NationStates

Virgolia wrote:

Liriena wrote:I'm not an economist, let alone an expert in Marxist economic theory, but IIRC it's assumed that, in principle, if you are turning a profit, you are not giving your employees a fair wage. And there's a libertarian/anarchist argument that could be made, that a business in which the owner has absolute power over the employees by virtue of owning the means of production, however small the business may be, is an inherently tyrannical and unjust hierarchy, and that it would be better for the functioning of the business to be more horizontal and democratic.

The owner has more power because he has more risks than the employees

This might be true in the case of very small businesses, but not in the case of the extremely large ones. The Waltons are at no more risk of starving if Walmart falls than their employees are.

Virgolia wrote:If employees deserve more money then they deserve less money when the profits go down.

I'm pretty sure that's very much the gist of it in workers' co-ops, yeah.

Virgolia wrote:The owner doesn't have absolute power over the employees.

Owners get to single-handedly make all major decisions, decide who gets hired or fired, and set the wages and the rules of conduct. That's a lot of power, and it's power possessed by someone who can't be voted out by the employees, therefor having very little accountability if any within the structure of the business.

Virgolia wrote:And no,it won't be better for the business to be more "democratic" because it's not a society nor a state.

How do you know? Have you compared the real conventional businesses with real co-ops?

Liriena wrote:

Uxupox wrote:
Still belongs to me and I'm not going to give my stuff to anybody but me. I worked hard for my belongings and I'd be damned if I let anybody take it from me.

Relax dude. Your stoof is probably safe from seizure unless your last name is Soros, Bezos, Bloomberg, Trump or Walton.

idk why do so many people get beef with bezos' wealth, literally 95-99% of it comes from investments and stock options (esp amzn)

Great Minarchistan wrote:

Liriena wrote:If the market deems sub-living wages as a fair valuation of workers' worth, the market is fucked up.

Many countries are undeveloped and have a low stock of capital to start with

As I said: fucked up.

Torrocca wrote:

Great Minarchistan wrote:So official signs of authoritarianism prevail over subjective ones when calling for the most anti-liberty candidate? TIL.

Not to say that given its composition, the Congress will likely only filter and pass reforms that improve economic freedom

Or, more realistically, Bolsonaro's gonna fulfill his promise and reinstate a military dictatorship. GG no re good job helping to kill democracy. :^)

It would happen anyways (given Haddad's official proposal to burn the Constitution), I dont see your point in here

Torrocca wrote:

Great Minarchistan wrote:So official signs of authoritarianism prevail over subjective ones when calling for the most anti-liberty candidate? TIL.

Not to say that given its composition, the Congress will likely only filter and pass reforms that improve economic freedom

Or, more realistically, Bolsonaro's gonna fulfill his promise and reinstate a military dictatorship. GG no re good job helping to kill democracy. :^)

Democracy killed democracy in this instant, as the majority of Brazilians have made their choice.

Liriena wrote:

Great Minarchistan wrote:Many countries are undeveloped and have a low stock of capital to start with

As I said: fucked up.

Blame lack of development, not the engine that drives countries out of this condition

Great Minarchistan wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
Or, more realistically, Bolsonaro's gonna fulfill his promise and reinstate a military dictatorship. GG no re good job helping to kill democracy. :^)

It would happen anyways (given Haddad's official proposal to burn the Constitution), I dont see your point in here

Maintain your facade of believing in liberty by not choosing either cunt, then?

Virgolia wrote:

Liriena wrote:Relax dude. Your stoof is probably safe from seizure unless your last name is Soros, Bezos, Bloomberg, Trump or Walton.

Just curious,did you vote for Del Caño in the last elections?

The midterms? Yeah, I think I did. Not that I'm a huge fan of him, mind you. For one, I'm not a Trotskyist, and I don't like him personally. But his coalition has a pretty good platform, all in all, and I don't feel nearly as guilty voting for them as I would if I voted for the Peronists.

Torrocca wrote:

Great Minarchistan wrote:It would happen anyways (given Haddad's official proposal to burn the Constitution), I dont see your point in here

Maintain your facade of believing in liberty by not choosing either cunt, then?

I prefer to salvage every bit of freedom left by picking the most pro-liberty candidate, thanks

Great Minarchistan wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
Maintain your facade of believing in liberty by not choosing either cunt, then?

