economic position.

[Revolution starts with U]

Libertarianism was a socialist development co-opted by the right in the early 50s... you know that, right?

[MattShizzle]

Just no.

[Lokomotive293]

Libertarians are usually all about "the free market", so I don't see how that could work together with socialism.

[NewLeft]

Libertarianism was a socialist development co-opted by the right in the early 50s... you know that, right?

Not co-opted, but rather a strictly American tradition. The anarchists were known as the anarchists.

[MattShizzle]

Libertarians are right wingers who are OK with lots of social freedom but still want the rich to be dictators in effect rather than in law. Of course a lot of US "Libertarians" are straight up right-wingers (ie anti-abortiin, anti-gay, etc.)

[DinodudeEpic]

Well, there's always mutualist socialism. Libertarians want free markets, and socialists want worker's control. How about worker's control over free markets?

[Skooma Addict]

The problem with libertarians is that they act like economics is all one needs to understand society, when in reality it is much more complicated then that. They don't understand that class and other social factors play an important role in the cohesiveness of society.

[Judicator]

Under libertarianism workers could own and run as many factories as they wanted...

[Ocean Seal]

Under libertarianism workers could own and run as many factories as they wanted...
Cute, isn't that what the orthodox economists tell us now?

[Judicator]

Cute, isn't that what the orthodox economists tell us now?

Yes.

[Azraella]

I'd suggest mutualism as a middle path honestly. Though, I wouldn't be staisfied with that.

[Marxaveli]

Under libertarianism capitalists could own and run as many factories as they wanted...

Fixed that for you.

[Marxaveli]

And for the OP, no. Libertarianism economics (neo-liberalism) and Socialism are incompatible economic systems. It is one or the other.

[MattShizzle]

Under libertarianism workers could own and run as many factories as they wanted...


You really are stupid.

[Revolution starts with U]

Under libertarianism workers could own and run as many factories as they wanted...

Theoretically. How long do you think it would take for capitalists to draw some trumped-up charges against them and invade?

[CommunityBeliever]

Under libertarianism workers could own and run as many factories as they wanted...


Imaginary factories.

[Misanthrope]

Libertarianism is a religion whose god is the market and whose angels are the state.

[Judicator]

Fixed that for you.

Workers could own capital, but not enough to sustain themselves.


You really are stupid.

I think you are confusing "could" and "probably would."


Theoretically. How long do you think it would take for capitalists to draw some trumped-up charges against them and invade?

However long it took capitalists to abolish libertarianism.

They might sell their factory to support a drinking habit though.


Imaginary factories.

Nope, real ones.

[Dean]

The problem with libertarians is that they act like economics is all one needs to understand society, when in reality it is much more complicated then that. They don't understand that class and other social factors play an important role in the cohesiveness of society.

Hate to criticize you when we agree more, but class is an economic issue. Indeed, you may say its more sociological, but then the issue to be considered would be where the one ends and the other begins. And of course, many sociological issues have explicit financial consequences, and vice versa.

You're right that more than economics is needed to understand society, but libertarians don't "just believe in economics." Many libertarians believe in very rigid, narrow economic systems-of-though which often preclude a certain "human nature," disproportionately rely on deductive or inductive models of inquiry, among other things.

The severe focus on a quixotic attitude towards property rights, and the dispensation thereof, is a consistent problem in libertarian thought, as well. While I think this is what comes closest to a universal problem in libertarian thought, I know that even this is not a uniform characteristic of libertarians.

[RGacky3]

However long it took capitalists to abolish libertarianism.


Which would be basically immediately.

[Revolution starts with U]

Right wing libertarianism is impossible for two reasons;
1) the Elite's only use it as a smoke screen to take the state away from helping regular people, but never from helping them.
2) The tendancy of absolute disdain for the general populace amongst libertarians precludes their ability to build a real populist movement; it only caters to sociopathic ubermensch wannabe's.

