22-07-2004 00:51									#181
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Law firms aren't corporations. They're partnerships. They already operate like this.

If you mean like the co-ops that the original poster suggested, then you are sadly mistaken. law firms are hierarchies where your value is determined by the dollar value of your loyal clientele. usually all the non-lawyer employees feel like second class citizens and within the lawyers there are partners-- that have some say and non-partners that do not.

Basically the only power a non-partner has is to leave and find other employment

	22-07-2004 00:54									#182
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

It's a coop in which some employees have more shares.

btw, I wasn't counting the secretaries, etc as "part" of the law firm.

	22-07-2004 01:03									#183
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Why? You can motivate someone to do something if you buy them lunch as long as there is no one else to give them more. You don't have to pay them huge amounts of money.

My question is how you prevent there being someone around to offer more. Even in a co-op setting, if I am a proven manager, or a geologist with a knack for finding lucrative mineral deposits or whatever . .. . there will be an incentive to pay me more if I can add value.

If someone isn't willing to pay me more, I will just iopen up my own shop and take all the profits of my labours for myself-- Since I will be a worker appropriating the efforts of my own labors, I'm sure no one will have a problem with it even if I make 10 million a year

	22-07-2004 01:04									#184
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker quote: It tells us nothing about human beings, and thus is pointless to bring up in a discussion about which social systems would suit humans best. No, because it tells us people are rational agents (not a bunch of insane nuts). Combined with the basic knowledge that few or none derive happiness from having LESS money, or less stuff money can buy (giving to charity is part of this), we understand that the general tendency of humans is to maximize their wealth (and then spend it on stuff).

No, it does not tell us that. It merely tells us that no matter what action a human takes, it is self-interested. Sticking your head in a tiger's mouth is self-interested because you wanted to do it. Suicide is self-interested. Even the actions of a psychotic schoizphrenic are self-interested simply because he chose to do them. Basically, you have replaced the definition of self-interest with the definition of choice and declared that because every human being must make a choice to act, he is therefore acting in his self-interest.

The reality is even father from your definition. Most humans do not act in their best interests, because they are either unware of their interests or have been confused by others into support that which harms them. Further, many people are constrained by time, energy, geography, economics, etc. and are physically incapable of acting in their self-interest.

	22-07-2004 01:05									#185
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker It's a coop in which some employees have more shares. btw, I wasn't counting the secretaries, etc as "part" of the law firm.

That was obvious but don't they count in the co-op model-- I thought the original poster wanted one vote per employee LOL

In reality that would last as long as it took the 10 support staff to vote themselves a raise. Then the 5 lawyers would have to open a new firm

	22-07-2004 01:41									#186
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara No, it does not tell us that.

Yes it does. That's the definition of a rational agent.

quote: Even the actions of a psychotic schoizphrenic are self-interested simply because he chose to do them. Basically, you have replaced the definition of self-interest with the definition of choice and declared that because every human being must make a choice to act, he is therefore acting in his self-interest.

Not quite. Insane (irrational) people do not act in their self-interest. A basic example would be "this action is in my self-interest, therefore I won't do it". Basic definition of illogic.

quote: The reality is even father from your definition. Most humans do not act in their best interests, because they are either unware of their interests or have been confused by others into support that which harms them.

OK, make it "perceived" self-interest. I believe I even mentioned that earlier. It just gets annoying typing "perceived" before every instance of "self-interest".

quote: Further, many people are constrained by time, energy, geography, economics, etc. and are physically incapable of acting in their self-interest.

Uh, no. Self-interest, or utility, is not some on-off switch, it's a range. Some actions are more in my self-interest than others. Thus, there will always be a greatest value (unless I am completely incapable of doing anything, in which case I'm not an agent anyway).

	22-07-2004 02:02									#187
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: The problem with capital is that it either has to be subsidized, or to be exploitative. I see no problem with a subsidized public bank, that offers very cheap loans to viable business models. I have much more problems with exploitative systems.

the problem with subsidies is they distort the market and lead to very pecular behavior by consumers. Here in Iraq the government subsidizes gasoline to make it more affordable to the average man. Thus gasoline is only about 20 cents a gallon, however, you can never find the gasoline because everyone is always buying as much as they can get their hands on and then reselling it at market value. If by chance you happen to find a station which still has gas, well, prepare for a loooooong line. Bread is also subsidized to the point that it's virtually free. Peasants have stopped bothering to harvest hay because they can get the almost free bread and then feed their livestock with it. Obviously neither of these are very efficent arrangements and both have resulted in rationing of the item in question because people have been so wasteful. But why should the people worry about efficency when it doesn't cost them anything? It does cost the government though because they are going bankrupt providing these subsidies.

I could also bring up federal housing loan subsidies and the subsequent creation of a housing bubble but I think you get the picture. Subsidies end up destorting the market and create wasteful consumption patterns not to meantion cost the state money it can ill afford.

	22-07-2004 02:11									#188
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I'm, not into the theoretical model like others are, I'm into how things might work in practice

1. 1 employee-1 vote

This can work perhaps in certain cases and on certain issues but highlevel employeees will resent sharing power equally with the custodial staff-- There would likely be a major round of outsourcing of a lot of the lower level functions to avoid sharing decision making power. So the oil production co-op would put service contracts in place with the secretarial co-op and the janitorial co-op etc etc. The co-op model would not work for accounting, law or other professional firms ( and I am not certain it was proposed for those firms since they generally do not have share capital)

The larger question is who gets a say . .. Does a new employee get an equal say with the 20 year person? Do highly mobile people ( whose personal self interest would be to maximize salary and payouts now since they have abundant other opportunities) have the same say as people really tied to the business's long-term fortunes.


2. Capital-- Someone-- I think it was spiffor seemed to dismiss this problem with the idea that "banks" would provide the money. First of all I question where they get it if they have no investors themselves and are worker owned co-ops-- hmm how would that work ??

But leaving that aside and assuming the existing banking system existed, I doubt that there would be enough capital available for debt to replace investment. Plus many companies like say oil or mining exploration companies CAN'T use debt to finance much of what they do. The oil well costs a million but is worth nothing if it comes up dry. You might find investors but getting lent the money is unlikely. People will only give you the money on the idea of becoming an owner and sharing the upside. debt just doesn't work like that usually.

Also most of the higher-risk lenders come in the form of venture capitalists that require high rates of return and onerous terms to lend and will also require rights to take over control of the company if they don't like its direction. These lenders will be concerned with MAXIMIZING RETURN-- just like the old style shareholders were . . . hmmmm you've taken control of the business from shareholders and given it to a finance company-- good show!!?


3. Investors

Lots of people from the rich on down to Joe Schmo worker currently have investments in large numbers of companies. Where does this money go?? Is the idea that I can only lend this money for fixed rates and my only chance for greater returns is if the co-op I happend to work for makes them. Isn't this forcing me into the reverse of a diversification ?? -- making my future dependent on the success of the one business entity that happens to employ me.

Seriously though what does a rich person do with their wealth ( other than consumption)-- Or non rich folks-- The janitorial co-op has a surplus of funds due to hard work .. . . What can they do with this ?? They want to save for their retirements but where do they send the money---

Let me guess-- The State will provide it all right-- perhaps from each according to their ability and to each according to their needs ???

	22-07-2004 02:18									#189
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

The only available way to invest would be to aquire realestate or some other tangable item with limited supply.

	22-07-2004 02:19									#190
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin The only available way to invest would be to aquire realestate.

All land will be publically owned.

	22-07-2004 02:19									#191
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Horribly, stupid idea. Have you commies learned nothing over the last 90 years?

	22-07-2004 02:32									#192
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Yes.

#1, don't let the counter-revolutionaries organize militarily to undermine your revolution.

#2, don't trust anyone named Stalin.

#3, democracy, even in civil war and foreign invasion, is preferable to an "emergancy" dictatorship.

#4, don't trust the United States.

#5, a mix of decentralization and centralization works better than either alone.

#6, two armed commisars for every bureaucrat, to guard against him, not for him.

#7, more democracy is always better.

#8, a mix of collective and private economies will result in people stealing from the collective.

	22-07-2004 02:39									#193
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Where as collectively owned farms are doomed to produce next to nothing since no one wants to take responsibility for doing more work since the free loaders get equal shares. Aren't you even slightly curious why Tsarist Russia's wheat crop in 1913 was larger then every Soviet havest until the late 1960's? It wasn't just war damage because the total number of acres was much higher in the 60's then in the teens. It seems those greedy little collacks and peasant farmers actually made their farms more efficent by working harder. They worked harder because they got to keep all the profits. How do you provide equal motivation to a man who gets paid the same no matter if he works hard or just milks the system?

	22-07-2004 02:40									#194
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: #7, more democracy is always better.

Even if it results in capitalism?

	22-07-2004 02:48									#195
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin Where as collectively owned farms are doomed to produce next to nothing since no one wants to take responsibility for doing more work since the free loaders get equal shares.

That assumes the collective has no power to punish those who freeload. I don't make that assumption. If we're all going to suffer because Kuciwalker decides to freeload, we have an incentive to toss Kuci out of the collective, reduce his rations, give him extra chores, etc.

The reason the Soviet collectives did so poorly is because the workers had no authority. They were merely drones, who took orders. They had no ability to change things. That alienation was responsible for most of the problems in the USSR. That's what happens when you have a top-down system which is run by and for the bureaucrats. You see the same thing among low-level workers in the U.S. People do just enough work to get paid. Working harder only makes the owner richer.

Nicaraguan collectives, on the other hand, did quite well, when they weren't getting attacked by U.S. terrorists. People had a stake in their system, they had control over how things were done, if they wanted to make improvements they could.

	22-07-2004 02:51									#196
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker quote: #7, more democracy is always better. Even if it results in capitalism?

Yes, though without the capitalists being able to lie, its unlikely they'd be able to convince people to go back to being slaves.

	22-07-2004 02:53									#197
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

If collectives are so efficient, why aren't there so many of them in the US?

	22-07-2004 02:59									#198
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker If collectives are so efficient, why aren't there so many of them in the US?

Who says there aren't? They're just capitalist collectives, aka, corporations. You also have credit unions and a handful of worker owned companies (but the latter are usually created to screw workers, like at United).

Also, lending institutions have typically refused to lend to more "socialist" type collectives. Capitalists are not eager to make themselves obsolete.

	22-07-2004 12:06									#199
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Bump.

	22-07-2004 19:02									#200
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Also, lending institutions have typically refused to lend to more "socialist" type collectives. Capitalists are not eager to make themselves obsolete.

Ah, yes... it's a conspiracy. It couldn't be because the collectives have less prospects to be able to pay back the loan, could it? Capitalists will deal with anyone as long as they can make some money (look at the che guevara t-shirts). Haven't you learned that yet?

	22-07-2004 20:14									#201
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Ah, yes... it's a conspiracy. It couldn't be because the collectives have less prospects to be able to pay back the loan, could it? Capitalists will deal with anyone as long as they can make some money (look at the che guevara t-shirts). Haven't you learned that yet?

"Sell the rope" and stuff.

seriously, though, che is correct. Sometimes, this is indeed the case.

	22-07-2004 20:27									#202
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

To conspiracy theorists perhaps it is correct. If there is money to be made, they will be all on it.

	22-07-2004 20:36									#203
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

They never cut the Kibbutzim the slack they've cut Tycoons. I know that for a fact.

	22-07-2004 23:16									#204
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui To conspiracy theorists perhaps it is correct. If there is money to be made, they will be all on it.

A conspiracy is when people get together to plan something illegal. There's nothing illegal about banks not wanting to fund "socialist" enterprises. Nor is anyone alleging that they get together and plan this.

There are, however, certain myths about the marketplace that banks are just as susecptable to believing as others. For example, the hoary old tale about how franchising being a safer bet than other small business ventures. The truth is that franchises fail at a higher rate than other new small buisnesses over all (65% v 60%). Co-ops, on the other hand, are seen as something that rarely works. I don't have any numbers on co-op failure rates, but I doubt it's much different than other small businesses.

	22-07-2004 23:37									#205
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Who says there aren't?

They haven't replaced corporations. Therefore corporations are better at some things. That was my point.

	22-07-2004 23:43									#206
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Who says there aren't? They haven't replaced corporations. Therefore corporations are better at some things. That was my point.

Of course they are. And family businesses are better than corporations at some other things. And Non Profit Organizations are better than family businesses at some other things. And Churches are better than NPOs at some other things...
Point is: there are different characteristics with which one can judge an organization.

Corporations excel at bringing profit to the shareholder. This is not the characteristic I wish to base an economic model on.

	23-07-2004 00:20									#207
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Corporations excel at bringing profit to the shareholder.

Actually, you've completely missed my point. They actually excel at doing certain kinds of business - just like coops do for different kinds, and NPO's, etc. So why only allow coops, or NPO's, or whatever? In the businesses in which corporations excel, they will be predominant. In the businesses in which coops excel, they will be predominant. And so on and so forth.

	23-07-2004 02:49									#208
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Serial killers excel at killing. This is not something we want to encourage, just because they are good at it. Corporations are dangerous to indiviudals, the environment, society, etc. They are only good for making a profit, and in a society where there is no profit, they will be useless.

	23-07-2004 05:53									#209
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker quote: Originally posted by Agathon So according to you, people can never have an interest which is not directed towards making them happier. Yes. Happiness is not necessarily "smiley" happiness, but your "happiness" with various outcomes. Whichever outcome you are "happiest" with, you choose.

Skywalker,

You have a dangerously inadequate knowledge of economics. Stop acting like a PhD.

Here's the definition of utility out of the Oxford dictonary of Economics.

utility A synonym for individual welfare. A utility function gives an individual's welfare as an increasing function of the various goods they consume and a decreasing function of various types of work performed.

	23-07-2004 05:56									#210
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara But it sure beats the alternative.

One alternative is communism.