A socialist alternative to a vcommand economy

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

#7, more democracy is always better.

Even if it results in capitalism?

Yes, though without the capitalists being able to lie, its unlikely they'd be able to convince people to go back to being slaves.

[Kuciwalker]

If collectives are so efficient, why aren't there so many of them in the US?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
If collectives are so efficient, why aren't there so many of them in the US?

Who says there aren't? They're just capitalist collectives, aka, corporations. You also have credit unions and a handful of worker owned companies (but the latter are usually created to screw workers, like at United).

Also, lending institutions have typically refused to lend to more "socialist" type collectives. Capitalists are not eager to make themselves obsolete.

[Az]

Bump.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Also, lending institutions have typically refused to lend to more "socialist" type collectives. Capitalists are not eager to make themselves obsolete.

Ah, yes... it's a conspiracy. It couldn't be because the collectives have less prospects to be able to pay back the loan, could it? Capitalists will deal with anyone as long as they can make some money (look at the che guevara t-shirts). Haven't you learned that yet?

[Az]

Ah, yes... it's a conspiracy. It couldn't be because the collectives have less prospects to be able to pay back the loan, could it? Capitalists will deal with anyone as long as they can make some money (look at the che guevara t-shirts). Haven't you learned that yet?

"Sell the rope" and stuff.

seriously, though, che is correct. Sometimes, this is indeed the case.

[Imran Siddiqui]

To conspiracy theorists perhaps it is correct. If there is money to be made, they will be all on it.

[Az]

They never cut the Kibbutzim the slack they've cut Tycoons. I know that for a fact.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
To conspiracy theorists perhaps it is correct. If there is money to be made, they will be all on it.

A conspiracy is when people get together to plan something illegal. There's nothing illegal about banks not wanting to fund "socialist" enterprises. Nor is anyone alleging that they get together and plan this.

There are, however, certain myths about the marketplace that banks are just as susecptable to believing as others. For example, the hoary old tale about how franchising being a safer bet than other small business ventures. The truth is that franchises fail at a higher rate than other new small buisnesses over all (65% v 60%). Co-ops, on the other hand, are seen as something that rarely works. I don't have any numbers on co-op failure rates, but I doubt it's much different than other small businesses.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Who says there aren't?

They haven't replaced corporations. Therefore corporations are better at some things. That was my point.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Who says there aren't?

They haven't replaced corporations. Therefore corporations are better at some things. That was my point.

Of course they are. And family businesses are better than corporations at some other things. And Non Profit Organizations are better than family businesses at some other things. And Churches are better than NPOs at some other things...
Point is: there are different characteristics with which one can judge an organization.

Corporations excel at bringing profit to the shareholder. This is not the characteristic I wish to base an economic model on.

[Kuciwalker]

Corporations excel at bringing profit to the shareholder.

Actually, you've completely missed my point. They actually excel at doing certain kinds of business - just like coops do for different kinds, and NPO's, etc. So why only allow coops, or NPO's, or whatever? In the businesses in which corporations excel, they will be predominant. In the businesses in which coops excel, they will be predominant. And so on and so forth.

[chequita guevara]

Serial killers excel at killing. This is not something we want to encourage, just because they are good at it. Corporations are dangerous to indiviudals, the environment, society, etc. They are only good for making a profit, and in a society where there is no profit, they will be useless.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Originally posted by Agathon
So according to you, people can never have an interest which is not directed towards making them happier.

Yes. Happiness is not necessarily "smiley" happiness, but your "happiness" with various outcomes. Whichever outcome you are "happiest" with, you choose.

Skywalker,

You have a dangerously inadequate knowledge of economics. Stop acting like a PhD.

Here's the definition of utility out of the Oxford dictonary of Economics.

utility A synonym for individual welfare. A utility function gives an individual's welfare as an increasing function of the various goods they consume and a decreasing function of various types of work performed.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


But it sure beats the alternative.

One alternative is communism.