EDIT: The other thing to keep in mind is that the Tea Party (tho not reflective of libertarianism as a whole) is a libertarian movement. And they show strong support for GWBush, Palin, and Beck; all three chicken hawk warmongers. They also only show 28% support for Ron Paul... you know the actual libertarian that started the whole thing. I really don't see it taking long for a libertarian "nation" to drive trumped up charges against a competitive commune and invade. It's, as they say, in their nature.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002534-503544.html

[Rafiq]

Well, there's always mutualist socialism. Libertarians want free markets, and socialists want worker's control. How about worker's control over free markets?

Ah, bullshit dualism. What you are describing = full blown capitalism.

Markets carry inherit and systemic contradictions, no matter who runs them.

[Nox]

the economy and socioethical concerns appear to be distibuted in many wishes for the worker to be free from beaurocracy, which appears to tie socialism and libertarianism together. Perhaps it could be possible for libertarian and socialist politics to be joined in libertarian socialism this way?

I mean libertarians want ends to strict federal governments. They want to allow state governance over their socioethic pursuits. One could start a system of allowing for institutions of education to plan people's educations in order to start a more collaborative, socialist workforce, through this. Further, the end of the drug war will allow for individual socialists to grow pain-relieving medications, like marijuana, amphetamines, methamphetamines, and they would be able to do this without government seizure of their plants.

Could libertarian philosophy be taken up as neo-socialism? Any thoughts?

They already have that.

It's called Anarcho-Communism.

[RGacky3]

Although I'm not sold on mutualism, there is a difference between capital markets, land markets, labor markets and commodity markets, its totally plausable to have commodity markets under socialism.

Markets can exist outside capitalism and even outside capital accumulation or profit drive.

[Marcist]

Markets will revert back to capitalism.

[DinodudeEpic]

How would markets lead back to capitalism if wage labor is abolished?

[Burkland]

Under libertarianism workers could own and run as many factories as they wanted...
Ignoring that need money and the resources and that capitalists won't want an average worker to have those resources and those are hard to get even if the capitalists didn't stop them, they could ;)

[Judicator]

Ignoring that need money and the resources and that capitalists won't want an average worker to have those resources and those are hard to get even if the capitalists didn't stop them, they could ;)

Tons of people (former workers) start businesses every day. Successful businesses provide the money and resources needed to expand: retained earnings.

[Marxaveli]

^^Total straw man argument. "Tons of people" is a relative term. In terms of a % of the entire population, no, tons of people do NOT start businesses every day.

[RGacky3]

Tons of people (former workers) start businesses every day. Successful businesses provide the money and resources needed to expand: retained earnings.

Sucessful buisinesses require major startup capital usually, which generally means becoming a debtor, which is a major major risk.

[Tim Finnegan]

I'm going to ask the question that nobody seems to have asked yet, but which seems pretty important to me, which is: who the hell cares if it is? Compromise is in no sense a virtue.

[Judicator]

Sucessful buisinesses require major startup capital usually, which generally means becoming a debtor, which is a major major risk.

Starting businesses is risky!? :blink:

[RGacky3]

especially when you have to go major in debt and perhaps risk your livelyhood, a rich guy can loose out on a buisiness venture and be ok, a poor person cannot.

[Tim Cornelis]

Tons of people (former workers) start businesses every day. Successful businesses provide the money and resources needed to expand: retained earnings.

Hey man, if you don't like oppressive government you could always get some money and buy your own, ya know, libertarian island or something. No one is using force to prevent you from doing so, you are free to leave. It's completely voluntary, ya know.

[Judicator]

^^Total straw man argument. "Tons of people" is a relative term. In terms of a % of the entire population, no, tons of people do NOT start businesses every day.

How is it a straw man? What argument is it supposed to stand for?

If there were a capitalist conspiracy to prevent workers from getting any resources at all presumably small business would be nonexistent, but small businesses make up half of US GDP, so this probably isn't true.

The average worker can't start a business because the average worker is...average. You have to be reasonably bright or entrepreneurial to start a business.

Also..."tons" just means a large amount. Is this confusing to you? If so I apologize. Thousands of new small businesses are started each day.


