Well, Libertarians, here's your chance to defend Enron

[Hoek]

I know that Adam Smith supports certain roles for government, namely enterprises that are unsuitable for marketplace mechanics (things like road-building, education). However, the idea that "let the cards fall where they may" can not be applied to modern economies. What concerns me about Enron isn't as much the fraud as what they did to their employees. It's equivilent to the captain bailing out of a sinking ship and taking all the life rafts with him. In our system, a company may bar employees from selling company stock while they cash their own options out. In our system, corporations don't end up contributing anything to society and act like leeches. The whole idea of the corporation is inherently flawed I think. I believe in capitalism, but I support a "people's capitalism," where a "corporation" would be owned entirely by the employees so that the management wouldn't ass-rape them at the end of it. The principle of letting everyone pursue their own economic goals without some kind of controls (such as worker ownership of corporations or government oversight of earnings reports) ends up making a few very big winners and many losers. It is a negative-sum game. I don't think the answer is socialism by any means, but if you applied the principles of democracy to economics, I believe you could come out with a "democratic capitalism" that would make economics a positive-sum game.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I believe in capitalism, but I support a "people's capitalism," where a "corporation" would be owned entirely by the employees so that the management wouldn't ass-rape them at the end of it.

So you happen to be a socialist then. This is exactly Ramo's ideas in a nutshell.

[Bereta_Eder]

Hi «Paki» (US President George Bush's official copyright) How are you?

[Bereta_Eder]

I believe in capitalism, but I support a "people's capitalism," where a "corporation" would be owned entirely by the employees so that the management wouldn't ass-rape them at the end of it.

It is difficult to work... I prefer a strong social democratic government in order to have a strong state interference in serving the peoples' needs and act as a counter-force to ultra capitalist pigdogs. Maybe with a touch of trade unionism.

[Imran Siddiqui]

that would make economics a positive-sum game.

Uh... it already is a positive-sum game. Compare 1900 with 2000 to see what I mean.

[Hoek]

No, it isn't socialist. Socialism is a system that tries to do away with free enterprise. What I am proposing is that for large corporations (or any company that decides to incorporate), the people producing the wealth will see a larger cut of it. This is not socialism by any standard. It means that employees (who have more at stake in a company suceeding than the higher-ups) will have a greater degree of control over their own economic situation, and it means a mitigation of the greed that makes corporations inherently unfair. Likewise, things such as environmental protection deserve a higher priority than millionaires and billionaires lining their pockets more. People's capitalism basically applies democratic controls to private enterprise, and would not require the kind of interference that socialism has in mind. Socialists reject the basic ideas of a market-based economy, whereas people's capitalism merely tries to see the benefits of market economies more fairly distributed. Why should corporations not be accountable to their employees?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Uh... Hoek that IS socialism. It is worker owned businesses. Something Marx campaigned for. Some socialist thinkers have argued for worker owned business and keeping the rest of the structure in place, though more anarchists.

The WHOLE idea for worker owned businesses instead of the corporation is from the socialist family.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Uh... Hoek that IS socialism. It is worker owned businesses. Something Marx campaigned for. Some socialist thinkers have argued for worker owned business and keeping the rest of the structure in place, though more anarchists.

The WHOLE idea for worker owned businesses instead of the corporation is from the socialist family.

so the us is party socialist? with all those stocks in worker's hands?

some ressemblance of medical care (medical care also a socialist achievement).

some worker rights to americans (also socialist).


you are such a dirty socialist country! (can't compare with Europe though).

[Imran Siddiqui]

paik, worker owned businesses are an inherantly leftist idea. Look at the biggest proponents of it on this site: Boshko and Ramo. You don't think they are capitalists, do you?

And most stocks aren't in the hands of the workers. Shareholders are mostly upper management or outside the company.

[Bereta_Eder]

interesting you haven't commented on your socialist leanings evil eyes (medical care, worker's rights).

If not for the socialist influence you americanski would still be working 20 hours 7 days a week not getting any medical attention and being treated like scum by the employers (oh wait! )

[Bereta_Eder]

Ungrateful bastards

Don't know about Boshko but Ramo should get the Bakounin quote out of his sig... unless he is looking at him from a purely academic perspective. Becasue Bakounin was THE inspiration for armed rebelions in order to overturn the status quo and establish a socialist community.

Live up to it (unadvisable) or take it out of your sig Ramo

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why aren't you rebelling pattycakes? Chicken?

I don't deny there is socialist influence in the US. But saying you are a capitalist and flirted with libertarianism while advocating worker owned businesses, is a bit much. Worker owned businesses are ok to libertarians as long companies aren't forced to change their corporate hierarchy by the state. 'People's Capitalism' is already sounding on the road to socialism, and insinuates banning corporate heirarchy.

[Bereta_Eder]

I don't believe in a communist or anarchistic society that's why. My trip is social democracy. (the one che is tearing his clothes apart because he accuses us of being the capitalists' Trojan Horse and diluting the communist ideals )


I'm not talking about socialist influence in the US. I'm saying that medical care, welfare systems, worker's rights are ALL socialist achievements and that they own their existance to socialist influence.

Actually the Soviet Union made the rest of Europe humane. (the humanity you're trying to tear down now you silly yanks ) Social welfare all these parameters were established because

1) european tradition - (comes from as far as monarchies)
222222) because of fear that Europe (Europe not Britain) would chose to go Soviet if humane living conditions were not met.

[Hoek]

No, my ideas are not socialist. Your definitions are screwy. While it may be leftist, it is by no means socialist. The main idea of socialism is that the state controls the main lines of production, which is supposed to benefit the workers. It's fundamental belief is that market economies are wrong. I do not believe that market economies are wrong at all. I do believe, however, that if a greater amount of control over the company was given to employees, the economy would be better off. It is bad economics to have such large concentrations of money in the hands of very few. My idea takes the market system (I don't support state takeovers of production) and uses its mechanics to spread the benefits more fairly. It also tempers the desire on the part of management to abuse their power. The idea is simply to apply democratic principles to corporate management.

[chequita guevara]

I am not tearing my clothes apart. First, I'm not a foaming at the mouth commie (just a mellow commie) and haven't been one for many years. Two, even when I was, clothes cost money, and delibertately destroying your clothes is foolish.

Trojan horse.