Corporation Socialism

[Belinda]

Look, I get it, Will.

No you don't.

You're personally dependent on the NHS, and you mistake a single social program for Socialism (which is a totalizing political and ideological position) as if everything Socialist worked like the NHS.

That's ad hominem. As I said:

As well as creating the NHS, the Attlee government nationalised coal, electricity, gas, steel, railways, road transport, civil aviation and the Bank of England. That was about a fifth of the economy. Nationalised industries don't kill people, murderous tyrants do.

In my view, a mixed economy has the advantage that everyone has a stake in certain industries such that they are run for the benefit of everyone, rather than just those with the means to own privatised shares.

The NHS couldn't survive a year without what you call "capitalist" money-generation through a free market economy. Even with that, it's your most expensive single social program, gobbling up much more than it returns to your GDP. In other words, it will only remain in place if "capitalist" enterprise remains vigorous as well.

My thanks to FlashDangerpants for this:

The neoliberal in me feels required to point out that actually Immanuel Can might be economically illiterate to a roughly similar extent that he is philosophically illiterate. Welfare programs functions as insurance and like all insurance policies the point is to spread the cost across a wide population of events that would be financially devastating for the individual. The notion of there being any need for them to be "self sustaining" is a canard that would be rejected both by socialists and capitalists.

It's like saying that your car insurer wouldn't last a week without collecting premiums from policy holders: True, but only in the stupidest way possible.

And the irony, then, is that what you think is "Socialism" depends entirely for its existence on the very "capitalist" business practices you claim to despise.

You really don't get it. Nowhere have I claimed to despise "capitalist" business practices.

Immanuel Can, is it or is it not good for the economy when the labour force is healthy and literate?
Is it profitable when all employees are also co-owners of the capital investment i.e. the business ?

[Immanuel Can]

Nationalised industries don't kill people, murderous tyrants do.

Nationalized economies centralize power, and eliminate all authority but the centralized State. This makes them candy for dictators, and in every case in history, a dictator has come and taken the candy.

100%. That's one heck of a percentage of failure.

So what gives you the belief that the next of Socialist regime will produce a different result? Isn't one definition of insanity "...doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result"?

Welfare programs functions as insurance and like all insurance policies the point is to spread the cost across a wide population of events that would be financially devastating for the individual.

But they do so only by stealing the achievements of those who earned them, and distributing them to those that have not earned them. And this means that they drain the economy. They always take out more value than they put in; and that works out well for the recipients, but very badly for the rest of the people, and really disastrously for the national economy.

Maybe you don't personally feel the consequences, because you're a beneficiary and not paying the price. Maybe you're happy for the consequences of economic failure to be visited fully on coming generations, because you know you won't be around. But maybe that's not the most moral impulse.

The notion of there being any need for them to be "self sustaining" is a canard

Oh, really? If it's not self-sustaining, it's economically-draining. That means it's doomed.

Put a couple of inches of water in your kitchen sink. Then put the tap on a dribble, and pull the plug. And watch what happens. A little water flows in, but more flows out. That's not self-sustaining.

Then tell everybody that "self-sustaining" is just a "canard."

And the irony, then, is that what you think is "Socialism" depends entirely for its existence on the very "capitalist" business practices you claim to despise.

You really don't get it.

Well, somebody doesn't. That's for sure.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can, is it or is it not good for the economy when the labour force is healthy and literate?

That totally depends.

If that "labour force" is actually "labouring," and adding more value than is being drained out of the economy by their care, and by the inefficient bureaucracy being used to implement the social programs, then it's sustainable, and it's good.

If the "labour force" isn't actually "labouring," and value is draining out of the economy, and the bureaucracy is being allowed to rob the populace through corruption, then it's unsustainable and crashes the economy.

So it doesn't depend on the health or literacy themselves, but on what the people are doing with their health and literacy.

Is it profitable when all employees are also co-owners of the capital investment i.e. the business ?

No. Because the employees are already paid for their labour, and can take their labour elsewhere if they don't like the pay. But "capital investment" is usually done by those who are willing to take risks that, by definition, "employees" are not, and to add value that the "employees" cannot.

For example, let's take an employee of a hotel. He works as a valet, parking cars.

Other than his wage, what is he owed?

He did not raise the investment to build the hotel. He did not risk his own finances to establish it. He didn't pay for advertising. He doesn't have to pay the bill for food for guests, or architecture fees, or wages for other employees, or assume any risk of being sued, other than for what he personally does. He doesn't pay payroll tax. He did not pave the parking lot. He does not own the cars he parks. His uniform was purchased by his employer. He does not know anything about boards, or liabilities, or property taxes, or capital gains taxes, or expenses of a hotel, or the price of light fixtures, or water repairs, or heat bills, or being a manager or a CEO and running the day-to-day business of a hotel. He knows how to park somebody else's car, and to do it politely. That's his contribution.

So what is he owed? What is the actual value of his "labour"? What number would you estimate, and why? And compared to that, what is the actual value of the work put in by the person who established the hotel?

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can, is it or is it not good for the economy when the labour force is healthy and literate?

That totally depends.

If that "labour force" is actually "labouring," and adding more value than is being drained out of the economy by their care, and by the inefficient bureaucracy being used to implement the social programs, then it's sustainable, and it's good.

