Socialism

[Incendia]

Greetings! I was interested to know what this forum's community thinks of Socialism, so I made this topic to discuss Socialism.

 

As you may (or may not) have noticed from my signature, I am a (Market) Socialist.

I simply prefer it to Capitalism, but (unlike many socialists) I am not anti-capitalist.

I simply have no reason to be against it.

If I had the power I would encourage people to form cooperatives, but I would still allow private enterprise to exist.

 

What is your opinion on socialism?

 

I'm going to make a few points in an attempt to prevent arguments and confusion about certain things...though I doubt that people on this forum will need this.

 

I. There is more that one type of socialism, main different between the three main forms is property policy.

 

II. For a system to be socialist, property in that system must be either commonly owned, socially/cooperatively owned, or publicly owned.

Common Property - property owned by everyone. (Property policy of Communism.)

Social/Cooperative Property - property which is shared. Social property is owned by the people who use it - an example of social property is a housing Cooperative. (Property Policy of Market Socialism and Syndicalism, the type I support.)

Public Property - property owned by the government. (Nationalised stuff) (Property policy of State Socialism and Soviet style socialism.)

 

III. A cooperative is a form of business in which all property of that business belongs to every member of the cooperative, rather than a single CEO or manager or whatever. Cooperative elect their manager.

 

IV. Soviet Union was not entirely Socialist, and is not a good example of a socialist nation because it was corrupt. Corruption is not a cause of socialism itself. Corruption occurs under capitalism too. Soviet Union did practice State Capitalism, where nationalised businesses are run for profit by the government.

 

V. Nazis were not socialist. National Socialism was socialist in name only - just like North Korea is called the Democratic Republic of Korea, when it is quite obviously a dictatorship. Hitler himself expressed regret in calling the system National Socialism. Nazis would kill socialists and communists.

 

VI. All Communists are socialists, not all socialists are Communists.

Edited September 20, 2011 by Incendia

[the asinine cretin]

I'm reticent to vote given the variety of potential meanings behind the term but I'm quite in favor of cooperative/participatory social structures and the like.

[Incendia]

I'm reticent to vote given the variety of potential meanings behind the term but I'm quite in favor of cooperative/participatory social structures and the like.

 

How about now?

[the asinine cretin]

How about now?

 

Thanks!

[Incendia]

Why has only Ceti Alpha V posted?There's no point answering the poll if you aren't going to say why that is your opinion, this isn't a discussion if you just answer the poll and decline to post anything.

Edited September 21, 2011 by Incendia

[JohnB]

The reason for the vote is philosophical. By denying the individual the fruits of his/her labour you are denying incentive. The lack of individual property ownership limits the individuals ability to work towards goals that are valuable to him or her.

[Incendia]

The reason for the vote is philosophical. By denying the individual the fruits of his/her labour you are denying incentive. The lack of individual property ownership limits the individuals ability to work towards goals that are valuable to him or her.

 

I do not advocate the abolishment of individual property. I just favour cooperative. Cooperatives do not denying incentive, all profits generated by the cooperative is shared by the workers rather than going straight to the manger - this actually increases the incentive to do well, because if the company does well you have more pay. (Sharing is good, so why not share you business with your workers? Also I remember reading something in (I think it was) NewScientist which gave reasons for why workers should elect their boss - elected bosses are one of the characteristics of good cooperatives.)

 

I do however feel that the definition of property should be changed to Frederic Bastait's definition:

From the Wikipedia page on property:

"In a radical departure from traditional property theory, he defines property not as a physical object, but rather as a relationship between people with respect to an object. Thus, saying one owns a glass of water is merely verbal shorthand for I may justly gift or trade this water to another person. In essence, what one owns is not the object but the value of the object. By "value," Bastiat apparently means market value; he emphasizes that this is quite different from utility. "In our relations with one another, we are not owners of the utility of things, but of their value, and value is the appraisal made of reciprocal services.""

I consider it a better definition to the current one. (It's also compatible with my opinion that ownership, as it is currently defined, is an illusion.)