Hey man, if you don't like oppressive government you could always get some money and buy your own, ya know, libertarian island or something. No one is using force to prevent you from doing so, you are free to leave. It's completely voluntary, ya know.

Or I'll stay, but just conduct all of my business on a libertarian island (e.g. the Caymans).

[Blackburn]

.....Libertarianism.....

http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/420/92273579.jpg

[Marxaveli]

How is it a straw man? What argument is it supposed to stand for?

If there were a capitalist conspiracy to prevent workers from getting any resources at all presumably small business would be nonexistent, but small businesses make up half of US GDP, so this probably isn't true.

The average worker can't start a business because the average worker is...average. You have to be reasonably bright or entrepreneurial to start a business.

Also..."tons" just means a large amount. Is this confusing to you? If so I apologize. Thousands of new small businesses are started each day.



Or I'll stay, but just conduct all of my business on a libertarian island (e.g. the Caymans).

So all "average" workers are not reasonably bright? Is this what you are implying?

[Judicator]

So all "average" workers are not reasonably bright? Is this what you are implying?

It's not really an implication so much as the definition of "average." If they're average they aren't exceptionally bright. Despite what public education proponents want to think, not everyone can be above average.

[DinodudeEpic]

There is something called inheritance. Rich people can give money to their sons, and thus their sons would have an advantage over a person born of a poor family.

Also, who gets into better financial positions depends on the whims of the rich. (Employers and such.) They prefer to invest and cooperate with companies that stick with the status quo, so they would destroy any sort of worker cooperative/anything out of the corporate orthodoxy with their economic power. This has already happened to various small businesses that have eaten up by Mc Donald's and Wall-mart alike. So, businesses actually prefer loyal people to rise to the top, skill matters only a little. As long as that person doesn't send the business into bankruptcy, they are just fine with whatever skill or intellect level the 'entrepreneur' has.

So, capitalism will concetrate into the few and limit merit, unless the means of production are controlled by working individuals (Democratically or self-employed into a one man business) instead of capitalist hogs.

[Judicator]

There is something called inheritance. Rich people can give money to their sons, and thus their sons would have an advantage over a person born of a poor family.

The thing about money is it gets spent very quickly and so people who are rich but dumb can fall quickly down the socioeconomic ladder (consider the descendants of lottery winners). People also pass on heritable traits that help success (IQ, temperament, etc) so that's going to explain a lot of it.


Also, who gets into better financial positions depends on the whims of the rich. (Employers and such.) They prefer to invest and cooperate with companies that stick with the status quo, so they would destroy any sort of worker cooperative/anything out of the corporate orthodoxy with their economic power.

As long as there are a handful of arbitrageurs who just want to make money (and there are), the differences in investment behind a nontraditional, but effective, model should quickly disappear. Fixed income traders don't give a shit about "corporate orthodoxy"... they just want to make money, and if some worker cooperative is issuing commercial paper at attractive yields they'll buy it.


This has already happened to various small businesses that have eaten up by Mc Donald's and Wall-mart alike. So, businesses actually prefer loyal people to rise to the top, skill matters only a little. As long as that person doesn't send the business into bankruptcy, they are just fine with whatever skill or intellect level the 'entrepreneur' has.

Walmart and McDonald's compete smaller stores/restaurants out of business because consumers choose their products...not because of some kind of capitalist conspiracy. Their competitors don't go out of business because they lack outside investment, they go under because their products are less preferable.

[RGacky3]

The thing about money is it gets spent very quickly and so people who are rich but dumb can fall quickly down the socioeconomic ladder (consider the descendants of lottery winners). People also pass on heritable traits that help success (IQ, temperament, etc) so that's going to explain a lot of it.


I have yet too see any studies on this that control for education. Thats just a bunch of shit, some of the dumbest people out there right now are heads of financial institutions.

You have many examples of executives crashing companies and then just moving on to another board after they raid the treasure box.