If the "labour force" isn't actually "labouring," and value is draining out of the economy, and the bureaucracy is being allowed to rob the populace through corruption, then it's unsustainable and crashes the economy.

So it doesn't depend on the health or literacy themselves, but on what the people are doing with their health and literacy.

Is it profitable when all employees are also co-owners of the capital investment i.e. the business ?

No. Because the employees are already paid for their labour, and can take their labour elsewhere if they don't like the pay. But "capital investment" is usually done by those who are willing to take risks that, by definition, "employees" are not, and to add value that the "employees" cannot.

For example, let's take an employee of a hotel. He works as a valet, parking cars.

Other than his wage, what is he owed?

He did not raise the investment to build the hotel. He did not risk his own finances to establish it. He didn't pay for advertising. He doesn't have to pay the bill for food for guests, or architecture fees, or wages for other employees, or assume any risk of being sued, other than for what he personally does. He doesn't pay payroll tax. He did not pave the parking lot. He does not own the cars he parks. His uniform was purchased by his employer. He does not know anything about boards, or liabilities, or property taxes, or capital gains taxes, or expenses of a hotel, or the price of light fixtures, or water repairs, or heat bills, or being a manager or a CEO and running the day-to-day business of a hotel. He knows how to park somebody else's car, and to do it politely. That's his contribution.

So what is he owed? What is the actual value of his "labour"? What number would you estimate, and why? And compared to that, what is the actual value of the work put in by the person who established the hotel?

Co-ownership by all who work in an industry is bought as a share by each worker upon taking up employment. This motivates workers to make the industry profitable. Each worker is a partner.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can, is it or is it not good for the economy when the labour force is healthy and literate?

That totally depends.

If that "labour force" is actually "labouring," and adding more value than is being drained out of the economy by their care, and by the inefficient bureaucracy being used to implement the social programs, then it's sustainable, and it's good.

If the "labour force" isn't actually "labouring," and value is draining out of the economy, and the bureaucracy is being allowed to rob the populace through corruption, then it's unsustainable and crashes the economy.

So it doesn't depend on the health or literacy themselves, but on what the people are doing with their health and literacy.

Is it profitable when all employees are also co-owners of the capital investment i.e. the business ?

No. Because the employees are already paid for their labour, and can take their labour elsewhere if they don't like the pay. But "capital investment" is usually done by those who are willing to take risks that, by definition, "employees" are not, and to add value that the "employees" cannot.

For example, let's take an employee of a hotel. He works as a valet, parking cars.

Other than his wage, what is he owed?

He did not raise the investment to build the hotel. He did not risk his own finances to establish it. He didn't pay for advertising. He doesn't have to pay the bill for food for guests, or architecture fees, or wages for other employees, or assume any risk of being sued, other than for what he personally does. He doesn't pay payroll tax. He did not pave the parking lot. He does not own the cars he parks. His uniform was purchased by his employer. He does not know anything about boards, or liabilities, or property taxes, or capital gains taxes, or expenses of a hotel, or the price of light fixtures, or water repairs, or heat bills, or being a manager or a CEO and running the day-to-day business of a hotel. He knows how to park somebody else's car, and to do it politely. That's his contribution.

So what is he owed? What is the actual value of his "labour"? What number would you estimate, and why? And compared to that, what is the actual value of the work put in by the person who established the hotel?

Co-ownership by all who work in an industry is bought as a share by each worker upon taking up employment.

You didn't answer. What percentage of the value of the business is owed to the valet? And how do you calculate it?

[Age]

Nationalised industries don't kill people, murderous tyrants do.

Nationalized economies centralize power, and eliminate all authority but the centralized State. This makes them candy for dictators, and in every case in history, a dictator has come and taken the candy.

100%. That's one heck of a percentage of failure.

So what gives you the belief that the next of Socialist regime will produce a different result? Isn't one definition of insanity "...doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result"?

Instead ONE centralized power like A "government', which ELIMINATES ALL other authorities, under the PRETENSE OF 'making the country great for the people', is NOT 'candy' for A "dictator", which IS 'currently' TAKING the CANDY FROM right out UNDER 'the babies' very noses.

Some people REALLY ARE ABSOLUTELY BLIND and OBLIVIOUS TO what is ACTUALLY HAPPENING and OCCURRING RIGHT BEFORE them.

LOL What are 'these people' thinking is GOING TO HAPPEN when OBVIOUSLY ALREADY PROVED MOST GREEDY of people, or in other words,"billionaires", are GOING TO DO WITH ALL of the money, and CONTROL, they are they OBTAINING, 'right now', when this is being written?

They, OBVIOUSLY, have NOT SHARED 'wealth' BEFORE, among the masses, so WHY do some BLINDLY BELIEVE that they WILL, later on?

LOL One of the BIGGEST DICTATORSHIPS IS HAPPENING and OCCURRING, 'right now', and some REALLY COULD NOT and, STILL, CAN NOT SEE it HAPPENING and OCCURRING.

'Capitalism', or A society where ONLY very FEW become 'monetary rich' AND who end up WITH CONTROL and POWER OVER others is, REALLY, what SOME people LOVE, WANT, and DESIRE.

For example, just ASK "immanuel can", here, what it WANTS and DESIRES, here.