[Realitycheck]

Capitalism is the most efficient form of economy. Socialism is typically rife with poor quality of products since there is limited competition with state-run production channels. With no profit motive, there is less drive to excel. People are often inherently lazy. If government-run businesses are limited to things like utilities, I have no problem with that. On the flip side, I believe the govt. has a responsibility to provide a limited amount of support to its people in areas that are not easily foreseen, such as Medicare, or in areas where it makes sense to consolidate efforts, like Social Security. @ Rick Perry, who stated that SS should be state-run, what happens if people move several times in their lives? Then they would receive an assortment of little checks from different states, completely uncoordinated in effect?

[Incendia]

Capitalism is the most efficient form of economy. Socialism is typically rife with poor quality of products since there is limited competition with state-run production channels. With no profit motive, there is less drive to excel. People are often inherently lazy.

 

 

Market Socialism does function, and does function alongside Capitalist economies because governments don't ban cooperatives. Many of these cooperatives are very good quality and can compete with capitalist enterprises. The reason socialism isn't obvious is because capitalist businesses are so easy to set up (you simply need property to sell, property which makes property which you can sell, or investors for your idea) and vastly more common. They also allow the property owner/dictator-of-the-company(the person who owns the company profits, property, and business(boss)) to hog any profits made.

 

In a cooperative profits are shared and the boss is elected. This incentivises workers because if they do well, the company will do well and they will earn more.

The boss is also more likely to be a good boss who the workers like meaning a lower chance of strike action and a decreased need for union. (Democracy in the workplace in better than capitalist dictatorship - just like democracy in a nation is better than a greedy dictatorship.)

 

You don't think laziness exists in Capitalism? It exists in Capitalism as much as it exists in Socialism.

 

Socialism does not need to involve the state at all. State Socialism is not the only form of Socialism - it's simply an anti-market form of socialism.

Market Socialism is another form, which is the type I follow. It does not require state-run channels, instead utilising the market to distribute resources.

 

Capitalism is not the most efficient. The most efficient is an economy built entirely on slave labour, in which slaves are treated as machines...to be disposed of when they break and replaced with a new model filled with all the latest employee enhancement, like steroids to make them stronger and glucose/caffeine supplement to give them the energy to work for all day (or night) without stopping. Oh wait, that is a form of capitalism because property remains private and not shared.

Of-coarse no one uses that because it would be a terrible thing to do.

Capitalism comes in many flavours, as does socialism.

 

On the flip side, I believe the govt. has a responsibility to provide a limited amount of support to its people in areas that are not easily foreseen, such as Medicare, or in areas where it makes sense to consolidate efforts, like Social Security. @ Rick Perry, who stated that SS should be state-run, what happens if people move several times in their lives? Then they would receive an assortment of little checks from different states, completely uncoordinated in effect?

 

What? I don't like in the U.S. (Though I know that Rick Perry doesn't believe in anthropogenic climate change.)

Edited September 23, 2011 by Incendia

[JohnB]

I've finally got he chance to come back to this.

 

Incendia, I know that you have never held a managerial position, but have you ever actually had a job? You seem to have no idea as to how a business works at all.

 

I do not advocate the abolishment of individual property. I just favour cooperative. Cooperatives do not denying incentive, all profits generated by the cooperative is shared by the workers rather than going straight to the manger - this actually increases the incentive to do well, because if the company does well you have more pay. (Sharing is good, so why not share you business with your workers? Also I remember reading something in (I think it was) NewScientist which gave reasons for why workers should elect their boss - elected bosses are one of the characteristics of good cooperatives.)

 

Firstly "all profits" do not go "straight to the manager". A better description is that after wages, taxes, building expenses, superannuation, loan repayments and any other sundry disbursements whatever is left goes to the owner, which is then taxed. While profit sharing on a pro rata or performance basis does increase the incentive to perform, an automatic eligability does not. Automatic eligability encourages people to do the minimum possible while still being eligable for their cut.

 

Secondly the characteristics of a good manager are many, ability to motive, ability to set and achieve goals, ability to make decisions, etc. "Ability to make friends and be popular" isn't on the list. Managers need to do their job properly so that the business survives, if decisions are made with an eye to the next election then hard decisions will be avoided (or at best delayed) and the business will fail. I've continually found that those who advocate for election of managers are historically clueless about the actual duties and function of a manager.

