User Tag List

First 152324252627 Last

Results 241 to 250 of 268

  1. #241
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Taking your premise to be true, I would say yes.
    What premise are you talking about?

    That there is voting power attached to shares?

    If you're so committed to this notion of worker co-ops, and supposedly you are so because it's supposedly the best way to run the world: why do you not better understand these simple things about how the real world is actually structured?

    Furthermore, I'm not sure if you're aware, but many of the most highly employee-owned corporations in the world are investment banks. Are you saying that if Goldman Sachs is >50% owned by employees, then it would be a socialist corporation? What if it is 49% owned by current employees, and 2% owned by former employees? Does that make it still a socialist enterprise? In case you're not getting the drift: I'm telling you that, in real world terms, your idea is bunk.

  2. #242
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    First off: Si-user.
    Doesn't matter.


    Second: I used your definition, and showed why you, based on *it*, were wrong in your claims.

    I'm sorry that you can't figure out how to adequately respond.
    You argued that the common usage was better, and you picked out and extrapolated your own parameters from the last part of the definition I provided.


    I already used it.
    What YOU meant it to mean.


    You obviously don't know what you're talking about, as government spending as a % of GDP is one of the factors that goes into the Economic Freedom Index.
    Along with private property rights, ease of starting/doing business, regulatory frameworks, labor mobility, and a bunch of other things.


    *whoops on your part*
    Again, not really. This is sad.


    [QUOTEWhere?[/QUOTE]

    Everywhere on the Internet? Previous posts I have made regarding this topic over the past four years? If you want me to look more stats up, I will.


    Actually, you're apparently full of shit and don't know what you're talking about.
    No, you just don't want to contemplate that someone disagrees with you for valid reasons.


    1. Much like the Economic Freedom Index you've espoused, the amount of capitalism vs socialism inherent an economy should be thought of on a spectrum. This is how it's taught in economics classes and in economics textbooks. I know because I have a degree in economics.
    It is a spectrum. But countries like the U.S., Canada, and Finland are not socialist countries. And I am completing an MBA in April, and I have studied economics at the high school, college, and graduate levels. Don't start a pissing context.


    2. Canada, Finland and the US are all mixed economies: not completely capitalist, not completely socialist.
    Soooooo, they are NOT socialist countries? Thank you for proving my point. And these would be three examples of countries more capitalist than socialist, clearly.


    3. Higher levels of government spending and larger welfare states are, by the same definition of socialism you provided, and by the Economic Freedom index, signs of a greater degree of socialism.
    No, they are by YOUR INTERPRETATION of the definition I provided.


    4. By these measures alone, Canada and Finland are more socialist than the US; however, both have significantly improved their scores on the Economic Freedom Index over the last decade, to the point that Canada (but not Finland), since the economic crisis, actually (barely) surpassed the US on it.
    So, are you saying they are more socialist or less socialist? Or more socialist in some ways and less socialist in others? That is fine, but none could called an actually socialist country. Mixed economies, OK. Not socialist.

    5. Your argument seems to be based on the false assumption that where a country scores on the Economic Freedom Index is 1:1 inversely correlated with how much socialist it is.
    It is not 1:1. It was evidence to the contrary that the assertion that "Canada and Finland are socialist countries," which is a stupid thing to say.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  3. #243
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Economic freedom would be, in that private ownership of capital would be gone.
    It wouldn't necessarily be gone. It would just be transferred.

    It gets tricky.

    Private property would almost certainly have to be violated in order to make it happen.

    But how long after that violation do the shares get to be considered fairly and privately owned (albeit transferred).

  4. #244
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    It wouldn't necessarily be gone. It would just be transferred.
    I was referring to "private" ownership. It wouldn't be government ownership, but it wouldn't be privately owned or controlled capital, either. I think the ownership shares would be non-transferable. Otherwise, they could be bought and sold, and we'd end up with private capital again. I would imagine ownership/voting rights would be contingent upon continued employment.


    It gets tricky. Private property would almost certainly have to be violated in order to make it happen.
    Most likely. Although workers could, in theory, buy up enough shares of a company to hold a controlling interest, then make the decision as a voting body.


    But how long after that violation do the shares get to be considered fairly and privately owned (albeit transferred).
    I don't think the tradition concept of "ownership shares" would survive in this scenario. It's pretty much useless to have shares when everyone would own an equal part, isn't it?
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  5. #245
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    You're making a bunch of assumptions about his proposed system that haven't been explicitly stated, and that, from those that I can discern, I don't think would be necessary.

    And, btw, I'm gunna be busy for the next while, but it's gunna be fun ripping apart your response above this one.

    I'd recommend rethinking your position, because I'm right on this, and I'm gunna make you look like an idiot if you don't.

    It is not just "my interpretation", it is a completely reasonable and accurate interpretation of what those terms mean.

    And I shouldn't be starting a pissing contest? About who knows more about economics? Are you fucking kidding me?

    Do you know how laughable most MBAs are?

    Congratulations that you've "studied" economics.

    But do you actually have a degree in the field?

    I do; I've actually *worked* as an economist.

    I've discussed these issues with Nobel-prize winning economists, heads of the President's Council of Economic Advisors, and many of the most respected economists in their field.

    I don't think you want to start talking about who should or should not be starting pissing contests here.

    Also, for Christ's sake: learn to quote.

  6. #246
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    What premise are you talking about?

    That there is voting power attached to shares?
    The premise that it's as simple as saying 50% shareholding or more means control.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    If you're so committed to this notion of worker co-ops, and supposedly you are so because it's supposedly the best way to run the world: why do you not better understand these simple things about how the real world is actually structured?
    This is an over-reaction and devoid of any substantial points. It's just an unwarranted snap at me. It could just as well be "blah blah blah blah".