Others, however, SEE sharing the words resources AMONG EVERY one, EQUALLY, leads to a FAR BETTER and FAR MORE 'humane world, society, and outcome' FOR EVERY one.

But, if "immanuel can" WANTS and DESIRES just ONE LEADER WITH CONTROL and POWER OVER it, and others, and living IN 'A Truly GREEDY and SELFISH society', where PROFITS and 'monetary gains' OVER RIDE JUST ABOUT EVERY thing ELSE, then so be. People GET what they WANT, and DESERVE.

If it was NOT SO SAD and SO UTTERLY Wrong, some could SEE the HILARITY IN the PRETENDING TO 'Make A mess Great Again', was REALLY just people being DISTRACTED and BLINDED TO 'them' becoming UNDER ANOTHER DICTATORSHIP.

It is Truly HILARIOUS TO WATCH and OBSERVE HOW some people BELIEVE that the central theme or essential feature of a society is to 'Make More and More Profits' is the BEST WAY TO live, while others SEE 'that' AS leading TO DICTATORSHIP in its WORST FORM.

And, for those people who SEE and BELIEVE that A 'making MORE PROFIT, for SOME ONLY, society' 'they' ALSO SEE and BELIEVE that A 'society', which is BASED ON and AROUND EQUALITY and SHARING, is or leads to A DICTATORSHIP.

AGAIN, SO EASILY and SO SIMPLY some are Truly DECEIVED, TRICKED, FOOLED, and BLIND.

Welfare programs functions as insurance and like all insurance policies the point is to spread the cost across a wide population of events that would be financially devastating for the individual.

But they do so only by stealing the achievements of those who earned them,

LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL

'This one' ACTUALLY BELIEVES, of ALL things, that those who have 'more money' than others have, LAUGHINGLY, 'earned' 'it' THROUGH ACTUAL 'work'.

'This one' could NOT be MORE BLIND and MORE STUPID, here.

'Those people' WITH the 'MOST money' did NOT ACTUALLY DO ANY ACTUAL 'labor' NOR 'work' like ACTUAL "laborers" AND "workers" ACTUALLY DO DO.

'Those people' WITH the 'MOST money' just THINK and/or SEE things DIFFERENTLY. And, the ONLY ACTUAL 'work' that they ACTUALLY DO is just 'thinking' about HOW 'they', "themselves", can become MORE 'monetary wealthy'.

And, for those who are STILL OBVIOUS ALL of the "workers" AND "laborers", who are the ones DOING the ACTUAL 'work', here, IN Life, besides DOING ACTUAL 'physical work', 'they' ALSO HAVE TO KEEP 'thinking' AS WELL. The, literal, AMOUNT OF EFFORT and/or TIME it TAKES 'them' TO 'think' IS the EXACT SAME as those who do relatively NOTHING ELSE 'but think'.

So, the ones you CLAIM who are having the so-called 'achievements stolen' are the ones who have 'earned it' is SO FAR FROM the ACTUAL Truth of things, you could NOT be MORE Wrong and Incorrect, here.

The ACTUAL ones who are GETTING things STOLEN FROM 'them' ARE the ones who are ACTUALLY DOING NOT JUST 'the thinking' but ALSO the ACTUAL PHYSICAL WORK, AS WELL.

They ARE the LEAST PAID, but who ARE 'the ones' WHO ARE GETTING the LITTLE, or EVEN relatively NOTHING, for 'their ACTUAL working', STOLEN FROM them. And, 'they' are getting 'it' STOLEN FROM 'them' BY those who you BELIEVE 'earned' 'the money', and 'control', which 'they' HAVE STOLEN FROM 'others'.

Just LOOK AT one who has done relatively NOTHING but just put 'its name' behind a brand of car, whose 'car name' was ACTUALLY STOLEN FROM ANOTHER 'human being', and one who was ACTUALLY 'TRYING TO' DO GOOD and Right BY 'the world' AND FOR 'the masses', and HOW 'that one' who HAS DONE relatively NOTHING but just put 'its name' 'here or there', and HOW it CHARGES 'those' who DO ACTUAL 'work' IN Life, FAR MORE than what it COSTS to just DEVELOP and MAKE A 'car'.

you would CALL 'this' 'this one' HAVING EARNED ALL of the BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, which it has ONLY OBTAINED BY TAKING 'money' FROM others,
'AN ACHIEVEMENT' of ALL things. Whereas, OBVIOUSLY, 'that one' did NOT HAVE TO OVER CHARGE 'others', (which is OBVIOUSLY A FORM OF STEALING in and of itself), just so that it can BECOME monetary RICHER and RICHER. AND FOR WHAT? Obviously it COULD LIVE ON and WITH the EXACT SAME AMOUNT of money that the 'monetary poorest' human beings HAVE TO, and DO, LIVE ON.

'That human being' is NOT has NOT ANY ACTUAL achievements, which it HAS 'earned', and it is CERTAINLY NOT HAVING ANY thing so-called 'stolen' FROM 'it'.

Now, 'welfare programs' are MEANT TO DISTRIBUTE 'resources' TO ALL, WITH EQUITY, as priority. However, ALL 'welfare programs' are RUN BY adult human beings, which some OF BELIEVE that A PROFITS BASED SOCIETY, where some become so-called 'monetary SUPER RICH', and this IS 'the goal' FOR EVERY one, and that 'this' is the BEST and ONLY REAL SOCIETY that ALL SHOULD LIVE BY, and IN.