 

Market Socialism does function, and does function alongside Capitalist economies because governments don't ban cooperatives. Many of these cooperatives are very good quality and can compete with capitalist enterprises. The reason socialism isn't obvious is because capitalist businesses are so easy to set up (you simply need property to sell, property which makes property which you can sell, or investors for your idea) and vastly more common. They also allow the property owner/dictator-of-the-company(the person who owns the company profits, property, and business(boss)) to hog any profits made.

 

This shows you know very little about actual business. The owner might indeed "hog any profits made", but he or she is also the one who came up with the idea and was willing to take out a second mortgage on his home to give it a whirl. He or she has often risked everything to set up the business, it is therefore fair that they reap the benefits commensurate with the risks they have taken. Or are you saying that those who risk nothing are entitled to the same share as those who risk everything?

 

In a cooperative profits are shared and the boss is elected. This incentivises workers because if they do well, the company will do well and they will earn more.

The boss is also more likely to be a good boss who the workers like meaning a lower chance of strike action and a decreased need for union. (Democracy in the workplace in better than capitalist dictatorship - just like democracy in a nation is better than a greedy dictatorship.)

 

First point, and this is very important. The only people who use the word "incentivise" are wankers without any business acumen at all but who want to appear knowledgable and people who work for such wankers. Credibility amoung managers and business people drops several points when this word is used. Governments, social activists, Uni students and faculty and HR people use it, actual managers and business people out to have their operation succeed do not. For incentives, see above. The boss is not more likely to be a good boss, he is more likely to be a popular one. This means that he is less likely to put on pressure when it is needed and the company will fail to meet deadlines and business trade will be lost. Obviously if this happens too often then the business will fail.

 

Second point. Your Democracy in the workplace argument is just plain silly. Will you extend it to the family as well? If not, why not? Why shouldn't a 6 year old have a say in the family finances and spending? The simple fact is that the 6 year old cannot comprehend the intricasies of the family budget and unfortunately this is also true of some adults re business. People are not all the same, some can understand why business decisions are made and others cannot. Those who cannot shouldn't have a say in how the business is run.

 

You don't think laziness exists in Capitalism? It exists in Capitalism as much as it exists in Socialism.

 

No it does not. A lazy person in a capitalist sytem gets the sack which provides a vital difference in motivation.

 

Capitalism is not the most efficient. The most efficient is an economy built entirely on slave labour, in which slaves are treated as machines...to be disposed of when they break and replaced with a new model filled with all the latest employee enhancement, like steroids to make them stronger and glucose/caffeine supplement to give them the energy to work for all day (or night) without stopping. Oh wait, that is a form of capitalism because property remains private and not shared.

Of-coarse no one uses that because it would be a terrible thing to do.

 

This is rubbish. A slave based economy is only reasonably efficient in a labour based economy. In any economy requiring skills slave labour and poor treatment are counter productive. Trat people as machine to be disposed of and watch the business fail. While warm bodies can be replaced skill sets cannot, the replacement person has to be trained properly and meshed into the team. This takes about 3 months, closer to 4 if you count the interview and selection process. Constant turnover of staff lowers productivity at all levels. For each replacement person there is lower productivity while they learn the skills for the job, their supervisor is less productive while they spend excess time with the new recruit training and meshing them with the team and the manager is less productive while overseeing the mess.

 

The most efficient business model is one where there is low turnover of staff and if your staff are looked after, well paid with good conditions, the turnover will be low. This is especially true in times of low unemployment because every manager and hirer knows that that last 1% or so are the dregs. They are not just unemployed but are bloody near unemployable and are simply not worth the time or trouble to hire. You are far better off poaching from another company than hiring one of the dregs.

 

Incendia, I suggest you aquaint yourself with the realities of business and then you can comment in a more reasoned and correct fashion.