    To grace it with a matter of fact answer; I understand more than you think I do, and you certainly assume I understand less than that mere comment allowed you to assume.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Furthermore, I'm not sure if you're aware, but many of the most highly employee-owned corporations in the world are investment banks. Are you saying that if Goldman Sachs is >50% owned by employees, then it would be a socialist corporation? What if it is 49% owned by current employees, and 2% owned by former employees? Does that make it still a socialist enterprise? In case you're not getting the drift: I'm telling you that, in real world terms, your idea is bunk.
    Well, there is also a crucial detail about labor cooperatives, which is that no employee owns more shares than any other employees (one worker, one share, on vote, as they say). Former employees also don't count, generally speaking.

    But yes, if your premise is correct, then Goldman Sachs would be socialist at over 50% employer ownership. If > 50% ownership doesn't result in work control, then your premise isn't correct. What are you looking for here?
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  7. #247
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    This is an over-reaction and devoid of any substantial points. It's just an unwarranted snap at me. It could just as well be "blah blah blah blah".
    No, it was a snap at you.

    But it is not devoid of any substantial points and would not be the same as "blah blah blah".

    It strikes at your credibility for having to say such things as "assuming your premise is true" to things that anyone who actually knows how our system is structured, and thus actually has the authority to critique it, should know.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    To grace it with a matter of fact answer; I understand more than you think I do, and you certainly assume I understand less than that mere comment allowed you to assume.
    Ok, then.

    Why the need to say "assuming your premise is true" then?

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Well, there is also a crucial detail about labor cooperatives, which is that no employee owns more shares than any other employees (one worker, one share, on vote, as they say). Former employees also don't count, generally speaking.

    But yes, if your premise is correct, then Goldman Sachs would be socialist at over 50% employer ownership. If > 50% ownership doesn't result in work control, then your premise isn't correct. What are you looking for here?
    The fact that you'd be calling the most blatantly capitalistic enterprise, the very essence of capitalism, socialist, merely because >50% of it is own by employees, and how absurd this makes your definition look in real world terms.

  8. #248
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    And, btw, I'm gunna be busy for the next while, but it's gunna be fun ripping apart your response above this one.

    I'd recommend rethinking your position, because I'm right on this, and I'm gunna make you look like an idiot if you don't.

    It is not just "my interpretation", it is a completely reasonable and accurate interpretation of what those terms mean.

    And I shouldn't be starting a pissing contest? About who knows more about economics? Are you fucking kidding me?

    Do you know how laughable most MBAs are?

    Congratulations that you've "studied" it.

    Do you actually have a degree in the field?

    I do, and I've *worked* as an economist.
    I think I'll be voicing the thoughts of many forum users here with this question, but are you the biggest dipshit in the world? I got some impression that you were a full grown man, but this kind of crap, which you've written many times, is embarrassingly immature.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  9. #249
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    You're making a bunch of assumptions about his proposed system that haven't been explicitly stated, and that, from those that I can discern, I don't think would be necessary.
    I think assuming that worker ownership would require the owners to be workers, but I guess that is a wild assumption to make. I don't want to put words in anyone's mouths.


    And, btw, I'm gunna be busy for the next while, but it's gunna be fun ripping apart your response above this one.
    I doubt it, but go right ahead.


    I'd recommend rethinking your position, because I'm right on this, and I'm gunna make you look like an idiot if you don't.

    It is not just "my interpretation", it is a completely reasonable and accurate interpretation of what those terms mean.
    It is YOUR interpretation. A reasonable one? Perhaps. Accurate? That is absolutely arguable. You're making the same assumptions you just chided me for making, and I am at least leaving open that I could be wrong about MP's proposed workers' collective.


    And big fucking deal about an MBA: do you know how laughable most MBAs are?
    Do you know how stupid many economists are? I guess you decided to start the pissing contest. Why don't we step it up into alma maters? Professors we've had? SAT scores? IQ? This is tiresome.


    I've *worked* as an economist.
    Explains a lot about why the economy is the way it is.


    Do you even have a degree in the field?
    No, I minored in Business as an undergraduate.


    Also, for Christ's sake: learn to quote.
    I am also at work. Trying to do this while I am typing e-mails. Also, learn when to use a colon.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  10. #250
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Why the need to say "assuming your premise is true" then?
    It's too vague. I can't be sure that it specifically implies what would actually be socialist in its effect, i,e, workers collectively make the decision for the course of the company. I will tell you something I don't know; I don't know how much of Goldman Sachs is owned by employees. Is it over 50% owned by employees? Equally amongst employees or unevenly?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    The fact that you'd be calling the most blatantly capitalistic enterprise, the very essence of capitalism, socialist, merely because >50% of it is own by employees, and how absurd this makes your definition look in real world terms.
    Why don't you operationalize the bold phrase?
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

Similar Threads

  1. [MBTItm] NF, How Are You NOT Like Your Type Description?
    By SquirrelTao in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 115
    Last Post: 08-27-2017, 05:28 PM
  2. [SJ] SJ, How Are You NOT Like Your Type Description?
    By SquirrelTao in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 06-04-2017, 06:25 PM
  3. [SP] SP, How Are You NOT Like Your Type Description?
    By SquirrelTao in forum The SP Arthouse (ESFP, ISFP, ESTP, ISTP)
    Replies: 103
    Last Post: 05-15-2017, 03:39 AM
  4. Anyone who thinks Ron Paul Shouldn't be President is completly stupid or ignorant...
    By Munchies in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 152
    Last Post: 01-13-2012, 01:47 PM
  5. [NT] NT, How Are You NOT Like Your Type Description?
    By SquirrelTao in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 78
    Last Post: 09-27-2008, 05:05 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO