The rich don't pay enough in taxes.

[DeeJayH]

Though your copying and pasting is admittedly amusing

Busted :lamo

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Your lack of understanding of anarchism will continue to doom your arguments. Direct democratic management is precisely what anarchist organizational theory entails, not "non governance." You seem to have committed the common fallacy of assuming that anarchism is synonymous with "chaos" or "disorder."

I didn't say that. Why are you putting words in my mouth, I understand what you mean by anarchy just fine.

There's certainly been extensive evidence provided that's indicated as much. We've specifically referred to microeconomic analysis in the way of Logue and Yates and their analyses of labor cooperatives and forms of profit sharing capitalism, and to empirical analysis of the efficiency gains and social benefits provided by the Spanish anarchist collectives. We might also indicate the numerous economic growth gains and improved social benefits promoted by the socialist Bolivarian Revolution of Venezuela (although you've exhibited a tendency to wordlessly dismiss such evidence in the past), the Argentine factory recovery movement, and the experiences of Titoist Yugoslavia and the Israeli kibbutzim, though there is a complex ideological spiderweb involved in those examples. And that's just to name a few.

If we were to again refer to the vibrant literature on worker participation, we might refer to Doucouliagos's Worker Participation and Productivity in Labor Manages and Participatory Capitalist Firms: A Meta-Analysis, especially considering the validity of Hunter and Schmidt's observation that "scientists have known for centuries that a single study will not resolve a major issue. Indeed, a small sample study will not even resolve a minor issue. Thus, the foundation of science is the cumulation of knowledge from the results of many studies." As noted by the abstract:

Do you have similar empirical evidence to offer?

It is not conclusive though.

I don't out right reject them, I'm suggesting that since there are no absolutes that there are examples where similar organizations have not done so well.

Since a lot of researchers tend to look only where they can prove there point though it is not always easy to show otherwise.

Anecdotal speculation without empirical value.

I don't need empirical evidence since small businesses make up the majority of businesses in existence in the U.S.

That alone necessitates that they are at least equally competitive than higher ordered organizations

Unless of course you disagree.

Then your objection is a technical one related to access to productive assets and resources (specifically manpower), rather than an ideological one related to legitimate criticism of an anarchist organizational structure.

...And is there a reason that you continue to not provide information on why an anarchist military organization would not be able to utilize modern technology in the same manner?

Honestly I reject your whole idea because it requires to many rational people to make it workable for any major length of time.

I was trying to show your that with all the technicalities that it can't work.

It was "short lived" because of external pressures in the way of Nazi-allied fascist assaults and Leninist sabotage from the anarchists' erstwhile "allies" in the Republican government, not because of an internal failure of anarchist organizational structure. Indeed, it is arguable that deviation from anarchist principles and alliance with a statist government was the downfall of the Spanish Revolution.

There's little empirical evidence to support that view, as the capitalist powers of the world developed from the very interventionism that they now disavow for poorer countries. Your "slow and steady" claim is merely odd speculation with essentially no evidence to support it. Are you sure you understand the nature of infant industries?

I understand infant industry and reject it in its whole.

It may be speculation to you but my hypothesis does not require perfect rational decision making and does not require dominance of competition.

It only requires that it exist along side cooperation.

At least my hypothesis is more logical than yours, there can be no long term mutual aid without an equal amount of competition.

If the majority represented middle and top earners, then what would effectively constitute the "upper class"?

That is exactly my point. You say people would revolt.

I say revolt against what?

The anarchist conception of surplus value involves the difference between a worker's wage and his/her marginal product contribution. If there are no set wage norms for investors and managers because of standard earnings fluctuation (which is effectively what your conception necessitates), how then would you determine precisely how their marginal product exceeded their wages? And referring back to the literature on the superior efficiency of worker participation in ownership and democratic management, why would you continue to favor a hierarchical firm structure?

I favor anyone who does anything that gains them a profit as long as they do so without violating any rational laws.

I don't care if the structure of the firm is a coop or hierarchical.
They both must exist.

It could be equally assigned to all the able-bodied so as to reduce the amount of time each individual had to spend involved in active duty or service. Initial participation in the collective is voluntary. Perhaps individual collectives will waive military service requirements if some volunteer for other similarly arduous work. But from where would military conflict even emerge on a grand scale, considering the abolition of nation-states that is an element of anarchist organization?