 

For the record, I happen to have my own business. I could have continued as a wage earner but my wife and I decided to risk it and try. We're risking our entire future on the success of this venture and since we are taking all the risk exactly why, in your view, should we not get all the profits? (This is after paying fair wages to any employees of course)

 

I have run multi million dollar projects that had millions and sometimes billions of dollars worth of International trade riding on them and have overseen crews from 6 to hundreds. I have a reputation as a serious hard a*se who is fine to work for "so long as you do your job", fail in that and I'll "rip your head off and sh*t down your neck". (Other peoples words, not mine. The bloke that told me thought it was hilarious and we both had a hard time keeping our amusement from the crew involved ) But my projects were always delivered on time, finished, correct to the last detail and under budget. As a Project Manager I was not paid to be nice or to be popular, I was paid to get the job done. This is a fact of management that you do not seem to understand.

[Incendia]

Incendia, I know that you have never held a managerial position, but have you ever actually had a job?

 

No it does not. A lazy person in a capitalist sytem gets the sack which provides a vital difference in motivation.

 

Nope - doesn't mean I can't think, even if I am wrong. My opinions will probably change in the future when I acquire more knowledge.

It would be more helpful to teach me the truth. Pointing out that I know nothing about business isn't helpful.

 

A lazy person in a socialist economy would also get "sacked". The 'you'll lose your job if you are lazy' motivation isn't lost in socialism.

Also, surely people prefer being rewarded for work, than being punished for not work. Punishment can cause otherwise lazy people to do the bare minimum in order to be paid. It's not really motivation.

Rewards encourage better than minimum work.

A combination of both is even better - rewards provide motivation, and punishment discourages laziness.

Edited October 4, 2011 by Incendia

[JohnB]

Nope - doesn't mean I can't think, even if I am wrong. My opinions will probably change in the future when I acquire more knowledge.

It would be more helpful to teach me the truth. Pointing out that I know nothing about business isn't helpful.

 

Did you actually read past the first line? I spent paragraphs explaining why your thoughts were misguided or wouldn't work. That is "teaching you the truth". It might not be the predigested pap that most schools seem to prefer as teaching, but that's how it is in the real world. Adults are expected to think about things and concepts rather than be spoonfed. Oh, and realising that you lack education in an area is the first step towards gaining knowledge in that area. You can't teach anything to somebody who already thinks that they know it all.

 

Rewards encourage better than minimum work.

A combination of both is even better - rewards provide motivation, and punishment discourages laziness.

 

No surprise there. Judicious use of both the carrot and the stick give the best results. Maybe this is why I said;

 

profit sharing on a pro rata or performance basis does increase the incentive to perform

 

Or did you miss that bit?

 

I never said that you couldn't think. My overall impression was that you had a lack of practical experience that had led you to erroneous conclusions about how businesses are actually run and the costs involved. That's why I took the time to go point by point. If you disagree, then argue against my points. If I wasn't clear, then ask for clarification, I'll happily explain or expand. But don't sit back and bleat that I'm not "teaching" you in the way that you want, that's just irritating.

[lightburst]

I do not particularly root for Socialism that smothers business incentives. That is to say, like what the other guy said, stops me from making my own business because of the philosophy of 'equal distribution of wealth'. People should properly give credit to manual labor as well as, as what the other guy said, the 'risks' and 'intellectual labor'. Just because a coal miner, not considering the hazards, does 'harder' work doesn't necessarily mean he should get paid more than a software developer, which really just sits on a chair maybe sipping some Latte.

 

That being said, what I root for Socialism is to be able to stop 'exploitation' of the workforce yet not fall in the hole of Communism. If they get paid well then I think it's fine. Now what counts as 'getting paid well'? This is considering the overall exerted work relative to the overall profit(the one after all the bills). I think there should be a formula where your wage is exponentially increased depending on your labor relative to the company profit.

 

I do find people 'calling the shots' earning millions a year annoying in the expense of minimum wage workers which is really the ones doing all the magic. Hold on. Let's consider 'intellectual labor'. I do think Bill Gates deserve all the credit for Microsoft to a certain extent. If the point comes that he just has some team conceptualizing designs and he just pretty much 'checks' over things then I don't think his over $100 a second is justified. At that point, should it not be the team the ones getting paid? I'm sure they do well but not fairly paid considering who gets paid more for less work. That's not considering his charity ofc, which I think is cool.

