(ABANDONED) The Economic Democracy Act

[Sionis Prioratus]

I would like to be told what is so "outrageous"...not a brief dismissal.

The Ambassador also said it is "absurd", by the way.

Oh, and I agree on both counts.

Yours in parroting,

[The Left-Libertarian Hippies]

Well I would like an actual explanation not "I agree on both counts". Economic democracy isnt absurd, it is an economic theory that has been developed over a period of centuries with ideas like Social Credit, Democratic Socialism, Distributism, Social Capitalism, Inclusive Democracy, Parecon and other ideas...this act isnt imposing those ideologies...it is mandating that workers be given more rights in the workplace and than economic institutions should answer to the communities and consumers they serve.

[Droskianishk]

Corporate shareholders have the same liabilities as all other property owners. "Limited liability" is no longer legal for corporations or other business entities

1.Shares are already ownership. Secondly if you eliminate limited liability you are essentially saying is that if a business goes under share and bond holders are liable to lose their homes, cars, etc or even have other earnings garnished if the company fails. This part alone would eliminate almost all corporations on earth (for there would be no purpose to even come together and form them). This whole provision is also overly broad as it extends to all businesses.

B. Any firm that has more than 10% of market share must be broken up unless it can show that it serves the public interest and is vital to the communities it serves in a public hearing.

Where did you come up with the number 10%? What does it matter what size a corporation is as long as it isn't a monopoly (another whole debate over what constitutes a monopoly and how they form), and almost any corporation can pay off its state government to say it has some sort of 'public interest'. Again language is overly broad and not thought through.

C. All WA member-states must perform a corporate charter review for all corporations that’s' market share exceeds .001% every ten years to ensure that these corporations serve the public interest. This review will contain a ecological, social, and financial evaluation of the corporation being evaluated.

So every year a national government is going to have to pay to have essentially all corporations charters reviewed every year simply because they exist? Why would any company or group of individuals want to stay in business and have to deal with this nonsense?

A. An Economic Management Education Program must be active in all states of the WA. This program will educate workers in self-management, community service, and economic trends. This program is designed to give workers the education they need to make decisions reasonably and democratically in a business setting.

You don't define 'worker' will doctors and other professionals have to do this? This completely destroys specialization of work which is the basis of -all- modern economies and essentially all economies since the days of hunting and gathering and would waste unheard of amounts of capital, time, and labour.

B. Enterprises with over 50 workers are allowed to elect their own managers and supervisors. Both must have worked in the enterprise at least 5 years and have an understanding of workers' concerns, their management role, and business trends.

Again you are going to end up with an 'old' boy system which cycles through workers (since in this wacky bill all workers are interchangeable in all fields), and keeps only a few eligible.

C. Workers must be allowed to democratically control their deferred wages and pension funds.

Because that has always worked well when trying to pass austerity measures in hard times, especially the hard times that simply voting for their own benefits and wages would cost because they have no reason to keep wage costs down in this system.

D. Mandatory conversion (over a period of several years? and educational programs?) of the top 100 corporations in each individual member-state to democratically controlled worker, consumer, or community controlled enterprises.

They will either a. close their doors and cut their losses before hand. b. Move to none WA members. Finally this is nationalization of wealth and theft.

E. Allow small and medium sized enterprises to voluntarily convert to democratically controlled, worker, consumer, or community owned enterprises through a Democratic Business Program organized at national level. This program will allow communities to test and develop ways to organize and manage democratic enterprises and will loan and grant funds for conversion and co-op start ups.

This is admition that your bill will fail when it goes into effect and you are attempting to save some semblance of productive behavior. But after the big corporations fail these 'medium' size companies will become the big companies (its all relative after all) and then they will be forceably subjected.

F. The largest 100 banks in WA member-states must be converted into consumer-controlled credit unions or democratic publicly-owned banks over a period of ten years.

If I were a bank owner I would shut the bank down and burn all documents as soon as this passed and before it could be put in affect. This will cause a financial meltdown the likes of which the world has never seen.

G. A 100% reserve requirement shall be placed on demand deposits. All monetary systems are required by this act to be nationally owned and controlled.

With these last two combined I have only one question to ask: are you even aware there are different sorts of banks? Are you even mildly aware of what banks do? From what I've seen the answer is no, this would destroy any possibility of credit expansion or attaining credit to start companies whatsoever.

These are but the most bare of reasons this bill is ridiculous.

[Sionis Prioratus]

it is mandating that workers be given more rights in the workplace and than economic institutions should answer to the communities and consumers they serve.