As long as there are a handful of arbitrageurs who just want to make money (and there are), the differences in investment behind a nontraditional, but effective, model should quickly disappear. Fixed income traders don't give a shit about "corporate orthodoxy"... they just want to make money, and if some worker cooperative is issuing commercial paper at attractive yields they'll buy it.


First of all, the major investors most certainly have a class consicousness, and they most certainly invest in such a way.

Also you have different types of investment, issuing stock is something a cooperative would'nt do, by its very nature, and even if it did, a cooperative is NOT supposed to maximize profit making it a worse of a short term investmnet.

Now bonds are a different issue, but people who buy bonds are generally not small time investors they are almost always institutional.

Also given the fact that the cooperative puts the workers in control, and not someone who's sole job is to maximise profit, it makes it more risky, i.e. instead of doing mass layoffs to pay back bondholders, the workers would more likely just make less of a profit and not pay back the bondholders.


Walmart and McDonald's compete smaller stores/restaurants out of business because consumers choose their products...not because of some kind of capitalist conspiracy. Their competitors don't go out of business because they lack outside investment, they go under because their products are less preferable.

Cheaper, their products are cheaper, this all goes toward the internal contradictions of capital accumulation, you don't need any conspiracy, this is juts what happens under capitalism, and as capitalism goes and the working class has less choices due to less disposable income, this consolidation of market power goes faster.

You can make moral judgement or semantic arguements about why its OK that capitalism does what capitalism does, it does'nt change the fact that capitalism leads to the outcomes that marxists and socialists have always said it leads to and market fundementalists say it does'nt.

[Judicator]

I have yet too see any studies on this that control for education.


It's a well studied phenomenon in the labor econ literature. http://www.iza.org/conference_files/CoNoCoSk2011/gensowski_m6556.pdf

IQ explains income and it also explains how much you get out of having an education (someone with an IQ of 130 benefits more from Harvard than someone with an IQ of 70).



First of all, the major investors most certainly have a class consicousness, and they most certainly invest in such a way.


Did you just make this up? :laugh:
Investors pursue returns, and arbitrageurs work to ensure you don't get different returns for the same risk across asset classes.



Also you have different types of investment, issuing stock is something a cooperative would'nt do, by its very nature, and even if it did, a cooperative is NOT supposed to maximize profit making it a worse of a short term investmnet.


If you don't maximize profit in the short run or the long run, then you're a bad investment, period. Anyway, you're saying yourself co-ops are bad investments so obviously they aren't going to have easy access to capital.



Now bonds are a different issue, but people who buy bonds are generally not small time investors they are almost always institutional.


And institutional investors are the "smart money" who care primarily about returns.



Also given the fact that the cooperative puts the workers in control, and not someone who's sole job is to maximise profit, it makes it more risky, i.e. instead of doing mass layoffs to pay back bondholders, the workers would more likely just make less of a profit and not pay back the bondholders.


"Not paying back the bondholders" is called default and then the bondholders usually get everything. Good luck running a business when your assets have been sold.

[RGacky3]

It's a well studied phenomenon in the labor econ literature. http://www.iza.org/conference_files/...wski_m6556.pdf (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.iza.org/conference_files/CoNoCoSk2011/gensowski_m6556.pdf)

IQ explains income and it also explains how much you get out of having an education (someone with an IQ of 130 benefits more from Harvard than someone with an IQ of 70).


As far as I know IQ has'nt been shown to be nature or nurture, either way, yes, IQ has a factor, you know what else has a factor? How tall you are as a man, your skin color, your attractiveness as a woman, there are lots of things.


Did you just make this up? :laugh:
Investors pursue returns, and arbitrageurs work to ensure you don't get different returns for the same risk across asset classes.


Which is why Fox news lost money for decades and decades, and why Murdochs news papers STILL loose money, and why starbucks/walmart are willing to shut down stores rather than accept a union in one of them, why did Visa, mastercard and paypall blockaid wikileaks? And so on. The Chamber of Commerce, the buisiness round table and other groups like that are basically tools of ruling class power, and show their class consciousness.