The so-called "super rich" COULD SOLVE ALL of 'the worlds' 'monetary issues' just by and on their LONESOME.

But, HOW DARE 'they' HAVE TO SHARE 'their riches' WITH 'the others', FROM which 'they' ACTUALLY OBTAINED ABSOLUTELY ALL of 'the money' and 'riches' FROM, EXACTLY, hey "immanuel can"?

and distributing them to those that have not earned them.

you REALLY DO HAVE A VERY TWISTED and DISTORTED SENSE OF 'earn', here.

WILL you EXPLAIN TO 'the readers', here, HOW, EXACTLY, the so-called 'super rich' so-called 'earned' what you call 'the achievements' but what others call just 'money'?

If no, then WHY NOT?

And this means that they drain the economy.

LOL
LOL
LOL

So, well to "immanuel can" anyway, it IS the 'welfare programs' that DRAIN 'the economy'.

1. WHO, EXACTLY, IS FILLING 'the economy', which you CLAIM IS being 'drained'.

2. WHERE do you think or BELIEVE 'the money' IN 'the economy' WILL END UP if NOT in 'the hands', as some would say, OF the "super rich"?

3. WHERE do you think or BELIEVE 'the money' IN 'the economy' SHOULD, or WOULD BE BEST, TO END UP, EXACTLY, and EVENTUALLY?

They always take out more value than they put in; and that works out well for the recipients, but very badly for the rest of the people, and really disastrously for the national economy.

YES 'this' is SO, SO TRUE hey "immanuel can".

Those IN NEED ALWAYS TAKE OUT MORE 'value' than they PUT IN, and 'this' works OUT WELL FOR 'them' RIGHT "immanuel can"?

'This' works out SO WELL FOR 'the recipients' that it is A WONDER that 'they' are IN NEED, and that 'they' are NOT AS WELL OF AS the "super rich" ARE. Who, by the way, "immanuel can" BELIEVES, ABSOLUTELY, are the UNFORTUNATE ones BECAUSE 'their achievements', which they HAVE 'earned' IS being 'stolen' FROM them.

And, YES the 'value' 'the recipients' OF 'welfare programs', which they are GETTING, works out SO WELL, FOR them, that things are working out VERY BADLY, for the rest of population, and REALLY DISASTROUSLY FOR THE 'national economy', AGAIN, RIGHT "Immanuel can".

The 'national economy' being VERY BADLY OFF is NOT, and I REPEAT NOT, DUE to adult human being INCOMPETENCE, AT ALL, but BECAUSE 'those' who have NOT 'earned ANY value', in Life, IS HAVING 'the value' DISTRIBUTED TO 'them'. And, this is WHY they ARE 'recipients', IN NEED, and NOT 'monetary wealthy', RIGHT also "immanuel can".

LOL "immanuel can" you REALLY DO LOOK AT and SEE things BACKWARDS, A LOT.

But, you BEING TAUGHT TO look AT others and TO judge THEM, from your SCHOOLING WHERE you LEARNED TO BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, that A 'being' WITH MALE GENITALIA HAS CREATED ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing, has NOT INFLUENCED you TO LOOK AT and SEE things BACKWARDS, NOR Incorrectly, right "immanuel can"?

Oh, and by the way, WHAT are you USING the 'value' word, here, in relation TO, EXACTLY?

Maybe you don't personally feel the consequences, because you're a beneficiary and not paying the price.

OH NO, 'the one' who EARNED the ACHIEVEMENTS, which are also being STOLEN, from them, are 'now' ALSO PAYING 'the price', AS WELL, hey "immanuel can"?

HOW MUCH OF AN UNFORTUNATE life these 'monetary rich' AND 'super rich' human beings MUST BE HAVING, here.

Maybe you're happy for the consequences of economic failure to be visited fully on coming generations, because you know you won't be around. But maybe that's not the most moral impulse.

"immanuel can" IS about the MOST "condescending" individual, here, if it is not the MOST. "immanuel can" is ALSO AN EXPERT AT DEFLECTION, DECEPTION, and DECEIVING. However, 'this' ONLY works on some of the people some of the time. For the others, however, "immanuel can's" ATTEMPTS AT DECEIVING, just like it is said the 'devil', itself, DOES, does NOT WORK.

The notion of there being any need for them to be "self sustaining" is a canard

Oh, really? If it's not self-sustaining, it's economically-draining. That means it's doomed.

GREAT. Then 'the world' that you were ALL PROMISED can ACTUALLY BEGIN.

Armageddon, apocalypse, or the end times, of 'this (greedy and selfish) monetary world' IS the START, and THE BEGINNING, OF the 'new, and WANTED, world'. Which, you of all people "Immanuel can", should KNOW, IS COMING.

Put a couple of inches of water in your kitchen sink. Then put the tap on a dribble, and pull the plug. And watch what happens. A little water flows in, but more flows out. That's not self-sustaining.

Well considering that it has been THE 'love of money', which IS and DID CREATE the DOWNFALL OF 'this world' AND 'human beings', then the QUICKER the 'drain' IS DRAINED, then the BETTER 'life' AND living CAN GET, and WILL BECOME.

Then tell everybody that "self-sustaining" is just a "canard."

What is the 'laughing', here, AT or FOR, EXACTLY, "Immanuel can".

And the irony, then, is that what you think is "Socialism" depends entirely for its existence on the very "capitalist" business practices you claim to despise.

You really don't get it.

Well, somebody doesn't. That's for sure.

YES SOMEONE, here, REALLY DOES NOT YET GET what IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING, OCCURRING, and GOING ON, here.

[Age]

Immanuel Can, is it or is it not good for the economy when the labour force is healthy and literate?

That totally depends.

If that "labour force" is actually "labouring," and adding more value than is being drained out of the economy by their care, and by the inefficient bureaucracy being used to implement the social programs, then it's sustainable, and it's good.

Just out of curiosity "immanuel can" WHY do you BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, that 'an economy' is GOOD and/or Right FOR 'life' and FOR 'living'?

WHY is your OWN CONCEPT and OUTLOOK OF 'life', and 'living', REVOLVING AROUND 'money', itself, and/or THE 'love-of-money', itself?

If the "labour force" isn't actually "labouring," and value is draining out of the economy, and the bureaucracy is being allowed to rob the populace through corruption, then it's unsustainable and crashes the economy.

AGAIN, GREAT, and it could NOT COME SOON ENOUGH.

The WAY this one speaks it is like it has NEVER HEARD or NEVER CONSIDERED that THE 'love-of-money' IS a ROOT CAUSE of the BAD or Wrong things, in Life.

This one appears to be SO IN LOVE WITH 'money', and SEEKING OUT and OBTAINING MORE AND MORE 'money' that it has ABSOLUTELY COMPLETELY FORGOTTEN what it had been TAUGHT, PREVIOUSLY.

So it doesn't depend on the health or literacy themselves, but on what the people are doing with their health and literacy.

Is it profitable when all employees are also co-owners of the capital investment i.e. the business ?

No. Because the employees are already paid for their labour, and can take their labour elsewhere if they don't like the pay.

It IS, EXACTLY, this TYPE OF ATTITUDE what LEADS TO the DOWNFALL of societies.

See, "owners" of businesses NEED "workers", "workers" do NOT NEED businesses, NOR their "owners'".

"owner" RUN ON GREED and SELFISHNESS. 'they' WANT MORE and MORE money, and 'NEED' MORE and MORE money to SATISFY their LUST and GREED.

Whereas, "workers" have lived for millions of years WITHOUT money, NOR even WITH ANY WANT OF money, let alone some ILLOGICAL and IRRATIONAL 'NEED' FOR money.

Also, you were ASKED A CLARIFYING QUESTION ABOUT, 'Whether it is profitable when ALL the PEOPLE ARE 'co-owners' of A business. And, for SOME REASON you QUICKLY CLAIMED a straight out, 'No'.

you REALLY DO NOT LOOK , AND LISTEN. The QUESTION was in regards to ALL involved ARE 'co-owners'. So, what has 'the employees', which would be EVERY one are already paid for their labor?

WHY and HOW, EXACTLY, would 'this', in and of itself, SUPPOSEDLY, make 'the business' NOT 'profitable'.

The QUESTION is ASKING, 'Is it not profitable when ALL the people involved are CO-OWNERS of 'the business'?'

And, the ACTUAL ANSWER would be, 'It all depends'.

LOL "immanuel can" is SO "one sided" and BLIND, here, that ANY thought of ALL the people involved in A business were 'co-owners', then 'the business' could NEVER be 'profitable', if ANY of the 'now' 'co-owners' were ONCE "employees" of same 'said business'.

"immanuel can", AGAIN, PROVIDES FURTHER PRIME examples AND proof of 'confirmation biases' AT WORK, and AT PLAY, here.

But "capital investment" is usually done by those who are willing to take risks that, by definition, "employees" are not, and to add value that the "employees" cannot.

LOL
LOL
LOL

"immanuel can" is SO BLIND, and "one-sided", here, that it can ONLY EVER SEE "employees" as NOTHING other than "workers", ONLY, and who could NEVER ADD 'value' TO 'a business'.

Also, "immanuel can", and by the way, there is NOT A SINGLE DEFINITION in the WHOLE WORLD where under the label and name 'employee' it STATES something like, 'one who is NOT ABLE to take risks'. LOL "Immanuel can's" CONFIRMATION BIAS, here, ONLY ALLOWS it TO SEE, 'By definition "employees' are NOT ANY of 'those' who are willing to take risks.

you could NOT come across as 'one of those' WITH A 'superiority complex' and BE ANY MORE 'judgy', here, "immanuel can".

your, 'MY 'male genitalia' God is BETTER than ANY and EVERY one ELSE's God, and therefore 'we' "believers" of God, with a penis, are BETTER people than ANY and EVERY one ELSE's', TEACHING has ACTUALLY LEFT you BEING A MORE DISTORTED and DISILLUSIONED person than MOST OTHER people are.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Even your CLAIM that "employees" can NOT ADD 'value', (of ALL things), TO A 'business' is besides being so BLINDINGLY JUDGMENTAL, in and of itself, is SO BLATANTLY False, Wrong, Inaccurate, AND Incorrect I FEEL SORRY FOR 'you' that 'I' HAVE TO POINT OUT the VERY Fact that the ACTUAL ones who ADD REAL and True VALUE TO ANY and ALL 'businesses' ARE the "workers" and/or the "employees", "themselves".

LOL WITHOUT "workers" and "employees" 'businesses" ARE ACTUALLY NOTHING AT ALL, and thus HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO 'value' AT ALL.

So, ONCE AGAIN, you could NOT BE MORE Wrong, here, "immanuel can".

And, if you HAVE THE COURAGE, or THE ABILITY, TO back up and support YOUR CLAIM, and WANT TO HAVE A DISCUSSION, here, WITH 'me' REGARDING what I have just SAID and WRITTEN, here, then BY ALL MEANS LET 'us'.

But, if you can NOT STAND UP BEHIND your CLAIMS, then you WILL 'RUN AWAY', and 'HIDE', and some call it.

For example, let's take an employee of a hotel.

OKAY, let 'us'.

He wo rks as a valet, parking cars.

Other than his wage, what is he owed?

Trust, Respect, Understanding, Empathy, with Loyalty (Honesty), Openness, also with Voluntary Enthusiasm. Or, in another term, which some might have previously heard of, T.R.U.E. L.O.V.E.

Which IS EXACTLY what ABSOLUTELY EVERY human being IS 'owed', (if one wants to call 'it' 'that'.)

He did not raise the investment to build the hotel.

And, maybe the "owner" of the hotel ALSO did NOT raise A SINGLE bit of 'the investment' to build the hotel, AT ALL.

So, does this then, INSTANTLY, MEAN that the "owner" of the hotel is 'OWED' NOTHING other than its wage?

If 'we' were to go BY and ON 'your so-called logic' above, here, then is there ANY DIFFERENCE?

If yes, then WHEN and WHERE, EXACTLY?

He did not risk his own finances to establish it.

MAYBE the "owner" did NOT either.

MAYBE it was 'mommy' or 'daddy's' money.

And, this is WITHOUT even LOOKING INTO WHERE, EXACTLY, 'the money' ACTUALLY CAME FROM, EXACTLY.

Which, if ANY one WANTS TO, then there MIGHT BE SOME VERY SURPRISING things that WILL COME-TO-LIGHT.

He didn't pay for advertising. He doesn't have to pay the bill for food for guests, or architecture fees, or wages for other employees, or assume any risk of being sued, other than for what he personally does.

So, well according to 'this, so-called, logic', IF one HAS TO PAY 'bills', then they HAVE SOME SORT OF RIGHT TO OVER CHARGE 'others'.

I WONDER if 'this one' REALIZES that EVERY "worker" or "employee" HAS TO PAY 'bills' ALSO.

Do they then ALSO GET some sort of 'right' TO CHARGE, AT ALL, 'others', let alone OVER CHARGE 'them'?

He doesn't pay payroll tax. He did not pave the parking lot. He does not own the cars he parks. His uniform was purchased by his employer. He does not know anything about boards, or liabilities, or property taxes, or capital gains taxes, or expenses of a hotel, or the price of light fixtures, or water repairs, or heat bills, or being a manager or a CEO and running the day-to-day business of a hotel.

LOL
LOL
LOL

CLAIMING people who are "workers" or "employees" do NOT KNOW ABSOLUTELY ANY thing ABOUT what it listed, here, SHOWS and PROVES just HOW BLIND, JUDGMENTAL, and "one-sided" 'this one' HAS BECOME, due to its OWN self-created 'SUPERIORITY COMPLEX'.

I WONDER if this one has THOUGHT ABOUT the "workers" and "employees" might ACTUALLY KNOW MORE ABOUT 'life' AND 'living' than the "owner" could EVER even BEGIN TO LEARN ABOUT.

In fact if 'we' were TO LOOK AT and DELVE INTO the VIEWS and SEEING FROM some "owners" of 'businesses', in Life, what can be CLEARLY NOTICED and SEEN is that some of them, ACTUALLY, do NOT KNOW ANY thing ABOUT JUST LIFE, FAIRNESS, EQUALITY, and/or even JUST JUSTICE, itself.

He knows how to park somebody else's car, and to do it politely. That's his contribution.

Which MAY WELL BE FAR MORE than the "business owner" has ACTUALLY contributed to 'life' and/or 'living' IN A MUCH BETTER WORLD.

So what is he owed?

'I' INFORMED 'you' above, here.

But, your BLINDNESS may well HAVE CAUSED 'you' TO MISS 'it'.

What is the actual value of his "labour"?

Could be FAR MORE than the "owners" SELFISHNESS and GREED has provided ANYWHERE, in Life.

What number would you estimate, and why? And compared to that, what is the actual value of the work put in by the person who established the hotel?

AGAIN, NO ACTUAL 'work' HAS BEEN PUT IN BY 'the person' who established 'the hotel'.

JUST 'thinking' is NOT ACTUAL 'work', itself.

ALSO, PUTTING IN PREVIOUSLY OBTAINED 'money' is, REALLY, one of the MOST EASIEST things TO DO, in Life.

Now, if ABSOLUTELY ANY one would LIKE TO DISCUSS, and/or DELVE INTO this, FURTHER, then by all means let 'us'. I KNOW I AM MORE THAN WILLING, and READY, TO.