 

That's a bit convoluted, wait a sec. Point is there is no provision that limits ones profit and how one cuts wages in Capitalism. Things usually go as 'as long as the worker is happy'. Put in some benefits, a fancy cubicle, and you'll do good. Let's take how a certain shoe/bag(i forget) manufacturer uses Asia to cheaply manufacture. They employ kids. Their justification was that the workers were doing better relative to their previous lifestyle and that they were happy. AFAIK their stuff was expensive. That, I think, is revolting.

 

I do greatly recognize the need to have a gauge and weigh physical to intellectual labor. Until then, Socialism won't hold water.

[SkyTeCh05]

All I have to say is that social is good, but most people have there opinion so my opinion is that socialism is good.

[DimaMazin]

Where are your money going to, when socialism is?Can they be useful for you if they work in your job?

[Phi for All]

Our greatest systems are possible because we cooperate and pool resources, so basic infrastructures that benefit the vast majority can further help society prosper and work cohesively. That doesn't mean all capitalist policies need to be abandoned. The US after WWII is a great example, imo, of a smarter blend of socialism and capitalism than we have now.

 

The Fed was putting Joe Sixpack through college with the GI Bill and building interstate highways, airports and dams, while corporations and unions helped build a strong middle class led by a 1% that was making record and reasonable profits even while paying three times the current corporate tax rate. Many parts were far from perfect, but more people prospered in a way that helped the whole country progress, instead of furthering the ambitions of the 1% at the expense of everyone else.

 

IOW, there are many perfect situations to apply socialist policies without doing so in all situations. I wish we could figure out a way to apply them towards the whole medical profession, because I don't think standard business models work well. Business models are all about growth, and medicine is all about reducing the amount of illness.

[toastywombel]

I am a market socialist as well. However defining terms mean really little when we have not done so much as to define them.

 

capitalism, as in unleashed capitalism or laissez faire capitalism is really outdated and terrible.

 

Social programs that are paid for cooperatively by the people through a progressive tax system are the aspects of socialism I support. They make the service available to all which benefits society, and it also makes the service cheaper per capita, provided the government is not corrupted by the influence of money.

 

Infrastructure (roads, communications, etc)

Healthcare (at least a level of healthcare)

Care for the poor

Education (higher education should be made available to all willing citizens)

Emergency Services

Military Services

Prison Systems

 

Furthermore public investment into new ideas is something that socialism brings to the table. Technologies and endeavors which may not yet be cost effective, however their benefits still outweigh their costs in the long run, is something only the public sector can do, as the private sector is consistently trying to make a profit.

(NASA)

I've finally got he chance to come back to this.

Incendia, I know that you have never held a managerial position, but have you ever actually had a job? You seem to have no idea as to how a business works at all.



Firstly "all profits" do not go "straight to the manager". A better description is that after wages, taxes, building expenses, superannuation, loan repayments and any other sundry disbursements whatever is left goes to the owner, which is then taxed. While profit sharing on a pro rata or performance basis does increase the incentive to perform, an automatic eligability does not. Automatic eligability encourages people to do the minimum possible while still being eligable for their cut.

Secondly the characteristics of a good manager are many, ability to motive, ability to set and achieve goals, ability to make decisions, etc. "Ability to make friends and be popular" isn't on the list. Managers need to do their job properly so that the business survives, if decisions are made with an eye to the next election then hard decisions will be avoided (or at best delayed) and the business will fail. I've continually found that those who advocate for election of managers are historically clueless about the actual duties and function of a manager.



This shows you know very little about actual business. The owner might indeed "hog any profits made", but he or she is also the one who came up with the idea and was willing to take out a second mortgage on his home to give it a whirl. He or she has often risked everything to set up the business, it is therefore fair that they reap the benefits commensurate with the risks they have taken. Or are you saying that those who risk nothing are entitled to the same share as those who risk everything?

 

This is all the biggest load of hog wash with no data or anything but anecdotal evidence to back it up. I could look up a bunch of stuff that I have before, like the fact that their are democratized work places that thrive, or that most research shows that when employees are paid more they perform better. . . .