If you don't maximize profit in the short run or the long run, then you're a bad investment, period. Anyway, you're saying yourself co-ops are bad investments so obviously they aren't going to have easy access to capital.


If your an external investor, and your only stake in the company is short term returns, (i.e. a shareholder), then yeah, its a bad investment, but that the fault of capitalism, and why capitalism ultimately does'nt work.

Cooperatives, once they have capital, have the interests of the workers, rather than some external shareholders that have no stake in the company other than short term returns.


And institutional investors are the "smart money" who care primarily about returns.


yeah .... (Btw, goldman sachs cancelled profitable contracts with credit unions why supported OWS, which goes to show, they also have class consciousness).


"Not paying back the bondholders" is called default and then the bondholders usually get everything. Good luck running a business when your assets have been sold.

In modern corporations the guy RUNNING the buisiness is not the guy with the assets IN the buisiness.

[Judicator]

As far as I know IQ has'nt been shown to be nature or nurture, either way, yes, IQ has a factor, you know what else has a factor? How tall you are as a man, your skin color, your attractiveness as a woman, there are lots of things.

You're listing more heritable traits...the story will be the same as it is with IQ. Also there's a question of magnitude, IQ need only be something like 50% heritable to cause persistent (IQ based) social stratification.



Which is why Fox news lost money for decades and decades, and why Murdochs news papers STILL loose money, and why starbucks/walmart are willing to shut down stores rather than accept a union in one of them, why did Visa, mastercard and paypall blockaid wikileaks? And so on.


Again, are you just making shit up? NewsCorp has had positive EPS since 1996, their newspapers and information services segment has been profitable as well. And their share price has been nothing special, so the markets certainly aren't rewarding them for much.

Accepting a union in one store means eventually accepting a union in all stores, which is far more expensive than just shutting down a few stores. But all of these arguments are beside the point...if the "smart money" observes a company doing something stupid the company's share price will suffer.



If your an external investor, and your only stake in the company is short term returns, (i.e. a shareholder), then yeah, its a bad investment, but that the fault of capitalism, and why capitalism ultimately does'nt work.


Shares don't expire so as long as you have the shares you have a stake in the returns of the company. You can hold them for as long as you want, so your short/long term interest is up to you.

Workers can take a short term position at a company too...they can just quit after a year. There's nothing inherently short term about stock investing.


Cooperatives, once they have capital, have the interests of the workers, rather than some external shareholders that have no stake in the company other than short term returns.

No, they have the interests of the shareholders at heart as well. The shareholders just happen to be the workers.



yeah .... (Btw, goldman sachs cancelled profitable contracts with credit unions why supported OWS, which goes to show, they also have class consciousness).


At best it shows OWS is bad for business, but again you haven't given me reason to believe you aren't just making this up.



In modern corporations the guy RUNNING the buisiness is not the guy with the assets IN the buisiness.


The point was cooperatives cannot simply "not pay the bondholders" and continue to operate the business.

[NewLeft]

But unlike your skin colour.. IQ is something that you can build upon.

[RGacky3]

You're listing more heritable traits...the story will be the same as it is with IQ. Also there's a question of magnitude, IQ need only be something like 50% heritable to cause persistent (IQ based) social stratification.


I was making 2 seperate points.


Again, are you just making shit up? NewsCorp has had positive EPS since 1996, their newspapers and information services segment has been profitable as well. And their share price has been nothing special, so the markets certainly aren't rewarding them for much.


The New York Post has never been profitable, overall Newcorp is profitable, but a lot of their right wing outlets are not, put continue for ideological reasons.


Accepting a union in one store means eventually accepting a union in all stores, which is far more expensive than just shutting down a few stores. But all of these arguments are beside the point...if the "smart money" observes a company doing something stupid the company's share price will suffer.


Does'nt change the fact of class consciousness, because as you say, it ultimately benefits them.


No, they have the interests of the shareholders at heart as well. The shareholders just happen to be the workers.


Thats not how cooperatives work, they don't have shareholders, i.e. the workers can't sell a share, because there are none.


At best it shows OWS is bad for business, but again you haven't given me reason to believe you aren't just making this up.


Here is a reason (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/31/1031734/-Goldman-Sachs-Attacks-Credit-Union). At best it shows that goldman sachs is acting based on class consciousness, thats EXACTLY what it shows, OWS can't be bad for buisiness, especially if they are giving money to credit unions, as they are, credit unions have grown, which financially means goldman should want to do more buisiness with them, but they don't because they have a class interest.


The point was cooperatives cannot simply "not pay the bondholders" and continue to operate the business.

That was'nt my point, my point was the incentives are totally different. My example was, for example, they would'nt cut workers just to pay back bondholders.

[Judicator]

I was making 2 seperate points.


Okay...your first point is a false dichotomy, your second point doesn't help you escape the claim that inherited monetary wealth plays an small role in explaining why people born into a social class often stay there.


The New York Post has never been profitable, overall Newcorp is profitable, but a lot of their right wing outlets are not, put continue for ideological reasons.

Their news division (right-wing propaganda in your view) is profitable, ergo right wing propaganda is profitable. Where's the evidence that they have been unprofitable consistently (say over the past 20 years)?



Thats not how cooperatives work, they don't have shareholders, i.e. the workers can't sell a share, because there are none.


The workers own the equity. It's the same idea.



At best it shows that goldman sachs is acting based on class consciousness, thats EXACTLY what it shows, OWS can't be bad for buisiness, especially if they are giving money to credit unions, as they are, credit unions have grown, which financially means goldman should want to do more buisiness with them, but they don't because they have a class interest.


Using credit unions as financial service providers instead of goldman sachs, what your article said OWS was advocating, IS bad for business. Losing clients is bad for business... Also seeing your name (as a bank) mentioned next to OWS in any forum is probably a bad thing.



That was'nt my point, my point was the incentives are totally different. My example was, for example, they would'nt cut workers just to pay back bondholders.


They are no less bound by debt obligations than any other company, and so they WOULD have to fire workers if their obligations came due, otherwise they would be bankrupt.

[RGacky3]

The workers own the equity. It's the same idea.


No it is'nt because its not something they can sell, or dispose of, other than if they quit their job, they don't "own" anything.


Okay...your first point is a false dichotomy

It was'nt we don't know how much of it is nature or nurture.


your second point doesn't help you escape the claim that inherited monetary wealth plays an small role in explaining why people born into a social class often stay there.


My second point shows that intelligence is amung many other traits that favor wealth, like being a tall man.


Using credit unions as financial service providers instead of goldman sachs, what your article said OWS was advocating, IS bad for business. Losing clients is bad for business... Also seeing your name (as a bank) mentioned next to OWS in any forum is probably a bad thing.


NO ONE, that moved their money into credit unions, moved their money from goldman sachs, goldman is an investment bank, there is NO WAY regular OWS folk have enough money to invest with goldman sachs.


They are no less bound by debt obligations than any other company, and so they WOULD have to fire workers if their obligations came due, otherwise they would be bankrupt.

Your missing the point, they could take a cut in profit, they could bankrupt in a way that benefits the workers, your totally missing the point of what I'm saying.

The point is modern corporations only service the executives personal interests and the interests of a few major shareholders who's stake in the company is extremely limited and liquid, rather than people who have a real stake in the company and who's stake is not liquid, like the workers.

[Judicator]

No it is'nt because its not something they can sell, or dispose of, other than if they quit their job, they don't "own" anything.


They own the company (if they don't, who does?). This ownership is an equity interest in the company. You can own equity in illiquid assets...



It was'nt we don't know how much of it is nature or nurture.


The false dichotomy is the "either-or" characterization you made originally. We have good reason to believe that plenty of it is heritable (twin studies, etc.)


My second point shows that intelligence is amung many other traits that favor wealth, like being a tall man.

Okay, again this doesn't help you escape the claim that inherited monetary wealth plays an small role in explaining why people born into a social class often stay there.


