181–190 of 372 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe because they are farms and not rocket makers
Why they are farms and not rocket makers? Because collective.
Things like Friends of Amateur Rocketry have all the characteristics of a collective (including legal status) https://friendsofamateurrocketry.org/
The constraining factor is typically budget (as mentioned up-thread).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm pretty sure your economic terms are not what the consensus of professionally trained economists would say. It's an oversimplification to highlight the main point: workers' relationship to the means of production. In capitalism, capital owners own the means of production. In socialism, the workers own the means of production. IME most Americans not only don't know what socialism is (despite being opposed to it),…
Because the failures of the USSR occurred entirely within the USSR's borders, under its jurisdiction, and were entirely within its power to resolve. Meanwhile, the 9 million deaths of starvation you cite are across multiple countries with multiple overlapping legal regimes and are multi-causal, from corruption to war and failed states like Haiti and Syria.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "modern mainstream economics ..." It would be more accurate to say "modern mainstream economists ". To say "economics" here is a real failure on Wikipedia's moderation. Because what they're actually talking about, is the Austrian School of Economics [1]: > The Austrian school is a heterodox[1][2][3] school of economic thought that advocates strict adherence to methodological individualism, "Individualism" is the ke…
Look. The LTV has been rejected by mainstream economists. And this has nothing to do with Austrian economics (which has also been rejected by mainstream economists, for different reasons.) Now of course, you may choose to disagree, and say they're all wrong! But that's the current academic consensus. That's an asinine example. I mean what hole are they digging? If it's the Panama Canal, that's pretty valuable. It mig…
“You don’t understand, Mr. Friedman, this canal is a jobs program to provide work for as many men as possible.”
“Oh, I see. I thought you were trying to build a canal. If you really want to create jobs, then by all means give these men spoons, not shovels.”
There is no value without labor. This was recognized by everyone from Karl Marx to Abraham Lincoln to Adam Smith. Smith even conceded that profit was impossible if workers retain their surplus value, which is exactly the point. I bring this up because that's what capitalism is: draining the surplus labor value from workers to the capital-owning class. In feudalism, the artistocracy and th emonarchy extracted that val…
> There is no value without labor. True, but there is also no value without investment and risk. Marx's failure was ignoring the other two ingredients. Marxism is building a road with hundreds of laborers with shovels. Capitalism is one guy with a bulldozer. P.S. Cuba has no riches to steal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
you are overestimating the degree to which your personal social group is typical in the world by probably about a factor of 100
I think you misunderstood. I said if someone has heard the term "anarcho-syndicalist", there is a very high chance it's from the Holy Grial. Not 99% of people in the world are familiar with the term.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a common misinterpretation of the labor theory of value. I understand it like this: I am a capitalist and my money goes to pay labor to create a thing that I sell in a market. The workers create thing in the production process. I have captured a portion of the labor's true value based on the market, bringing me profit - what Marx called "surplus value." I turn around and reinvest that profit into another busi…
That seems awfully.. tautological.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Your view is called Social Darwinism The only thing either response to your original reply have done is provide uncontroversial and non-conspiratorial reasons why Mondragons are extremely rare. Calling that Social Darwinism is like calling you a Stalinist, a slander based entirely on a superficial similarity of your rhetoric.
You guys are both discussing intelligence hierarchies (wtf?) without regard to actual history of popular labor movements being violently squashed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not just making money, but making more money than they did last year, forever. Like a company can't just be cool with the fact that they serve a profitable market niche and gainfully employ people. Investors need capital gains and won't just be satisfied with getting reliable dividends! Stock buy backs ruined corporate governance...
What different effects do stock buybacks have on corporate governance compared to dividends? My understanding is both return $X/share of capital to shareholders, buybacks are just more tax efficient, flexible, and a little more difficult to see the direct effect of.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So the president makes less than a middle manager in a Fortune 500 company. I hope there are some other benefits…
The article talks about this extensively; both the benefits, and the difficulty hiring American workers because of our (I'm assuming "our", but I suppose I don't know, there are plenty of other countries with similar cultural norms) more individual, selfish, culture.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What different effects do stock buybacks have on corporate governance compared to dividends? My understanding is both return $X/share of capital to shareholders, buybacks are just more tax efficient, flexible, and a little more difficult to see the direct effect of.
Dividends get taxed immediately, so there is more pressure to reinvest profits in the company to find organic growth which is captured as capital gains instead. That reinvestment can take a lot of different forms like R&D, training, hiring, etc.