Interesting YT Conversations...

Ifwecouldjust....... said:
So let me post a psychologists thoughts on why you have 'Conservative' leanings

https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/...y-liberal-hearts-bleed-and-conservatives-dont


see if you recognise any traits ... because to vote Conservative if you're working class is like paying for your own ticket to Dignitas
Click to expand...
The writer of the above article is clearly a liberal and knows little about conservatives or conservatism.

In my experience I find that conservatives know why liberals are liberals, but liberals don't know why conservatives are conservatives.

The article above is horrible and only describes the 'liberal's' delusion of why a conservative is a conservative.

This is both sad and unsurprising. Colleges for the better part of the last 30 years have been nothing more than indoctrination grounds for Liberal ideology.

So the average person who went to college after the 80s really walked into a liberal whitewash. In America the average was 10-1 liberal to Conservative professors. By the 2000 it was about 25-1. And in most schools the conservative professors are found in the hardcore sciences where your ideology is irrelevant.

In the Social sciences you could spend 4 years at a college and never see a single conservative faculty. So it's no surprise most students graduate college with a negative view of what it means to be conservative. As their view of conservativism is defined by liberals.

The article above is an example of that. Liberalism pretending to give a fair description of conservativism.

If anyone wants to know why conservatives are conservatives, I'd suggest they read the opinion of an actual conservative.
 
Bigga said:
David Doel shows a clip of the brilliant Prof Richard Wolff in discussion about your job.

Click to expand...

I'm all for the critique of capitalism but Wolfe's first point is flawed. The profit isn't strictly 'your value' it's a mix of your value and the value of other resources including land, technology and Raw materials.

You as the individual you are getting paid for your part in the process. Labor + Land + machines + Raw materials = goods which may or may not = profit.

The notion that you (labor) are not getting what you are worth because there was money left over taken as profit implies that (land, structure, machine, raw materials, and risk) was worth nothing. This is warped reasoning in my view.

Also, company after company, Google, Facebook, Uber, Amazon etc. And practically a majority of the most successful companies started out for years In the red. Meaning they ran at a deficit. I.e these evil owners were busy paying salaries of those workers for years without a profit.

The question is this, should all those companies who start out in the red give their workers no salary and charge their workers a % of the loss until they are out of the red? Or not pay salary while until the bottom line no longer is in the red?

As for co-ops, they are great if you have a product or service that can make profit from the onset. Meaning it shows profit from year one. As who's going to pay the workers if there are no profits in the beginning?

Companies are there to make profit. Workers are there to exchange their skill for a fee. That fee is mostly determined by the market. Supply and demand. Included in that analysis is the reality of those who exit the market as a skills trader to start their own thing.


As for co-ops: Suppose 4 people start a co -op but it makes no money for 5 years (i.e. they used their own money to survive), then after they start making money hire 5 more workers: should the original 5 make the same money as the new 5 who joined after profits began to come in? Why or why not?
 
Last edited:
Dax777 said:
I'm all for the critique of capitalism but Wolfe's first point is flawed. The profit isn't strictly 'your value' it's a mix of your value and the value of other resources including land, technology and Raw materials.

You as the individual you are getting paid for your part in the process. Labor + Land + machines + Raw materials = goods which may or may not = profit.

The notion that you (labor) are not getting what you are worth because there was money left over taken as profit implies that (land, structure, machine, raw materials, and risk) was worth nothing. This is warped reasoning in my view.

Also, company after company, Google, Facebook, Uber, Amazon etc. And practically a majority of the most successful companies started out for years In the red. Meaning they ran at a deficit. I.e these evil owners were busy paying salaries of those workers for years without a profit.

The question is this, should all those companies who start out in the red give their workers no salary and charge their workers a % of the loss until they are out of the red? Or not pay salary while until the bottom line no longer is in the red?

As for co-ops, they are great if you have a product or service that can make profit from the onset. Meaning it shows profit from year one. As who's going to pay the workers if there are no profits in the beginning?

Companies are there to make profit. Workers are there to exchange their skill for a fee. That fee is mostly determined by the market. Supply and demand. Included in that analysis is the reality of those who exit the market as a skills trader to start their own thing.


As for co-ops: Suppose 4 people start a co -op but it makes no money for 5 years (i.e. they used their own money to survive), then after they start making money hire 5 more workers: should the original 5 make the same money as the new 5 who joined after profits began to come in? Why or why not?
Click to expand...

I'm not going argue with that whole response, but I will say this:

If Fred made a company and spent 5 years on said labour and materials recuperating what was spent, after that Fred runs at a profit.