[Age]

That totally depends.

If that "labour force" is actually "labouring," and adding more value than is being drained out of the economy by their care, and by the inefficient bureaucracy being used to implement the social programs, then it's sustainable, and it's good.

If the "labour force" isn't actually "labouring," and value is draining out of the economy, and the bureaucracy is being allowed to rob the populace through corruption, then it's unsustainable and crashes the economy.

So it doesn't depend on the health or literacy themselves, but on what the people are doing with their health and literacy.


No. Because the employees are already paid for their labour, and can take their labour elsewhere if they don't like the pay. But "capital investment" is usually done by those who are willing to take risks that, by definition, "employees" are not, and to add value that the "employees" cannot.

For example, let's take an employee of a hotel. He works as a valet, parking cars.

Other than his wage, what is he owed?

He did not raise the investment to build the hotel. He did not risk his own finances to establish it. He didn't pay for advertising. He doesn't have to pay the bill for food for guests, or architecture fees, or wages for other employees, or assume any risk of being sued, other than for what he personally does. He doesn't pay payroll tax. He did not pave the parking lot. He does not own the cars he parks. His uniform was purchased by his employer. He does not know anything about boards, or liabilities, or property taxes, or capital gains taxes, or expenses of a hotel, or the price of light fixtures, or water repairs, or heat bills, or being a manager or a CEO and running the day-to-day business of a hotel. He knows how to park somebody else's car, and to do it politely. That's his contribution.

So what is he owed? What is the actual value of his "labour"? What number would you estimate, and why? And compared to that, what is the actual value of the work put in by the person who established the hotel?

Co-ownership by all who work in an industry is bought as a share by each worker upon taking up employment.

You didn't answer. What percentage of the value of the business is owed to the valet? And how do you calculate it?

LOL you, ONCE AGAIN, 'TRIED TO' DEFLECT, ABSOLUTELY, AWAY FROM what WAS POINTED OUT, and SHOWN.

But, OBVIOUSLY, BECAUSE of your DISABILITY IN BEING ABLE TO LOOK and SEE things OPENLY, and Honestly, here, you may well have MISSED 'this' AS WELL.

LOL "immanuel can" you WERE ASKED ABOUT WHEN a business is OWNED BY ALL, and which REMAINED the 'topic of discussion', you, however, OBVIOUSLY ONLY WANTED TO LOOK AT, and TALK ABOUT WHEN there is ONE "owner" AND "employees", ALONE.

you, OBVIOUSLY, FLAT OUT REFUSED TO JUST ACCEPT, let alone BELIEVE, that a business with 'co-owners' could be 'profitable'. So, "belinda" just TRIED TO EXPLAIN, TO you, HOW that 'type of business' COULD ACTUALLY BE 'profitable'. you, however, BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, that it could not, and/or IF it is, then you do NOT WANT TO DISCUSS 'this', BECAUSE DOING SO MIGHT UNRAVEL your BELIEF, here, and REVEAL what the ACTUAL Truth, here, IS, EXACTLY.

ALL "belinda", LITERALLY, SAID and WROTE, here, WAS:

Co-ownership by all who work in an industry is bought as a share by each worker upon taking up employment. This motivates workers to make the industry profitable. Each worker is a partner.

Which, OBVIOUSLY, you COULD NEVER REFUTE, and so INSTEAD OF JUST ACKNOWLEDGING and ACCEPTING this IRREFUTABLE Fact, you WANT TO LOOK AT and TALK ABOUT HOW "belinda" 'did not answer' your TWO OBVIOUSLY INTENDED "one-sided" PERSPECTIVE, and BLINDED VIEW, QUESTIONS, here.

As I have MENTIONED, PREVIOUSLY, you are AN EXPERT "immanuel can" AT DEFLECTION, DECEPTION, and DECEIVING, BUT you are, STILL, REALLY NOT A VERY GOOD one, ACTUALLY. 'you' MAY WELL FOOL and DECEIVE some others, and even "yourself", but 'you' are NOT DECEIVING 'Me' AT ALL, here.

[Belinda]

That totally depends.

If that "labour force" is actually "labouring," and adding more value than is being drained out of the economy by their care, and by the inefficient bureaucracy being used to implement the social programs, then it's sustainable, and it's good.

If the "labour force" isn't actually "labouring," and value is draining out of the economy, and the bureaucracy is being allowed to rob the populace through corruption, then it's unsustainable and crashes the economy.

So it doesn't depend on the health or literacy themselves, but on what the people are doing with their health and literacy.


No. Because the employees are already paid for their labour, and can take their labour elsewhere if they don't like the pay. But "capital investment" is usually done by those who are willing to take risks that, by definition, "employees" are not, and to add value that the "employees" cannot.

For example, let's take an employee of a hotel. He works as a valet, parking cars.

Other than his wage, what is he owed?

He did not raise the investment to build the hotel. He did not risk his own finances to establish it. He didn't pay for advertising. He doesn't have to pay the bill for food for guests, or architecture fees, or wages for other employees, or assume any risk of being sued, other than for what he personally does. He doesn't pay payroll tax. He did not pave the parking lot. He does not own the cars he parks. His uniform was purchased by his employer. He does not know anything about boards, or liabilities, or property taxes, or capital gains taxes, or expenses of a hotel, or the price of light fixtures, or water repairs, or heat bills, or being a manager or a CEO and running the day-to-day business of a hotel. He knows how to park somebody else's car, and to do it politely. That's his contribution.