Not everyone would embrace such a utopian idea that you have presented.

Some of those who reject it on its face would inevitably smash your minor collectives.

If you say so.

There's a difference between informal organization between like-minded individuals with similar ideological beliefs, and actual societal organization, obviously. The former may be dependent on a communitarian perspective (though that would be dependent on the "outcome" of the "debate" on the existence of altruism), but the latter would at least be initially dependent on an egoist perspective. Again, I think it an interesting prospect that societies might transition toward a more communitarian perspective after the establishment of an anarchist society and socialist economy, but it would indeed be utopian to assume that it was an immediately existing condition.

What your not understanding is that all the glory of the establishment of an anarchist type state settles down, people will start to faction themselves at first informal and later formally.

As such each faction will vie for more power and benefits inside the collective.

Of course it isn't. But cooperation often has the effect of fostering rational egoism and individual self-interest to a greater extent than "competition" does. Most theories concerning the latter are based on a social Darwinist misappropriation of the practical applications of evolutionary psychology and such, at any rate.

And since you completely reject any truth that social Darwinism has in it, your structure will fail.

You can't have a structure with out near equal amounts of both competition and cooperation.

Perhaps not, but you might as well. The unfortunate consequences of some of your beliefs make it so that you might as well support the prospect of perfect competition.

I never supported perfect competition, in fact I require things to be imperfect otherwise it wouldn't function correctly.

That is where my hypothesis and yours diverge. You expect people to be more perfect than they are and I don't.

 

[Keorythe]

This entire commentary is invalid inasmuch as it assumes that there are no incentives in a socialist economy, which is a sadly common fallacy. Incentive problems certainly exist for state capitalism of the centralized, authoritarian variety, which is often inappropriately described as "socialism," but legitimate forms of socialism may maintain markets and wages, and even communism maintains compensation differentiations in response to input differentiations in that persons able but simply unwilling to work are denied access to public resources and may be expelled from their respective communes. The doctrine of "from each according to their ability" also permits for effort measurements by fellow workers of the model described by Albert and Hahnel, in my opinion.

Your entire response is invalid insomuch as it erroneously assumes the likeness of socialistic incentives which allow access vs. capitalistic incentives which increase productivity instead of mere maintanence. Unlike capitalistic incentives the socialistic incentives are uniform across with little to no possible increases in quality or quantity whereas capitalistic incentives have rates which will grow or shrink according to productivity and profit. The "compensation differentiations" once again are merely status quo and invite little to no incentives for harder work.

Your cartoon is also incredibly wrong in that it leaves out many responsibilities and overheads that come with any business and focusing strictly on wage vs. output. Lets not even bring in R&D or company growth funds.

 

[Goshin]

I have a terrible headache.

Why, oh why, did I read this thread? :boom

:duel

I have two words to say about anarchy. Not the dream-vision, the reality when there is no government:

Somalia
Lebanon (a couple decades ago)


In the absence of government, warlords and bandits rule.

"If men were angels, there would be no need of government; however, men are not angels."



G.

 

[scourge99]

And again, that is a precise depiction of the erroneous nature of selectively incorporated anecdotal evidence, which does nothing whatsoever to sufficiently acknowledge the widely varying degree of human behaviors and actions that "in my experience" claims (which you yourself lack, apparently, considering your copying and pasting), are unable to address.

I was simply countering the absurd cartoon you posted. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Agnapostate]

Reference to scale is my point.

I understand that. But the sentence you chose to attack was little more than a casual comment, and you effectively utilized it as a strawman while dismissing the fact that the central focus of the paper was elsewhere.

First off it was not my argument that ESOPS were more efficient and profitable on the margin, than capital based firms of equal asset class and workforce. I asked you to provide balance sheets, and you could not. Now, i am going to admit that worker owned operatives are very efficient, but it is not as though they are any more efficient than a single owner firm of relative scale.

I don't see how you're able to maintain such a belief, considering that Logue and Yates determined that "A survey of empirical research on productivity in worker-owned enterprises and cooperatives finds a substantial literature that largely supports the proposition that worker-owned enterprises equal or exceed the productivity of conventional enterprises when employee involvement is combined with ownership," (and of course issues of scale were accounted for), and that analyses of Ohio ESOPs yielded results indicating improvements after the establishment of some degree of worker participation in the firm. More than that, Doucouliagos's meta-analysis indicated that even greater efficiency gains can be reaped through the establishment of democratic management within firms.