NO ONE, that moved their money into credit unions, moved their money from goldman sachs, goldman is an investment bank, there is NO WAY regular OWS folk have enough money to invest with goldman sachs.

Presumably OWS folks are saying it's bad for ANYONE (including rich, bleeding heart liberals) to invest with bulge-bracket banks. If this gets a lot of media attention it's bad for business.



Your missing the point, they could take a cut in profit, they could bankrupt in a way that benefits the workers, your totally missing the point of what I'm saying.


If they are the owners of the business a cut in profit is the same as a cut in wages...since as owners they get everything. So again, you're trying to create a distinction where there is none.



The point is modern corporations only service the executives personal interests and the interests of a few major shareholders who's stake in the company is extremely limited and liquid, rather than people who have a real stake in the company and who's stake is not liquid, like the workers.


You have it backwards...Major shareholders have a HUGE stake in the company...if the company goes bankrupt it's a major hit to their wealth. Large stakes in firms are, by their nature, illiquid (learn your jargon plz). A worker has almost no stake in the company - workers switch jobs all the time. A worker can "fire the firm" (i.e. quit) at any moment.

[RGacky3]

They own the company (if they don't, who does?). This ownership is an equity interest in the company. You can own equity in illiquid assets...


Ok, your arguing semantics here, call it whatever you want, but its radically different from market equity.


Okay, again this doesn't help you escape the claim that inherited monetary wealth plays an small role in explaining why people born into a social class often stay there.


Allthough you hav'nt given evidence that inheretance is'nt a big factor, you just showed that intelligence may be also.


Presumably OWS folks are saying it's bad for ANYONE (including rich, bleeding heart liberals) to invest with bulge-bracket banks. If this gets a lot of media attention it's bad for business.


Yes, if there is a revolution is bad for buisiness, the point is Goldman Sachs are obviously class conscoius.


If they are the owners of the business a cut in profit is the same as a cut in wages...since as owners they get everything. So again, you're trying to create a distinction where there is none.


Sure ... So they'd have to take less of a cut, or at least not that much of a raise, becuase they ARE the owners, they are not responsible to any outside "owners."


You have it backwards...Major shareholders have a HUGE stake in the company...if the company goes bankrupt it's a major hit to their wealth. Large stakes in firms are, by their nature, illiquid (learn your jargon plz). A worker has almost no stake in the company - workers switch jobs all the time. A worker can "fire the firm" (i.e. quit) at any moment.

Thats bullshit, equity is liquid even if you are a major shareholder in the company, of coarse you could take a loss, but its still liquid. You can buy equities all over the world, you can sell anytime, to anyone all over the world, also large shareholders are generally not ONLY in one company unless they work there, most of the times they have other major sources of income.

Workers are limited to where they live, the jobs available, they are limited with time in that they cannot be unemployed for too long, they are limited by their skills, by their education, they are limited by their amount of money saved.

Thats absolutely reduculous to say that workers are more liquid than capital, ANYONE with half a brain in finance would tell you otherwise.

[Judicator]

Ok, your arguing semantics here, call it whatever you want, but its radically different from market equity.


No, it's not semantics. The interest workers have in the co-op they own has the same kind of risk profile as a shareholder in a firm.


Allthough you hav'nt given evidence that inheretance is'nt a big factor, you just showed that intelligence may be also.

And height and all of the other factors you mentioned as well...after that it looks like inheritance is just one among many factors. IQ isn't just a "maybe"...its well established (read the link) that high IQ leads to better returns on education and better wages.

Inheritance will disappear over time...you can always spend it, unlike IQ.



Yes, if there is a revolution is bad for buisiness, the point is Goldman Sachs are obviously class conscoius.


No, the point (which you willfully ignored) was that market participants force companies to be profit seeking, so Goldman would only be "class conscious" insofar as class consciousness was good for business, not for any other reason.



Sure ... So they'd have to take less of a cut, or at least not that much of a raise, becuase they ARE the owners, they are not responsible to any outside "owners."