I prefer to salvage every bit of freedom left by picking the most pro-liberty candidate, thanks

So, again, "all for me, none for thee," is the only principle you actually believe in. In this case, that "freedom" would be your ability to run a pro-Bolsonaro business. :^)

Great Minarchistan wrote:

Liriena wrote:As I said: fucked up.

Blame lack of development, not the engine that drives countries out of this condition

Implying that the engine ever single-handedly drove undeveloped countries in the direction of a development similar to that of already develope countries in the first place, and has any interest in doing so.

Torrocca wrote:

Great Minarchistan wrote:I prefer to salvage every bit of freedom left by picking the most pro-liberty candidate, thanks

So, again, "all for me, none for thee," is the only principle you actually believe in. In this case, that "freedom" would be your ability to run a pro-Bolsonaro business. :^)

Correction: benefiting from a more open and freer economy, without a government that pillages nearly half of what our country produces

Great Minarchistan wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
So, again, "all for me, none for thee," is the only principle you actually believe in. In this case, that "freedom" would be your ability to run a pro-Bolsonaro business. :^)

Correction: benefiting from a more open and freer economy, without a government that pillages nearly half of what our country produces

>TFW Bolsonaro wants to open the Amazon up to unrestricted corporate access
>"MoRe OpEn AnD fReEr!!1!"

Like I said: "all for me, none for thee."

Liriena wrote:

Great Minarchistan wrote:Blame lack of development, not the engine that drives countries out of this condition

Implying that the engine ever single-handedly drove undeveloped countries in the direction of a development similar to that of already develope countries in the first place, and has any interest in doing so.

History accurately confirms this notion, even though you are using it in ironical terms.

Torrocca wrote:

Great Minarchistan wrote:Correction: benefiting from a more open and freer economy, without a government that pillages nearly half of what our country produces

>TFW Bolsonaro wants to open the Amazon up to unrestricted corporate access
>"MoRe OpEn AnD fReEr!!1!"

Like I said: "all for me, none for thee."

That would be unironically good, and I hope they set a shitty monopoly at ecommerce so I can profit off them by creating new ecomm businesses every six months just so they can be bought up at a markup of 200%

ezpz

Liriena wrote:

Rio Cana wrote:In his victory speech Bol. said he wanted to get closer to the first class world nations. This means the US and EU. This means he cannot possible go through with what some say will be Brazil dictatorship part II. They would never let him join there club if he did that.

Friendly reminder that the United States and Europe have been collaborating with South American right-wing dictatorships for at least a century. It moral outrage in the face of authoritarianism didn't stop Thatcher and Reagan from siding with tyrants, it won't stop Trump.

Yeap, he's won and he's going to rapidly clean the clocks out of a fair number of Leftists I'd imagine.

Liriena wrote:

Virgolia wrote:The owner has more power because he has more risks than the employees

This might be true in the case of very small businesses, but not in the case of the extremely large ones. The Waltons are at no more risk of starving if Walmart falls than their employees are.

Virgolia wrote:If employees deserve more money then they deserve less money when the profits go down.

I'm pretty sure that's very much the gist of it in workers' co-ops, yeah.

Virgolia wrote:The owner doesn't have absolute power over the employees.

Owners get to single-handedly make all major decisions, decide who gets hired or fired, and set the wages and the rules of conduct. That's a lot of power, and it's power possessed by someone who can't be voted out by the employees, therefor having very little accountability if any within the structure of the business.

Virgolia wrote:And no,it won't be better for the business to be more "democratic" because it's not a society nor a state.

How do you know? Have you compared the real conventional businesses with real co-ops?

1.In most of the world small bussines are a bigger source of emplyoment than large ones
2.Ok
3.Wages aren't just the owner's will,Companies have to set wages agreeing with the unions
4.Real co-ops nearly don't exist anymore,maybe it's because of something.

Great Minarchistan wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
>TFW Bolsonaro wants to open the Amazon up to unrestricted corporate access
>"MoRe OpEn AnD fReEr!!1!"

Like I said: "all for me, none for thee."

