Should Capitalism be outgrown?

A place to bring a contemplative / Dharmic perspective and opinions to current events, politics and economics.
User avatar
fwiw
Posts: 634
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:06 pm

Re: Should Capitalism be outgrown?

Post by fwiw » Thu Jan 03, 2019 7:11 am

chownah wrote:
Thu Jan 03, 2019 4:37 am
Here is an article that gives some answers to my questions:
https://drpop.org/mondragon-how-do-you-become-a-member/
It says that (among other things...go read it) to become a member requires a 15,000 euro investment in the company. What this means is that to become a member you must make a captial investment in the corporation. This sound quite a bit like capitalism what with the capital investment required to be part of the decision making process which is very much like the usual corporate structure where a purchase of a share (or more) of stock is required to be part of the decision making process. I think that this means that while mondragon seems to me to be a vast improvement on the usual corporate structure it has not outgrown capitalism (see the topic title).
Again, we could discuss the choice of words ("outgrow" or not - as I have even indicated as early on as in the OP), but that's not very interesting. What is interesting in my opinion is to discuss alternatives to the current organization of the economy. Whether we deem proposed alternatives to be just another form of capitalism or something so different it should be given another name is really a side issue. Now on the 15,000 € investment, what it shows is that there is no one-stop solution. It requires other structures to come and fill in the gaps. For example, we could imagine that governments, instead of giving giant tax cuts to the rich and corporations could finance next to 0 interest rates loans for people who want to join a coop, with appropriate safeguards to avoid fraud of course.

but its just that going out to joust against capitalism per se seems to me like a waste of energy


If one is going to look for an alternative, it will only be because one finds the current system unsatisfying. If the latter fact is not yet established, it still remains the first step in a discussion of alternatives to capitalist organization of business as we know it today. Interestingly, nearly all those who have defended capitalism earlier in this discussion and dismissed criticism towards it have now gone silent on the topic of worker coops. I think it kind of hints that I have a point here.

which could be used to try to improve on what mondragon has done or at least to duplicate it.....and.....to duplicate what they have done requires an acceptance of some of the principles of capitalism rather than some rhetorical railing against it.
It requires both. The very reason why coops are not getting more support is precisely because there is not enough criticism of capitalism opening onto a search for alternatives, followed by the realization that such alternatives already exist.

It is alot easier to complain about capitalism than it is to work everyday to bring about a better corporate ethic.
No one will bring about better corporate ethics without pointing out first the failings of the current corporate ethics. Dr Wolff (author of the article) does both, because if you go to step 2 without properly addressing step 1 first, there is no reason why step 2 should be even considered worth listening to. The proper way in my opinion is therefore:

1. point out the problems of capitalism as we know it
2. offer a solution that already exists and just needs more support

Dr Wolff has been doing this for decades, and his message has been getting a lot more attention in the last 5 years, mostly thanks to alternative media and people who think outside of the tired narratives
Last edited by Dorje Shedrub on Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:18 am, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: Removed moderator note
... in my opinion

User avatar
fwiw
Posts: 634
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:06 pm

Re: Should Capitalism be outgrown?

Post by fwiw » Sat Jan 05, 2019 6:12 am

Good news from USA:

The USA just passed the first national ... operatives
his legislation is a milestone for our work in advancing worker-owned and worker-managed cooperative businesses. We believe that broader awareness of employee ownership will be game-changing for America’s small business community.
...
“I believe we’re at the beginning of an important trend in the growth of worker ownership. Worker coops are becoming a mainstream part of the US economy, and we look forward to working with the Small Business Association and Small Business Development Centers across the country to bring resources to the worker cooperative movement,” added Esteban Kelly.

