Economics Discussion Thread

[Orostan]

No, I think that you should admit that when given the choice between collusion with other businesses or competition, a business will choose the most profitable option.

Which is competition. Vertical collusion is more common than horizontal collusion because it is hard (costly) to coordinate.

That may be true in some markets, but in others like the telecom market it's not that hard for companies to coordinate.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Which is competition. Vertical collusion is more common than horizontal collusion because it is hard (costly) to coordinate.

That may be true in some markets, but in others like the telecom market it's not that hard for companies to coordinate.

It is true in most markets, because most markets are not natural monopolies.

[Orostan]

That may be true in some markets, but in others like the telecom market it's not that hard for companies to coordinate.

It is true in most markets, because most markets are not natural monopolies.

In most markets, yes it is true that vertical competition is usually what we get more of. I'm only trying to say that if, for example, General Electric and Samsung think it'd be more profitable to both fix prices instead of compete, they will.

[Free Missouri]

It is true in most markets, because most markets are not natural monopolies.

In most markets, yes it is true that vertical competition is usually what we get more of. I'm only trying to say that if, for example, General Electric and Samsung think it'd be more profitable to both fix prices instead of compete, they will.

And that's where the FTC comes in and says "hey, you're price fixing. stop or face the long arm of the law"

[Orostan]

In most markets, yes it is true that vertical competition is usually what we get more of. I'm only trying to say that if, for example, General Electric and Samsung think it'd be more profitable to both fix prices instead of compete, they will.

And that's where the FTC comes in and says "hey, you're price fixing. stop or face the long arm of the law"

And that's where moneyed interests come in. If Samsung and GE can put their guy on the FTC, then they can prevent the FTC from enforcing the law. Just as the telecom companies have Pai on the FCC changing laws for them.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Ajit Pai isn't getting paid lmao

[Orostan]

Ajit Pai isn't getting paid lmao

He has worked for companies like Verizon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajit_Pai#Career

[Taihei Tengoku]

Ajit Pai isn't getting paid lmao

He has worked for companies like Verizon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajit_Pai#Career

This is called "having a job"

[Orostan]

He has worked for companies like Verizon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajit_Pai#Career

This is called "having a job"

I'm only pointing out that his interest was and is to the telecom companies.

[Taihei Tengoku]

This is called "having a job"

I'm only pointing out that his interest was and is to the telecom companies.

Which is completely mercenary and cannot possibly come from a coherent position upon the circumstances of the telecommunications market

[Orostan]

I'm only pointing out that his interest was and is to the telecom companies.

Which is completely mercenary and cannot possibly come from a coherent position upon the circumstances of the telecommunications market

I still believe that Pai is a corrupt politician influenced in more ways than just "experience" by telecom interests.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Which is completely mercenary and cannot possibly come from a coherent position upon the circumstances of the telecommunications market

I still believe that Pai is a corrupt politician influenced in more ways than just "experience" by telecom interests.

Things you believe tend to not be the case, as you've often shown.

[Orostan]

I still believe that Pai is a corrupt politician influenced in more ways than just "experience" by telecom interests.

Things you believe tend to not be the case, as you've often shown.

I disagree and i tell you why in my posts where you just say "i disagree because you're wrong"

[Taihei Tengoku]

Things you believe tend to not be the case, as you've often shown.

I disagree and i tell you why in my posts where you just say "i disagree because you're wrong"

You are wrong, I demonstrate why, you persist in error. My abilities end somewhere.

[Orostan]

I disagree and i tell you why in my posts where you just say "i disagree because you're wrong"

You are wrong, I demonstrate why, you persist in error. My abilities end somewhere.

I have to ask you to explain things because you don't in your posts. Now let's get this thread back on track.

Why do you not support workplace democracy?

[Taihei Tengoku]

If it works it works, workplace democracy does not--adding elections to the production process merely imposes another layer of transaction costs. Worker cooperatives aren't any more efficient than normally hired firms nor are they a rather popular method of organization.