That would be unironically good, and I hope they set a shitty monopoly at ecommerce so I can profit off them by creating new ecomm businesses every six months just so they can be bought up at a markup of 200%

ezpz

Like I said: literally the only principle you abide by is unprincipled opportunism. Your love for liberty's a fucking facade.

Liriena wrote:

Virgolia wrote:Just curious,did you vote for Del Caño in the last elections?

The midterms? Yeah, I think I did. Not that I'm a huge fan of him, mind you. For one, I'm not a Trotskyist, and I don't like him personally. But his coalition has a pretty good platform, all in all, and I don't feel nearly as guilty voting for them as I would if I voted for the Peronists.

Do you have any other candidate in mind?

Liriena wrote:

Great Minarchistan wrote:Blame lack of development, not the engine that drives countries out of this condition

Implying that the engine ever single-handedly drove undeveloped countries in the direction of a development similar to that of already develope countries in the first place, and has any interest in doing so.

Yes. Countries that permit market mechanism thrived, this is standard history. Capitalism is a better predictor of future development than democracy ever is.

Virgolia wrote:

Liriena wrote:This might be true in the case of very small businesses, but not in the case of the extremely large ones. The Waltons are at no more risk of starving if Walmart falls than their employees are.


I'm pretty sure that's very much the gist of it in workers' co-ops, yeah.


Owners get to single-handedly make all major decisions, decide who gets hired or fired, and set the wages and the rules of conduct. That's a lot of power, and it's power possessed by someone who can't be voted out by the employees, therefor having very little accountability if any within the structure of the business.


How do you know? Have you compared the real conventional businesses with real co-ops?

1.In most of the world small bussines are a bigger source of emplyoment than large ones
2.Ok
3.Wages aren't just the owner's will,Companies have to set wages agreeing with the unions
4.Real co-ops nearly don't exist anymore,maybe it's because of something.

1. A bit debatable.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/ ... 4f3d831aed
https://aeon.co/essays/what-does-small- ... mic-growth

3. Ideally, yes, but a lot of workers aren't unionized, sometimes because they work in businesses that won't allow them to unionize.
4. They do exist and even thrive. That they are not the dominant way of doing business is not a sign of their failure in and of itself, so much as a sign that they are a very disruptive, and therefor difficult, alternative in an economy dominated by a very different way of doing business.

Virgolia wrote:

Liriena wrote:The midterms? Yeah, I think I did. Not that I'm a huge fan of him, mind you. For one, I'm not a Trotskyist, and I don't like him personally. But his coalition has a pretty good platform, all in all, and I don't feel nearly as guilty voting for them as I would if I voted for the Peronists.

Do you have any other candidate in mind?

Honestly, other than Myriam Bregman, the only politician who I have a lot of respect for and is still holding office is Pino Solanas. Which poses a problem, given his age.

I miss Norma Morandini.

I'm so glad that Bolsnaro won, hopefully he takes total control of Brazil

Torrocca wrote:

Great Minarchistan wrote:That would be unironically good, and I hope they set a shitty monopoly at ecommerce so I can profit off them by creating new ecomm businesses every six months just so they can be bought up at a markup of 200%

ezpz

Like I said: literally the only principle you abide by is unprincipled opportunism. Your love for liberty's a fucking facade.

Didnt knew you could project one's view on the society based on their business/job plans that are often opportunistic, unsurprisingly so

Liriena wrote:

Virgolia wrote:1.In most of the world small bussines are a bigger source of emplyoment than large ones
2.Ok
3.Wages aren't just the owner's will,Companies have to set wages agreeing with the unions
4.Real co-ops nearly don't exist anymore,maybe it's because of something.

1. A bit debatable.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/ ... 4f3d831aed
https://aeon.co/essays/what-does-small- ... mic-growth

3. Ideally, yes, but a lot of workers aren't unionized, sometimes because they work in businesses that won't allow them to unionize.
4. They do exist and even thrive. That they are not the dominant way of doing business is not a sign of their failure in and of itself, so much as a sign that they are a very disruptive, and therefor difficult, alternative in an economy dominated by a very different way of doing business.

1.The first link is about the US exclusively and the second one doesn't really disprove that Small bussines are important to the economy
3.Then the problem isn't private property,it's excessive capitalism (I'm not a libertarian)
4.Them being called co-op doesn't really mean they work like they should,not every partner is paid the same or has the same power.