 

 

But of course I'm just one of those guys too who has never held a managerial position and doesn't have a job . . . .. Unless you include being the Leasing Manager an apartment complex that has 2044 units and brings in about 2,500,000 in rent every month.

 

Finally, the fact that the owner should reap all the benefits because he takes all the risk? What about the employee that could go work for Giant Corporation A instead decides to work for your company that was started by taking out a second mortgage and all that jazz, shouldn't he be rewarded. Sounds like his risk would be just as great, especially considering he doesn't have the capital available to him that the owner of the business you cited as an example does.

 

The entrepreneur is nothing without the consumer, when the CEO's gut their employees (the consumer) they only end up screwing themselves in the long run. It starts with the demand. Always has always will. 10,000,000 will have more consumer power in the hands of 1000 people as opposed to being in the hands of one.

Edited April 21, 2014 by toastywombel

[physica]

I used to be socialist until I worked in the NHS emergency medicine after university. In theory socialism is great, who wouldn’t want to help the poor at the expense of the rich? I was a member of the socialist party and even got published against NHS privatisation. This all changed when I actually worked for the NHS.

 

Corruption is rife. Now there’s unfairness in capitalism. However, you have a choice of what product to buy and who to give your money to. With government schemes they take the money off you via taxes and spend it how they want. If you’re poor you won’t get equal treatment in the NHS compared to a rich person. Doctors use NHS resources for their private work. If you’re in purchasing you’ll buy computers for a higher price than on the high street but get a backhand in return, who cares it’s government money they say. They put cleaners and porters on zero hour contracts. They right up joke post grad degrees and mass sell them to the NHS. My friend did masters in medical research at Imperial (5^th in the world at the time) and for his stats they showed him how to use excel. His degree was a complete joke and he couldn’t use it outside the NHS. In my hospital the cardiology consultants got caught because they pushed for funding for an outpatient cardio clinic but they still saw their patients in the hospital. They were double charging for their patients. If you double charged a patient privately they would know about it but because it was NHS they got away with it for years.

 

When Milton Freedman crunched the numbers behind government funding in universities in America he realised that there were so many upper middle class kids going to university and so little working class kids that the upper middle class were getting the money back they paid by taxes but the working class weren’t. Therefore the working class were paying for the upper middle class’s university education via taxes. Again government funding for universities is a nice idea but it does the opposite of what it’s supposed to do.

 

 

In my experience, recent economic findings and history (Russia) as have prime examples of how socialism benefits a few people by forcing the rest to part with their money. The thing that rubs salt in the wound is that they do it under the guise that it’s government so they are doing it to help the majority of the people.

[toastywombel]

I used to be socialist until I worked in the NHS emergency medicine after university. In theory socialism is great, who wouldn’t want to help the poor at the expense of the rich? I was a member of the socialist party and even got published against NHS privatisation. This all changed when I actually worked for the NHS.

 

Corruption is rife. Now there’s unfairness in capitalism. However, you have a choice of what product to buy and who to give your money to. With government schemes they take the money off you via taxes and spend it how they want. If you’re poor you won’t get equal treatment in the NHS compared to a rich person. Doctors use NHS resources for their private work. If you’re in purchasing you’ll buy computers for a higher price than on the high street but get a backhand in return, who cares it’s government money they say. They put cleaners and porters on zero hour contracts. They right up joke post grad degrees and mass sell them to the NHS. My friend did masters in medical research at Imperial (5^th in the world at the time) and for his stats they showed him how to use excel. His degree was a complete joke and he couldn’t use it outside the NHS. In my hospital the cardiology consultants got caught because they pushed for funding for an outpatient cardio clinic but they still saw their patients in the hospital. They were double charging for their patients. If you double charged a patient privately they would know about it but because it was NHS they got away with it for years.

 

When Milton Freedman crunched the numbers behind government funding in universities in America he realised that there were so many upper middle class kids going to university and so little working class kids that the upper middle class were getting the money back they paid by taxes but the working class weren’t. Therefore the working class were paying for the upper middle class’s university education via taxes. Again government funding for universities is a nice idea but it does the opposite of what it’s supposed to do.

 

 

In my experience, recent economic findings and history (Russia) as have prime examples of how socialism benefits a few people by forcing the rest to part with their money. The thing that rubs salt in the wound is that they do it under the guise that it’s government so they are doing it to help the majority of the people.

 

The amount of anecdotal evidence to support statements is just ridiculous. Maybe when I have enough time I will counter with a thoughtful response that is sourced and backed up by facts. Or maybe I can just wait for iNow to respond haha.

 

Finally I think this actually undermines the point you were trying to make

 

"In my hospital the cardiology consultants got caught because they pushed for funding for an outpatient cardio clinic but they still saw their patients in the hospital. They were double charging for their patients. If you double charged a patient privately they would know about it but because it was NHS they got away with it for years."

 

Furthermore, if you double charge a patient privately, the patient does not always know about it, because the patient's insurance company is charged not the patient directly. In case you are unaware this happens all the time. Hospitals routinely run up the bills they send to insurers and in turn insurers forward the costs to their customers. Hospitals do this because of the combination of medical costs, pharma costs, and the cost for doctors.

Finally since you dipped into the grab bag of Milton Friedman, here are some other grand ideas he advocated for. Just to kind of give some credence to the expert you mentioned

 

"Friedman advocated policies such as a volunteer military, freely floating exchange rates, abolition of medical licenses, a negative income tax, and education vouchers."

 

 

"A real gold standard is thoroughly consistent with [classical] liberal principles and I, for one, am entirely in favor of measures promoting its development." He did however add this caveat, "Let me emphasize that this note is not a plea for a return to a gold standard.... I regard a return to a gold standard as neither desirable nor feasible—with the one exception that it might become feasible if the doomsday predictions of hyperinflation under our present system should prove correct."^[48] He said the reason that it was not feasible was because "there is essentially no government in the world that is willing to surrender control over its domestic monetary policy." However, it could be done if "you could re-establish a world in which government's budget accounted for 10 percent of the national income, in which laissez-faire reigned, in which governments did not interfere with economic activities and in which full employment policies had been relegated to the dustbin..."

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman

Edited April 28, 2014 by toastywombel

[SamBridge]

The reason for the vote is philosophical. By denying the individual the fruits of his/her labour you are denying incentive.

But there's just as many people who have passion about something and could use the government's help with it as they would otherwise lack resources. Like for instance, there's plenty of content scientists and artists in both capitalist and communist nations, showing that the desire to peruse a passion is irregardless of what power is in place. Both types of systems can be taken advantage of or be successful as they have both had problems with corruption yet both rose to great heights. There's really no reason to attack any consensual form of government, people should be governed however they want to be, and it's this type of irresponsible and arrogant labeling of people's lives and their preferences as good or bad that led to the tragedies of the colonial period and of the environment.

Edited May 2, 2014 by SamBridge

[Moreno]

Wondering, how some posters ignored what topic starter wrote.

 

I'm afraid that cooperatives will never be able to become a dominant form of property without help of government for a two simple reasons: people who want to create them will always miss capital to create them even if they will join their small money savings. Neither they would be able to compete with already established giant corporations/monopolies. Total price of production means/commercial property is a way larger than total price of personal property of regular people (small employees) and especially their savings. Capital has tendency to concentration. Therefore there is a vicious circle: majority of people have modest incomes because they are not business (co)owners and they will never be able to become an equal co-owners because their modest incomes will not allow them to purchase a share large enough. Furthermore I do not understand who would want to sell a really profitable business or even its shares. Therefore the idea you propose would require some nation-wide scale efforts and political changes.

 

"JohnB" wrote:

Managers need to do their job properly so that the business survives, if decisions are made with an eye to the next election then hard decisions will be avoided (or at best delayed) and the business will fail.

 

What principal difference does it make whether a manager is responsible before a few business owners (director's board) or many small co-owners (cooperative)? Cooperative workers could become disappointed in manager and decide not to re-elect him/her but a few business owners could do the same.

Edited March 15, 2015 by Moreno