[Constantinopolis]

This just in: By capitalist standards of efficiency, capitalist firms are the most efficient type of economic organization.

In other news, water is definitely wetter than anything that is not water.

[Orostan]

If it works it works, workplace democracy does not--adding elections to the production process merely imposes another layer of transaction costs. Worker cooperatives aren't any more efficient than normally hired firms nor are they a rather popular method of organization.

That is objectivly wrong

Having a day where everyone puts a paper in a ballot box as they walk in or email something to the guy in charge of elections at the cooperative doesn't increase expenses by very much at all. In a coop the workers aren't going to vote on every little decision, they're going to elect a guy to make the decisions for them.

[Taihei Tengoku]

"Our research on this important case study suggests that worker participation has neither major efficiency gains nor efficiency losses...When faced with adversity, the co-ops adjust pay and avoid changes in their labor inputs and output; by contrast, when confronted with drops in output price, conventional firms adjust employment and work hours (and consequently output), and wages do not change."

The more interesting part about worker's co-ops is that their wages aren't sticky. That could be a major boost to their efficiency if they could weather the business cycle without shedding employment.

[Ostroeuropa]

"Our research on this important case study suggests that worker participation has neither major efficiency gains nor efficiency losses...When faced with adversity, the co-ops adjust pay and avoid changes in their labor inputs and output; by contrast, when confronted with drops in output price, conventional firms adjust employment and work hours (and consequently output), and wages do not change."

The more interesting part about worker's co-ops is that their wages aren't sticky. That could be a major boost to their efficiency if they could weather the business cycle without shedding employment.

Does this include industrial sabotage and turnover though, is the thing. What's the overheads on having to retrain employees and such.

[Taihei Tengoku]

"Our research on this important case study suggests that worker participation has neither major efficiency gains nor efficiency losses...When faced with adversity, the co-ops adjust pay and avoid changes in their labor inputs and output; by contrast, when confronted with drops in output price, conventional firms adjust employment and work hours (and consequently output), and wages do not change."

The more interesting part about worker's co-ops is that their wages aren't sticky. That could be a major boost to their efficiency if they could weather the business cycle without shedding employment.

Does this include industrial sabotage and turnover though, is the thing. What's the overheads on having to retrain employees and such.

The point of flexible wages is that there is no turnover. Instead of some people losing all their pay (downsizing), all people lose some of their pay and the same reduction in output is achieved.

[Ostroeuropa]

Does this include industrial sabotage and turnover though, is the thing. What's the overheads on having to retrain employees and such.

The point of flexible wages is that there is no turnover. Instead of some people losing all their pay (downsizing), all people lose some of their pay and the same reduction in output is achieved.

I agree, and this is one of the reasons I support co-ops and payment-by-share rather than wage slavery. But I was more specifically talking about turnover from people quitting because they dislike the management and company policies, think Wallmart and its obscene turnover rates compared to a company where workers had representation and get to determine at least some of how they are treated, and industrial sabotage Wallmart faces from having employees who despise the company.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Then the turnover is quite high. However Walmart workers are fairly low-skill (stacking boxes, working registers) and therefore have low training requirements compared to aircraft maintainers.

[Ostroeuropa]

Then the turnover is quite high. However Walmart workers are fairly low-skill (stacking boxes, working registers) and therefore have low training requirements compared to aircraft maintainers.

True, but it's still a factor, especially when you consider that one trained employee is essentially kept from doing their actual job by having to retrain someone else constantly. You also have to consider employees shit-talking the company and word-of-mouth advertisement.

All in all, i'm confident co-ops and syndicates can out compete traditional capitalist firms, given the chance and a lack of regulatory capture by corporations, and state favoritism.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Then the turnover is quite high. However Walmart workers are fairly low-skill (stacking boxes, working registers) and therefore have low training requirements compared to aircraft maintainers.

True, but it's still a factor, especially when you consider that one trained employee is essentially kept from doing their actual job by having to retrain someone else constantly.

It is a cost, one Walmart can absorb as most tasks require very little, if any training.