Do you enjoy assuming the consequent?

Immensely.

Who is their CEO? Your so called corporation does not seem to operate under a traditional corporate structure.

What "traditional corporate structure" do you assume has a monopoly over the term? Does it contradict the opinion of the humble American Heritage Dictionary?

corporation: A body of persons acting under a legal charter as a separate entity having its own rights, privileges, and liabilities

Do you think the creation of a single cooperative would necessitate the creation of a "separate entity"?

I didn't say that. Why are you putting words in my mouth, I understand what you mean by anarchy just fine.

Your reference to "non governance" suggests otherwise.

It is not conclusive though.

I don't out right reject them, I'm suggesting that since there are no absolutes that there are examples where similar organizations have not done so well.

Since a lot of researchers tend to look only where they can prove there point though it is not always easy to show otherwise.

In a sense, nothing's ever truly "conclusive." But a detailed meta-analysis certainly provides a degree of certainty that an isolated study cannot, and would not be subject to the selective incorporation of data that an isolated study would, at least not to the same degree. Unless you'd have us dispense with empirical evidence altogether, you're really going to have to provide us with something more substantive than this.

I don't need empirical evidence since small businesses make up the majority of businesses in existence in the U.S.

That alone necessitates that they are at least equally competitive than higher ordered organizations

Unless of course you disagree.

I'm not interested in discussing differences between large and small capitalist firms. My interest is in different varieties of organization in enterprises of similar scale, and in validating my observations about the improved productivity of democratic management by workers.

Honestly I reject your whole idea because it requires to many rational people to make it workable for any major length of time.

I was trying to show your that with all the technicalities that it can't work.

A criticism more applicable to free market capitalism, which necessitates primitive and utopian belief in the "rational economic man," and fails to address the intricacies of an economic framework that the libertarian socialist notes. Anarchist social organization and libertarian socialist economic organization has a proven history of success, unlike capitalism. Since I am an empiricist rather than an idealist, I am therefore obligated to lend my support to the former. I'd be entirely willing to be a free market capitalist if I thought it was a feasible economic framework that would maximize efficiency and social benefits, but attempts to enact it have had the effect of minimizing both.

I understand infant industry and reject it in its whole.

There can be no meaningful "rejection" of the infant industries argument, nor of its applications. It's simply a reality that capitalist powers of the world relied on the very form of interventionism that they now disavow for developing countries...a wise decision considering the 1990's collapse of the Asian "tigers" and other "model students" of neoliberalism.

It may be speculation to you but my hypothesis does not require perfect rational decision making and does not require dominance of competition.

It only requires that it exist along side cooperation.

At least my hypothesis is more logical than yours, there can be no long term mutual aid without an equal amount of competition.

Your analysis as a whole requires ignorance of the intricacies of a capitalist economy. I'd like to see you offer a rational response to my citation of Shapiro and Stiglitz, for instance.

That is exactly my point. You say people would revolt.

I say revolt against what?

Actually existing economic structure, as opposed to the conception that you offered. Violent insurrection outside of the electoral process is unlikely in advanced Western democracies (though it may occur elsewhere), but as patience with the financial class wears thin, an expansion of Rhine capitalism or "leftist" forms of profit sharing capitalism may occur.

 

[Agnapostate]

I favor anyone who does anything that gains them a profit as long as they do so without violating any rational laws.

I don't care if the structure of the firm is a coop or hierarchical.
They both must exist.

What are you even talking about here? Why would you favor the existence of the traditional capitalist firm, in light of its inefficiency?

Not everyone would embrace such a utopian idea that you have presented.

I haven't presented a "utopian" idea. Unlike your favored form of economic organization, mine enjoys a record of actual existence.

Some of those who reject it on its face would inevitably smash your minor collectives.

We have extensively discussed forms of anarchist military organization. It's interesting to see that you irrationally dismiss that dialogue without evidence or arguments to support your conclusion.

What your not understanding is that all the glory of the establishment of an anarchist type state settles down, people will start to faction themselves at first informal and later formally.

As such each faction will vie for more power and benefits inside the collective.

Anarchism does not and cannot involve the existence of a "state." Remember that. What you don't seem to understand is that the nature of participation in an anarchist society has always made the nature of participation in a federal republic look ridiculously trivial. Though separate "factions" of sorts will obviously exist, and though such factions will maintain different degrees of influence at times, it is improbable that one faction will seize a coercive authority over others in the collective or federation due to the intense nature of active citizen participation in a collective or federation. This is an observation borne out by analyses of actually existing anarchism in Spain.

And since you completely reject any truth that social Darwinism has in it, your structure will fail.

You can't have a structure with out near equal amounts of both competition and cooperation.

Do you even understand the nature of social Darwinism? It's far more expansive than mere "competition." Your assessment is false; it would be preferable to maintain social and economic structures characterized by cooperation rather than competition. This is not a platform that naively relies on the "elimination" of competition (as capitalism effectively does to cooperation, in a sense), but doesn't expect it to play as major a role as it currently does, due to the tendency that competition can have in inhibiting self-interest at times, a tendency that cooperation is hard-pressed to suffer from.

I never supported perfect competition, in fact I require things to be imperfect otherwise it wouldn't function correctly.

That is where my hypothesis and yours diverge. You expect people to be more perfect than they are and I don't.

On the contrary, if I expected people to be perfect, I'd be a supporter of free market capitalism. Socialism is merely the pragmatic alternative for those that recognize the fallibility of human nature, and therefore seek an effective means of utilizing actual human psychology and tendencies in economic organization rather than utopian fantasies.

Your entire response is invalid insomuch as it erroneously assumes the likeness of socialistic incentives which allow access vs. capitalistic incentives which increase productivity instead of mere maintanence. Unlike capitalistic incentives the socialistic incentives are uniform across with little to no possible increases in quality or quantity whereas capitalistic incentives have rates which will grow or shrink according to productivity and profit. The "compensation differentiations" once again are merely status quo and invite little to no incentives for harder work.

That's not the case. A capitalist economic structure actually has tendencies towards provision of insufficient wages due to the nature of asymmetric information in a capitalist economy (see the aforementioned reference to Hofler and Murphy), which is able to have relation to the prevalence of shirking in the capitalist firm, and the subsequent compensation strategies utilized to prevent shirking, such as efficiency wages, as well as negative compensation frameworks such as a sufficiently high equilibrium unemployment rate. (See the aforementioned references to Shapiro and Stiglitz.) Involuntary unemployment is obviously wasteful, and capitalism will thus fail to maximize productivity in that external inefficiency is a necessary condition of internal efficiency.

A libertarian socialist economic framework, by contrast, permits for experimentation with different compensation models due to its voluntary nature, so specific systems will range from implementations of mutualism (and broader forms of market socialism) to collectivism to communism. If we were to utilize specific elements of Albert and Hahnel's participatory economics (parecon), an invaluable tool would be the compensation according to effort that is a component of a participatory economy, and the effort ratings granted to individual workers by their peers. Since, unlike the capitalist employer or manager, workers are the most equipped individuals to detect shirking among their own, libertarian socialism is thus superior to capitalism in this regard.

Your cartoon is also incredibly wrong in that it leaves out many responsibilities and overheads that come with any business and focusing strictly on wage vs. output.

No, it isn't. Your assumption is incorrect in insinuating that those (vaguely referenced) "responsibilities" aren't and cannot be anything but the domain of anyone but the hierarchical manager, despite the empirical evidence that has been posted indicating the improved efficiency of worker participation in firms, whether it be through ownership or democratic management, or best, through both.

Lets not even bring in R&D or company growth funds.

Capitalism's tendencies aren't towards the maximization of dynamic efficiency, so I agree that it's probably best for you not to venture into that arena.

I have a terrible headache.

Why, oh why, did I read this thread? :boom

:duel

I have two words to say about anarchy. Not the dream-vision, the reality when there is no government:

Somalia
Lebanon (a couple decades ago)

In the absence of government, warlords and bandits rule.

"If men were angels, there would be no need of government; however, men are not angels."

G.

The obvious problem with that assessment is that essentially no component of anarchist theory lends much support for the current situation in Somalia. The reign of warlords is effectively as great a hierarchical imposition as a centralized state. The common fallacy that anarchist theory equates to "chaos" or "disorder" is likely responsible for the mis-identification, I'd assume.

I also see no basis for calling anarchist organization a "dream." Unlike free market capitalism, anarchism has been successfully established on an inter-regional level and microeconomic analysis into democratic institutions within a capitalist economy provide a means for extrapolating analyses of such institutions into a libertarian socialist economic framework. Support of capitalism is effectively a "dream" since it necessitates a utopian belief in the "rational economic man" in an economic framework untainted by externalities, information asymmetries, or various market disequilibria.

I was simply countering the absurd cartoon you posted. Nothing more, nothing less.

No, you weren't. Not only did your anecdotal "evidence" have no practical application to the vast majority of agents in a capitalist economy, given the widely varying spectrum of human experience, you lacked the originality to regale us with am account of your own anectodal experience, instead opting for the crude copy and paste technique.

:2wave:

 

[Agnapostate]

bodhi, my friend! With all that thanks you're dispensing, you must have something very profound to say. Spit it out! :lol:

 

[scourge99]

No, you weren't. Not only did your anecdotal "evidence" have no practical application to the vast majority of agents in a capitalist economy

Strawman. I'm not so naïve as to suggest that EVERY business owner went through this exact same struggle. Were you under that impression? I surely hope not.

But perhaps you believe your cartoon can pass with the same absurd generalizations you accuse me of peddling? Specifically that all business owners are stealthily and nefariously stealing the fruits of their employees labor? :lol:

given the widely varying spectrum of human experience, you lacked the originality to regale us with am account of your own anectodal experience, instead opting for the crude copy and paste technique.

oh of course. My position is entirely refuted because I myself am not Pete from the example I posted. God forbid someone posts an example outside personal experience because in the world of Agnapostate the mere thought of such a preposterous idea is beyond disgust! </sarcasm>

If you have anything worthwhile to add other than strawmen and absurd notions that anything beyond personal experience is worthless let me know.

 

[Agnapostate]

Strawman. I'm not so naïve as to suggest that EVERY business owner went through this exact same struggle. Were you under that impression? I surely hope not.

But perhaps you believe your cartoon can pass with the same absurd generalizations you accuse me of peddling? Specifically that all business owners are stealthily and nefariously stealing the fruits of their employees labor? :lol:

That's not what the cartoon ever intended to prove. Though you hoped that it depicted a crude stereotype...to satisfy a crude stereotype of your own, really (all socialists believe that entrepreneurs are evil and malevolent demons), it describes the nature of an economic cycle rather than aiming to describe the actions of individual agents. No malevolence or even conscious extraction of surplus value is even necessary.

oh of course. My position is entirely refuted because I myself am not Pete from the example I posted. God forbid someone posts an example outside personal experience because in the world of Agnapostate the mere thought of such a preposterous idea is beyond disgust! </sarcasm>

If you have anything worthwhile to add other than strawmen and absurd notions that anything beyond personal experience is worthless let me know.

I have not claimed that personal experience is "worthless," contrary to your mendacious account. I claimed that in the context of policy formation, analyses of personal experience could not match up against empirical evidence of the statistical nature because of the widely varying spectrum of human behaviors and experiences. So other than your crude copying and pasting, you've contributed absolutely nothing to this thread.

:2wave:

 

[Sedrox]

So I'm sitting here and watching someone try and brand a capitalist workerplace (co-op) as a socialist idea since the workers also buy into the company.

incorrect. the rejection of capitalism is the rejection of private property - i.e. capital. that means it's the rejection of someone having the ability to acquire wealth without labor. it has nothing to do with markets, it has to do with the status of labor and the concept of property, in terms of how it applies in economic theory.

so you can be a pro market socialist.

Socialism doesn't give that incentive to work harder, neither does communism.

the theory of wage efficiency disagrees.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

incorrect. the rejection of capitalism is the rejection of private property - i.e. capital. that means it's the rejection of someone having the ability to acquire wealth without labor. it has nothing to do with markets, it has to do with the status of labor and the concept of property, in terms of how it applies in economic theory.

so you can be a pro market socialist.

Welcome to DP!

 

[Sedrox]

Welcome to DP!

thanks. i don't like introductions so i felt like i would just jump right in haha.

 

[Agnapostate]

incorrect. the rejection of capitalism is the rejection of private property - i.e. capital. that means it's the rejection of someone having the ability to acquire wealth without labor. it has nothing to do with markets, it has to do with the status of labor and the concept of property, in terms of how it applies in economic theory.

so you can be a pro market socialist.

What's unfortunate is that any such concept is completely foreign to their minds. I'm not a market socialist, but I do think it insightful to note Jaroslav Vanek's observation that "the capitalist economy is not a true market economy because in western capitalism, as in Soviet state capitalism, there is a tendency towards monopoly. Economic democracy tends toward a competitive market."

 

[Sedrox]

What's unfortunate is that any such concept is completely foreign to their minds. I'm not a market socialist, but I do think it insightful to note Jaroslav Vanek's observation that "the capitalist economy is not a true market economy because in western capitalism, as in Soviet state capitalism, there is a tendency towards monopoly. Economic democracy tends toward a competitive market."

the average capitalist is pretty closed minded toward such theories.

granted that doesn't apply to everyone.

 

[Orcprocess]

Here are my problems with capitalism:

1) It is inherently unfair, with profits earned by a wealthy minority disproportionately to the value of their labour.

2) It encourages the perpetuation of wealth, with wealth being passed down through generations and better facilities and opportunities for the rich, thereby encouraging class divisions and destroying the notion of equal opportunities that capitalism is based on.

3) It turns workers into commodities to be bought or sold, and if a worker's skills do not match the skills currently in demand then he will be forced into unemployment without, in absolute capitalism, any state support.

 

[scourge99]

Here are my problems with capitalism:

1) It is inherently unfair, with profits earned by a wealthy minority disproportionately to the value of their labour.

So you think that 100 men that can dig holes is more valuable than a single man who can hire, direct, and manage the 100 men to dig the holes?

There's a reason some people are wealthy and its not just because they inherited it or somehow cheated the system.

2) It encourages the perpetuation of wealth, with wealth being passed down through generations and better facilities and opportunities for the rich, thereby encouraging class divisions and destroying the notion of equal opportunities that capitalism is based on.

As opposed to equality, where no one strives to be better than his fellow because there is no reward that favors the bold and inventive.

3) It turns workers into commodities to be bought or sold, and if a worker's skills do not match the skills currently in demand then he will be forced into unemployment without, in absolute capitalism, any state support.

Amazing that we've had such low unemployment rate for so many years then. Must be a long term and consistent anomaly.:2razz:

 

[Agnapostate]

So you think that 100 men that can dig holes is more valuable than a single man who can hire, direct, and manage the 100 men to dig the holes?

The conventional capitalist firm is a model of various elements of inefficiency. The separation of ownership and control that is the norm in a state of affairs characterized by classification into the financial, coordinator, and working classes causes divergent and sometimes opposing interests among these classes (for instance, if a firm's workers are sufficiently productive that the owners wish to cut working hours and thus worker pay, workers have an incentive to undercut productivity), which causes principal-agent problems.

Conversely, the socialist economy is based on public ownership and management of the means of production, and therefore, workers' management of their respective industries and sectors. The libertarian socialist (anarchist, council communist, etc.) economy in particular is based on autogestion, or workers' self-management. Hence, we can analyze the merits of worker-owned enterprises and labor cooperatives in the capitalist economy and extrapolate that data to conceptions of a prospective socialist economy. For instance, I typically point to Doucouliagos's Worker participation and productivity in labor-managed and participatory capitalist firms: A meta-. As noted by the abstract:

Using meta-analytic techniques, the author synthesizes the results of 43 published studies to investigate the effects on productivity of various forms of worker participation: worker participation in decision making; mandated codetermination; profit sharing; worker ownership (employee stock ownership or individual worker ownership of the firm's assets); and collective ownership of assets (workers' collective ownership of reserves over which they have no individual claim). He finds that codetermination laws are negatively associated with productivity, but profit sharing, worker ownership, and worker participation in decision making are all positively associated with productivity. All the observed correlations are stronger among labor-managed firms (firms owned and controlled by workers) than among participatory capitalist firms (firms adopting one or more participation schemes involving employees, such as ESOPs or quality circles).