If Your Excellency is actually worried about workers' welfare, Your Excellency is best advised not to burden them with the extra work of managing their workplace, when they do not have the academic formation nor experience to do so, alongside hundreds, thousands of other workers who similarly do not have a clue about how staggering complex managing any workplace is.

Yours in extreme sincerity,

[Droskianishk]

Well I would like an actual explanation not "I agree on both counts". Economic democracy isnt absurd, it is an economic theory that has been developed over a period of centuries with ideas like Social Credit, Democratic Socialism, Distributism, Social Capitalism, Inclusive Democracy, Parecon and other ideas...this act isnt imposing those ideologies...it is mandating that workers be given more rights in the workplace and than economic institutions should answer to the communities and consumers they serve.

Its an economic theory in the same way that smearing feces on a pre-made photo is art. This economic theory has been proved disastrous in direct proportion to the purity with which it has been applied.

[Sionis Prioratus]

Well I would like an actual explanation not "I agree on both counts". Economic democracy isnt absurd, it is an economic theory that has been developed over a period of centuries with ideas like Social Credit, Democratic Socialism, Distributism, Social Capitalism, Inclusive Democracy, Parecon and other ideas...this act isnt imposing those ideologies...it is mandating that workers be given more rights in the workplace and than economic institutions should answer to the communities and consumers they serve.

Its an economic theory in the same way that smearing feces on a pre-made photo is art. This economic theory has been proved disastrous in direct proportion to the purity with which it has been applied.

[The Left-Libertarian Hippies]

No it hasnt...have you ever heard of Mondragon the 8th largest corporation in Spain or Toyota? BOTH are ran under some form of economic democracy. Worker, consumer, community control ISNT nationalization...it is decentralization and democraticization...never said charter review EVERY YEAR...Bank of North Dakota, most credit unions all succeeded in providing credit to workers in hard times (in the U.S.) and the publicly owned BND helped keep NDs unemployment below 6%!...Limiting to 10% of market share will prevent monopolization and the development of giant private bureaucracies...I didnt say they couldnt exist, I said they had to answer before a public hearing...

[The Left-Libertarian Hippies]

And the 100 pc reserve requirement will alow stability of deposits and will stop the inflationary and wild expansion of money supply under the current monetary system...instead of bankers controlling the money we should let governments strategically invest in the important areas of the economy like health, education, welfare...

[Dilange]

Your new draft is worse than the one before it.

[The Left-Libertarian Hippies]

Please explain Dilange...is it too bloggy?

[Dilange]

Please explain Dilange...is it too bloggy?

Yes and some clauses are redundant

[The Left-Libertarian Hippies]

Please specify which parts are redundant and bloggy...

[Droskianishk]

No it hasnt...have you ever heard of Mondragon the 8th largest corporation in Spain or Toyota? BOTH are ran under some form of economic democracy.

No I've never heard of Mondragon, but being the 8th largest corporation in Spain is much like being the tallest midget and I suspect that its 'form' of 'economic democracy' is much more pure than the 'form' of 'economic democracy' which Toyota uses, which I actually used as an example of exactly how a private company could approach some of your proposals in a much better manner than you yourself laid out. I assume thats how they became so succesful.

Bank of North Dakota, most credit unions all succeeded in providing credit to workers in hard times (in the U.S.)

You're right most credit unions succeed in providing credit, probably because thats a specific type of bank with a specific purpose. Providing loans to workers is much different than providing large loans needed to begin companies.

and the publicly owned BND helped keep NDs unemployment below 6%!...

Do you have any evidence of this? Reports, studies, etc? You know that alot more than a banking system goes into an economy right? You have to have a suitable environment for businesses to operate (something your bill completely obliterates) in, population is a factor, there are many factors too many of which to name that go into employment. It would be nearly impossible to prove that the publicly owned BND (which I can assure you by the way does not practice a 100% reserve system) helped keep unemployment under 6%.

Limiting to 10% of market share will prevent monopolization and the development of giant private bureaucracies...I didnt say they couldnt exist, I said they had to answer before a public hearing...

It won't because a public hearing will involve workers who now partially own and control the company they work for and since they can decide their own wage rate and benefits will want to keep the company big and drive out of business their competitors (monopolization) and so big companies will outvote smaller ones and speed any rate of monopolization.

never said charter review EVERY YEAR

True, but even every 10 years... or well ever since it already would have to be submitted to the government -when they first incorporated- , would be a complete waste of time.

[Dilange]

Please specify which parts are redundant and bloggy...

All of its bloggy, no operation words.

As for redundant, Droskianishk best describes the problems.