Fair do's, he deserves it.

But, 25 years later, if Fred is only incrementally increasing wages for employees' skills increasing his profit, why shouldn't said employees share in that benefit/ bonus?
 
Bigga said:
I'm not going argue with that whole response, but I will say this:

If Fred made a company and spent 5 years on said labour and materials recuperating what was spent, after that Fred runs at a profit.

Fair do's, he deserves it.

But, 25 years later, if Fred is only incrementally increasing wages for employees' skills increasing his profit, why shouldn't said employees share in that benefit/ bonus?
Click to expand...
Interesting...

Alright suppose we agree that continued entrepreneural profit should be limited in time.

Let's say we have a country practicing this time capped capitalist system. I.e a limited period of profiting prior to it reverting into a co-op. I'd suggest a simple system (perhaps a recoup investment plus 5 years) And after that you switch to a co-op profit sharing system.

Are there any problems you can forsee with such a system? And if so what are they?

Would said country be able to convince more countries to switch from Communism, socialism and regular capitalism to this system?

Besides the foreseeable external problems from other yet to adopt countries. Are there any internal systemic problems you can forsee? And if so, how would you suggest those problems be dealt with?

I'd like to explore this idea. So if there are any economists or system enthusiasts, please feel free to jump in.
 
@Bigga

Thanks for these threads. You seem to have a talent where you start debate without name calling of personal insults. You're a credit to this place.
.
 
Dax777 said:
Interesting...

Alright suppose we agree that continued entrepreneural profit should be limited in time.

Let's say we have a country practicing this time capped capitalist system. I.e a limited period of profiting prior to it reverting into a co-op. I'd suggest a simple system (perhaps a recoup investment plus 5 years) And after that you switch to a co-op profit sharing system.

Are there any problems you can forsee with such a system? And if so what are they?

Would said country be able to convince more countries to switch from Communism, socialism and regular capitalism to this system?

Besides the foreseeable external problems from other yet to adopt countries. Are there any internal systemic problems you can forsee? And if so, how would you suggest those problems be dealt with?

I'd like to explore this idea. So if there are any economists or system enthusiasts, please feel free to jump in.
Click to expand...

So, funnily enough, there IS a space for this existence to blossom.

Representative Ro Khanna calls himself a 'capitalist progressive', which by reason, would be inclusive of and/ or a step aside from a democratic socialist. I mention him cos he was on Fox Business, 2 weeks ago, debunking many of the right wing talking points.

So, a 'capitalist progressive' would, to my mind, realise that after serving themselves and their board wealth along with seeing a growth in profit that could sustain itself, would then be willing to share that dividend with the workers, starting with most loyal in terms of bonus share. If you've been with a company for x amount of years, your percentage should work out accordingly.

There are many ways to work out tiers, so I don't want to get bogged down that.

A company can have its boot on the neck of it employees to induce a profit or it can work, with incentives for those employees to gain the same profit and better working practices inflating the value of the company.

The problem with countries not being on this wavelength is that the US tends to set the trend on working practices, regardless of if there ARE other smaller countries more in line with democratic socialist ideologies. This why they're ignored on the world stage and thus, why people are surprised when they discover the information.

*As I write this I am stopping my train-of-thought and examining what I'm thinking on the net. Let me share my finding as there is, actually not very much on the subject:

https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2019/04/27/progressive-capitalism-an-oxymoron/

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2013/12/23/1264507/-Progressive-Capitalism

I think, we have to find entrepreneurs unafraid to want to benefit society. Not afraid to share their wealth, whilst not afraid to build their own legacy.

Cos, right now, this sole capitalist direction is about self.
 
Last edited:
mat said:
@Bigga

Thanks for these threads. You seem to have a talent where you start debate without name calling of personal insults. You're a credit to this place.
.
Click to expand...

Aw, thank you Mat.

That's really cool to know you feel like that. I don't want to insult anyone, just want to examine my own thoughts, positive or negative(even though I find myself posting many of these thoughts without much response!).

I keep doing it in hope it opens a thought process for someone else! LOL!
 
  • Like
Reactions: mat
Bigga said:
Aw, thank you Mat.

That's really cool to know you feel like that. I don't want to insult anyone, just want to examine my own thoughts, positive or negative(even though I find myself posting many of these thoughts without much response!).

I keep doing it in hope it opens a thought process for someone else! LOL!
Click to expand...
I recently just found this section, but you can be rest assured I'll be chiming in now that I know about this. Granted it has to be about a topic I'm somewhat familiar with. I'm not familiar with a lot though. So that could be limiting :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.