Doucouliagos's meta-analysis is thus worthy of commendation both because of its naturally comprehensive nature due to its meta-analytic status, as well as the study of the improvements of democratic management above and beyond the mere worker-owned enterprise. I honestly find it amusing that anti-socialists would continue to extol the virtues of the conventional capitalist firm when the empirical literature almost always indicates the superior efficiency of the worker-owned enterprise and its derivatives, a result almost unprecedented in social research.

There's a reason some people are wealthy and its not just because they inherited it or somehow cheated the system.

That is not a claim supported by empirical research. For instance, we could refer to the analysis of Summers and Kotlikoff in The Role of Intergenerational Transfers in Aggregate Capital Accumulation. As noted by the abstract:

This paper uses historical U.S. data to directly estimate the contribution of intergenerational transfers to aggregate capital accumulation. The evidence presented indicates that intergenerational transfers account for the vast majority of aggregate U.S. capital formation; only a negligible fraction of actual capital accumulation can be traced to life-cycle or "hump" savings.

We can of course also refer to the role of the phase of primitive accumulation of capital in enabling the current masters of the means of production and their private ownership, which would be accurately condemned as authoritarian if manifested through the vessel of a state.

As opposed to equality, where no one strives to be better than his fellow because there is no reward that favors the bold and inventive.

This is a tiresome and outworn talking point that merely illustrates ignorance of socialist political economy. Socialism does not seek equality of outcome, but of opportunity, and thus establishes an economic system wherein participants rise and fall based on their own merits. Compensation differentials remain a component of every socialist economy that I'm familiar with. For instance, the market socialist economy obviously retains markets, and thus, wages. The collectivist economy utilizes the equitable (not the equal) distribution of vouchers and similar wages based on productivity criteria, and the communist economy incorporates balanced job complexes and the means of withholding access to public resources and services for those able but merely unwilling to work.

Amazing that we've had such low unemployment rate for so many years then. Must be a long term and consistent anomaly.:2razz:

One critical reality is that we do not and cannot have full employment in a capitalist economy because a sufficiently high rate of equilibrium unemployment is necessary to maintain a disciplinary stick against shirking. The classic model is of course presented by Shapiro and Stiglitz in Equilibrium Unemployment as a Worker Discipline Device. As noted therein:

To induce its workers not to shirk, the firm attempts to pay more than the “going wage”; then, if a worker is caught shirking and is fired, he will pay a penalty. If it pays one firm to raise its wage, however, it will pay all firms to raise their wages. When they all raise their wages, the incentive not to shirk again disappears. But as all firms raise their wages, their demand for labor decreases, and unemployment results. With unemployment, even if all firms pay the same wages, a worker has an incentive not to shirk. For, if he is fired, an individual will not immediately obtain another job. The equilibrium unemployment rate must be sufficiently high that it pays workers to work rather than to take the risk of being caught shirking.

Since unemployment is a form of static inefficiency (involuntary unemployment being an obvious example of a wasted resource), external inefficiency is thus a necessary condition of internal efficiency in the capitalist economy. Socialism merely eliminates this error through a variety of ways depending on the specific economic structure involved (competitive firms of small, labor-owned markets, a participatory scheme of decentralized economic structure, etc.), and thus eliminates an inefficiency that the capitalist economy is burdened with.

 

[Orcprocess]

So you think that 100 men that can dig holes is more valuable than a single man who can hire, direct, and manage the 100 men to dig the holes?

Clearly. 100 Men undirected can still produce as much as say 50 men at the least, and probably as much as 100 Men after a short while. 1 Director without anyone working for him can't produce the same as 2 Men, let alone 100.

 

[Objective Voice]

Tax paid

The top 5% pay 53.25%
The top 10% pay 64.89%
The top 25% pay 82.9%
The top 50% pay 96.03%

The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.97% of all income taxes.

The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%!

income earned.

The top 1% earns 17.53
The top 5% earns 31.99
The top 10% earns 43.11%
the top 25% earns 65.23%
the top 50% earns 86.19%

John Weicher, as a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank, wrote in his February 13, 1997 Washington Post Op-Ed, "Most of the rich have earned their wealth... Looking at the Fortune 400, quite a few even of the very richest people came from a standing start, while others inherited a small business and turned it into a giant corporation." What's happening here is not that "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer." The numbers prove it.