[Sionis Prioratus]

No it hasnt [sic]...have you ever heard of Mondragon the 8th largest corporation in Spain or Toyota? BOTH are ran [sic] under some form of economic democracy. Worker, consumer, community control ISNT [sic] nationalization...it is decentralization and democraticization [sic]...never said charter review EVERY YEAR...Bank of North Dakota, most credit unions all succeeded in providing credit to workers in hard times (in the U.S.) and the publicly owned BND helped keep NDs [sic] unemployment below 6%!...Limiting to 10% of market share will prevent monopolization and the development of giant private bureaucracies...I didnt [sic] say they couldnt [sic] exist, I said they had to answer before a public hearing...

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph! I did not know that Spain and North Dakota were so economically complex!

Whatever Your Hurrdurrness is smoking, pray do share!

Yours preparing a dart of haloperidol,

[The Left-Libertarian Hippies]

Would you still consider it legal or ok for submission? (with a little more work)

[Droskianishk]

And the 100 pc reserve requirement will alow stability of deposits and will stop the inflationary and wild expansion of money supply under the current monetary system...instead of bankers controlling the money we should let governments strategically invest in the important areas of the economy like health, education, welfare...

Let individual governments find the best manner of banking possible. I agree that most banking systems in use today are used to unfairly tax the poor, but making all banks keep all deposits would be disastrous. There are much more effective ways of dismantling the current banking system (which is why Droskianishk has no central bank, as central banking is a hallmark of communism).

[The Left-Libertarian Hippies]

Central banking isnt communism...it is neoliberalism...

[Droskianishk]

Central banking isnt communism...it is neoliberalism...

I suppose thats why Marx made it a center piece of his greatest work and why von Mises, Rothbard , and the other greatest fathers of the Austrian school of economics argued vehemently against central banking.

[Sionis Prioratus]

it is mandating that workers be given more rights in the workplace and than economic institutions should answer to the communities and consumers they serve.

If Your Excellency is actually worried about workers' welfare, Your Excellency is best advised not to burden them with the extra work of managing their workplace, when they do not have the academic formation nor experience to do so, alongside hundreds, thousands of other workers who similarly do not have a clue about how staggering complex managing any workplace is.

Yours in extreme sincerity,

For an Ambassador who so desperately wanted "an actual explanation", the silence is deafening. I shall take Your Hurrdurrness's silence as unconditional agreement with my ideas.

Yours fighting the war against illiteracy,

[The Left-Libertarian Hippies]

Marx never wrote about central banking...he mostly wrote on the problems he had with capitalism...u R right that Mises, Hayek, others have opposed central banking though...(central banking is Keynesian or part of the Chicago School, not communist)...IM getting off just got back from Myrtle Beach, SC and worn out...talk about this later.

[Flibbleites]

B. Any firm that has more than 10% of market share must be broken up unless it can show that it serves the public interest and is vital to the communities it serves in a public hearing.

Where did you come up with the number 10%? What does it matter what size a corporation is as long as it isn't a monopoly (another whole debate over what constitutes a monopoly and how they form), and almost any corporation can pay off its state government to say it has some sort of 'public interest'. Again language is overly broad and not thought through.

Not to mention that in order for no company to have more than 10% market share you'd need to have at least 10 companies providing that particular service.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Droskianishk]

Marx never wrote about central banking...he mostly wrote on the problems he had with capitalism...u R right that Mises, Hayek, others have opposed central banking though...(central banking is Keynesian or part of the Chicago School, not communist)...IM getting off just got back from Myrtle Beach, SC and worn out...talk about this later.

I would suggest the good ambassador go back and brush up on everything to do with economics. Central Banking was plank number five of Karl Marx's ten planks, and the Chicago School isn't Keynesian.

[Vocatus]

All right, let's see...

1. Abolishing limited liability is a monumentally bad move that will bring investment by private individuals to a grinding halt. Could you explain why you think it's a good idea?

2. If democratically managed companies and credit unions are significantly more efficient than normal companies as you seem to claim why do they need government support? Let them simply spontaneously form and dominate the market. Or could it be that they can't?

3. Is this a worker democracy bill or an anti-monopoly measure? You may find it easier to stick to a single issue at a time.

4. You do realize that passing proposals in the WA is all about gathering enough supporters to pass the bill? The issue with this proposal (and this issue got worse with each draft) is that it appeals only to people who share your exact economic beliefs and to no-one else. The fans of free market find this proposal distasteful because it infringes on market relationships. The fans of government intervention dislike it because it disrupts our ability to influence the economy by forcing arbitrary goals that may run contrary to our interests. You'll get buried from both sides here, I'm afraid.

[The Left-Libertarian Hippies]

Im abandoning this issue...it is obviously too difficult to enforce on other nations...glad for all of the debating and support.