So as worker owners there's no distinction between a cut in profits and a cut in wages. You seemed to think there was.



Thats bullshit, equity is liquid even if you are a major shareholder in the company, of coarse you could take a loss, but its still liquid. You can buy equities all over the world, you can sell anytime, to anyone all over the world, also large shareholders are generally not ONLY in one company unless they work there, most of the times they have other major sources of income.


Lol you don't even know what liquidity is. Liquidity doesn't mean "you can sell it, at any price"...then MBS would be liquid :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: . Liquidity means you can dump a lot of it on the market without price impact.



orkers are limited to where they live, the jobs available, they are limited with time in that they cannot be unemployed for too long, they are limited by their skills, by their education, they are limited by their amount of money saved.


They can move somewhere else, liquidity is just a question of how fast they can get an identically paying job. Do you really think it's that difficult to get a job at Wal Mart? Do you think that after quitting Kmart you're going to take a huge pay cut from taking a job at Wal Mart? No, you aren't.



Thats absolutely reduculous to say that workers are more liquid than capital,


Prove it. You probably can't and you're going to say something like "I can't, you first!" :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

[RGacky3]

No, it's not semantics. The interest workers have in the co-op they own has the same kind of risk profile as a shareholder in a firm.


No its not, they can't buy or sell the shares, they are in Direct control of their industry, they are not subject to the decisions of some board of directors, they are tied to the company through their job. They can't make any money from capital gains, nor is it dividend based.

Its totally different.


And height and all of the other factors you mentioned as well...after that it looks like inheritance is just one among many factors. IQ isn't just a "maybe"...its well established (read the link) that high IQ leads to better returns on education and better wages.

Inheritance will disappear over time...you can always spend it, unlike IQ.


THere have been studies about attractiveness, hight and those factors too, they are also not a maybe, I've read the link.

Inheretance has been around for a long time.


No, the point (which you willfully ignored) was that market participants force companies to be profit seeking, so Goldman would only be "class conscious" insofar as class consciousness was good for business, not for any other reason.


in the big scheme of things class consciousness is ALWAYS good for buisiness, thats the point.


So as worker owners there's no distinction between a cut in profits and a cut in wages. You seemed to think there was.


Its a non profit organization .... There is no profit .... Anything extra either goes to re-investment or to the workers.


Lol you don't even know what liquidity is. Liquidity doesn't mean "you can sell it, at any price"...then MBS would be liquid :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: . Liquidity means you can dump a lot of it on the market without price impact.


Look if your a large shareholder, you'll take a loss if you get rid of ALL your equity, but if your a worker you have no way out unless you quit your job.

Your totally ignoring the points.


They can move somewhere else, liquidity is just a question of how fast they can get an identically paying job. Do you really think it's that difficult to get a job at Wal Mart? Do you think that after quitting Kmart you're going to take a huge pay cut from taking a job at Wal Mart? No, you aren't.


They can just move somewhere else :laugh:.

There is no analysis in that post, just you being a condesending dick.

there are 5 job applications for every job available, also the people loosing their jobs are not just those working at kmart. There are major problems with the economy, and your answer? Get a job at Walmart, thats your answer when we talk about problems with the corporate structure.


Prove it. You probably can't and you're going to say something like "I can't, you first!" :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

I can sell all my shares tommorow if I want, I can't quit my job, Its common sense. Your an idiot if you honestly think its easier to quit a job and get a new one than it is to sell shares.

[SVeach94]

Libertarians are basically conservatives without the bigoted, archaic social views. Less damaging than evangelical laissez-faire, but still damaging (relying on private business to take care of people? Why in god's name has that not been discredited by the Great Depression?)

[DinodudeEpic]

Libertarians are basically conservatives without the bigoted, archaic social views. Less damaging than evangelical laissez-faire, but still damaging (relying on private business to take care of people? Why in god's name has that not been discredited by the Great Depression?)

Isn't conservative pretty much that. Archaic social views.

Putin is not a laissez-faire economist, and he's definitely a conservative. Same for Christian Democrats.