So what is he owed? What is the actual value of his "labour"? What number would you estimate, and why? And compared to that, what is the actual value of the work put in by the person who established the hotel?

Co-ownership by all who work in an industry is bought as a share by each worker upon taking up employment.

You didn't answer. What percentage of the value of the business is owed to the valet? And how do you calculate it?

The percentage of shares owned by partners , whatever that percentage be, is sufficient to act as an incentive.
CEOs ought not to be so rich that they can afford a valet, unnecessarily. A CEO who is physically disabled needs a valet.
I accept your point that the entrepreneur who has taken initial risks and added much work to found the industry deserves a large share of the profits. However the original entrepreneur could not have done it without the labour force, each man or woman of whom also takes a risk when he or she agrees to be a share holder, partner. The CEO therefore needs only as much reward as will motivate him or her to continue giving their best .
The key to efficiency is cooperation. When each worker is a partner there is the feeling and the fact of belonging to a shared enterprise which is a strong motivator towards efficiency.

Intellectual property should be protected from outsider exploitation, as the competition comes from other comparable industries. As I have explained, competition ,within an industry, between labour and management, is inefficient and unnecessary when each worker is an equal shareholder.

[Will Bouwman]

Nationalised industries don't kill people, murderous tyrants do.

Nationalized economies centralize power, and eliminate all authority but the centralized State.

I give up; if you don't understand that I am not arguing for a nationalised economy, you are clearly an idiot.

[Immanuel Can]

What percentage of the value of the business is owed to the valet? And how do you calculate it?

The percentage of shares owned by partners , whatever that percentage be, is sufficient to act as an incentive.

So you want to pay the guy who parks people's cars exactly the same amount as the people who footed the millions of dollars it took to build the hotel?

The CEO therefore needs only as much reward as will motivate him or her to continue giving their best .

Well, the CEO manages a staff, a building, a business, all the operations, the liabilities, the repairs...everything. And the valet is responsible to park customers' cars. So what is "motivation" for each of them?

As I have explained, competition ,within an industry, between labour and management, is inefficient and unnecessary...

Competition is not relevant. Nobody within the hotel is "competing" with anybody in the hotel. The only competition is with the next hotel.

The important question is why you would think a valet deserves the same amount as a CEO or a partner or investor.

[Immanuel Can]

...if you don't understand that I am not arguing for a nationalised economy,...

Then you're not arguing for Socialism. Apparently, you don't know what Socialism is. It's "State ownership of the means of production."

[Will Bouwman]

...if you don't understand that I am not arguing for a nationalised economy,...

Then you're not arguing for Socialism.

I know. Somehow it has escaped your attention that I favour a mixed economy.

Apparently, you don't know what Socialism is. It's "State ownership of the means of production."

l know that too. The problem is you can't get your head around social democracy. Here, fill yer boots:

"Social democracy is a social, economic, and political philosophy within socialism that supports political and economic democracy and a gradualist, reformist and democratic approach toward achieving limited socialism. In modern practice, social democracy has taken the form of predominantly capitalist economies, with the state regulating the economy in the form of welfare capitalism, economic interventionism, partial public ownership, a robust welfare state, policies promoting social equality, and a more equitable distribution of income.

Social democracy maintains a commitment to representative and participatory democracy. Common aims include curbing inequality, eliminating the oppression of underprivileged groups, eradicating poverty, and upholding universally accessible public services such as child care, education, elderly care, health care, and workers' compensation. Economically, it supports income redistribution and regulating the economy in the public interest."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_de ... m%20causes.

[attofishpi]

...if you don't understand that I am not arguing for a nationalised economy,...

Then you're not arguing for Socialism.

I know. Somehow it has escaped your attention that I favour a mixed economy.

Apparently, you don't know what Socialism is. It's "State ownership of the means of production."

l know that too. The problem is you can't get your head around social democracy. Here, fill yer boots:

"Social democracy is a social, economic, and political philosophy within socialism that supports political and economic democracy and a gradualist, reformist and democratic approach toward achieving limited socialism. In modern practice, social democracy has taken the form of predominantly capitalist economies, with the state regulating the economy in the form of welfare capitalism, economic interventionism, partial public ownership, a robust welfare state, policies promoting social equality, and a more equitable distribution of income.

Social democracy maintains a commitment to representative and participatory democracy. Common aims include curbing inequality, eliminating the oppression of underprivileged groups, eradicating poverty, and upholding universally accessible public services such as child care, education, elderly care, health care, and workers' compensation. Economically, it supports income redistribution and regulating the economy in the public interest."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_de ... m%20causes.

WTF

Do you have an issue with humans having the ability to acquire immense wealth?

Do you not believe in our current structure that ALL have the means to great potential?

[Immanuel Can]

...if you don't understand that I am not arguing for a nationalised economy,...

Then you're not arguing for Socialism.

I know. Somehow it has escaped your attention that I favour a mixed economy.

You're shifting your position, because you're starting to realize what a horrible option Socialism really is to have to defend.

I don't blame you.