The figures above are a bit misleading. Without seeing the income levels of those percentiles, it's easy to misconstrue the numbers.

From 2006 IRS statistics:

Column 1 - Percentiles Ranked by AGI
Column 2 - AGI Threshold on Percentiles
Column 3 - Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid

Top 1% - $388,806 - 39.89
Top 5% - $153,542 - 60.14
Top 10% - $108,904 - 70.79
Top 25% - $64,702 - 86.27
Top 50% - $31,987 - 97.01
Bottom 50% - <$31,987 - 2.99

Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service

You can find charts that support these figures back to 1999 at the National Taxpayers Union's website.

Per IRS figures, it is those who earn less who pay a larger percentage of their income toward federal income taxes. Doesn't necessarily mean they pay more dollar-for-dollar, just that per capita income those earning less than $65K annually have less income to work with after taxes. Not surprising, at least 50% of this country's tax base is comprised of those making less than $32K/annually. Those who didn't know this already are either too rich and don't care or too blind and are listening too much to the talking heads instead of doing their homework and finding the facts for themselves.

 

[Orion]

The rich write tax policy, and they own industry. I don't see what the point is in taxing them more. It's like taking water out of a barrel and then putting it back into the same barrel.

 

[DeeJayH]

Clearly. 100 Men undirected can still produce as much as say 50 men at the least, and probably as much as 100 Men after a short while. 1 Director without anyone working for him can't produce the same as 2 Men, let alone 100.

1 man can hire as many laborers as he needs to be as productive as needed

 

[scourge99]

The rich write tax policy, and they own industry. I don't see what the point is in taxing them more. It's like taking water out of a barrel and then putting it back into the same barrel.

and how do they put the water back in the barrel? Did Microsoft or other companies receive lump sum payments from the government for free or disproportionate to their work?

I'm sure there are "secret payments" or an example or 2 of corruption that prove that its widespread :roll:.

The problem with conspiracy theories is always the same: proving them. Kind of like those dryer gnomes who always steal just one of your socks.

 

[Orcprocess]

So you think that 100 men that can dig holes is more valuable than a single man who can hire, direct, and manage the 100 men to dig the holes?

There's a reason some people are wealthy and its not just because they inherited it or somehow cheated the system.

While the system can and does get cheated to make people rich *cough* ENRON *cough* that is not the criticism - the criticism is that the system is unfair to begin with.

As opposed to equality, where no one strives to be better than his fellow because there is no reward that favors the bold and inventive.

Whilst cases of self made millionaires are exemplary - and let's not decry them for their good luck - I think you're willfuly neglecting the evidence that the vast majority of people who are not millionaires still enjoy very variable amounts of wealth, which is inheritied. And that the children of self made millionaires also inherit their wealth - herein lies the contradiction of capitalism.

It claims to allow anyone to rise by merit - assuming they have the capital to invest in a business which is successful. Those who's families have been successful have this capital, those who's families have not do not.

A capitalist system is not, cannot, be solely merit dependent (in economic terms this can be stated simply - 'there are barriers to entry').

These barriers are erected by those on the top - the companies, the law makers - to protect their privilege.

In a capitalist labour market it is also necessary to have some unemployment in order to keep labour costs, and thus inflation, down. This unemployment then breeds poverty, which in turn prejudices against those who wish to enjoy the capitalist system by worth of merit alone; for they find they cannot.

Look at the ONS, the HBAI, the CRAE figures. I am not making a theoretical case - this is happening, and one exception to the rule does not justify one hundred victims of it.

The free market is an efficient economic system, however capitalism is not a fair societal structure; and neither is it more libertarian or meritocratic than any other societal structure. Joseph Stalin Rose on merit - amongst his many declamations none would dare to list "capitalist"
It is not daring and hard work alone that underpin advancement in capitalism. Can anyone gainsay me that?

Amazing that we've had such low unemployment rate for so many years then. Must be a long term and consistent anomaly.:2razz:

8.9% is low (that's for the US). For us Brits it is 3 million predicted to go up to 4 million by the end of the year.

You have an interesting depiction of 'low'.

 

[Orcprocess]

1 man can hire as many laborers as he needs to be as productive as needed

Until they run out of places to dig up.

But what if there were 100 labourers, who also doubled as 100 directors, who can hire as many labourer/directors as needed?