This legislation, which improves access to capital and technical assistance for employee-owned businesses, greatly helps worker cooperatives, with directives for SBA (US Small Business Administration) to:
Finance the sale of businesses to their employees
Work with Small Business Development Centers across the country to provide training and education on employee ownership options
Report on SBA’s lending and outreach to employee-owned businesses
For anyone interested in this topic, here are a couple of links:

http://www.cicopa.coop/

https://www.democracyatwork.info/

It seems that capitalists don't even see coops as a threat. Who could imagine a more peaceful transition towards post-capitalism?
... in my opinion

chownah
Posts: 458
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 2:08 am

Re: Should Capitalism be outgrown?

Post by chownah » Sat Jan 05, 2019 11:55 am

Again, we could discuss the choice of words ("outgrow" or not - as I have even indicated as early on as in the OP), but that's not very interesting.
and then
Who could imagine a more peaceful transition towards post-capitalism?
I guess that we could discuss the choice of words (post-).

We sort of mutilated the concept of "outgrow capitalism" in previous discussion so our interlocutor ("interlocutor" being sort of a favorite word of our interlocutor) has stopped using that term and is now going with "post-capitalism".....so now perhaps it behooves us to mutilate the concept of "post-capitalism" or at least its use in the context it has just been presented with.....I'll start:
Mondragon is not an alternative to captialism....its functioning depends on more than one of capitalism's principles and I'll mention one namely the principle of owning capital and accruing profits from that ownership. If you want a job at mondragon (other than strictly defined temporary work) you are required to invest in the companies capital by purchasing a share....required. Profits are paid to those who own those shares. This is a basic tenat of capitalism.....ownership of capital entitles the owner a share in the profits based on ownership.
chownah

User avatar
fwiw
Posts: 634
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:06 pm

Re: Should Capitalism be outgrown?

Post by fwiw » Sat Jan 05, 2019 1:34 pm

We sort of mutilated the concept of "outgrow capitalism" in previous discussion so our interlocutor ("interlocutor" being sort of a favorite word of our interlocutor) has stopped using that term and is now going with "post-capitalism"
In my opinion, it can be argued that such an evolution can be described has "outgrowing" capitalism towards a state of "post-capitalism". You are just fantasizing a scenario about what happened earlier in this thread and about my choice of words according to the feeling of the moment.

Mondragon is not an alternative to captialism....
It is an alternative to lack of democracy at the workplace and all the consequences that it has, which can be seen as a characteristics of capitalism. Again, you can disagree but no one has the monopoly of the truth.

its functioning depends on more than one of capitalism's principles and I'll mention one namely the principle of owning capital and accruing profits from that ownership. If you want a job at mondragon (other than strictly defined temporary work) you are required to invest in the companies capital by purchasing a share....required. Profits are paid to those who own those shares. This is a basic tenat of capitalism.....ownership of capital entitles the owner a share in the profits based on ownership.
I agree. However, as I have said earlier:
fwiw wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:12 pm
the wikipedia page for capitalism lists 8 fundamental characteristics of capitalism. If we modify some of them and add 2 or 3 more, I guess we can either say we have created a new system that "outgrew" the former one, or we can also say we are just modifying capitalism and ameliorating its nastiness. It's just a matter of which description one prefers.
... in my opinion

chownah
Posts: 458
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 2:08 am

Re: Should Capitalism be outgrown?

Post by chownah » Sat Jan 05, 2019 2:14 pm

fwiw wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 1:34 pm
Mondragon is not an alternative to captialism....
It is an alternative to lack of democracy at the workplace and all the consequences that it has, which can be seen as a characteristics of capitalism. Again, you can disagree but no one has the monopoly of the truth.
It can be seen that way but of course it is not that way....not only is a lack of democrac at the workplace not a characteristic of capitalism it is capitalism above all other economic systems that I have heard of which relies on the freedom to organize productive means in whatever way individuals chose to pursue which includes worker owned and managed businesses. Worker managed business are perfectly fine and compatible with the principles of capitalism.....there are alot of capitalist countries which have alot of worker owned and managed businesses...lots and lots....this is not new, different, or unusual....it is common.

Worker owned and managed business is a natural outcome of capitalism.....quite frankly though, from a productive standpoint they are quite often not the most efficient....but of course efficiency is certainly not my most important goal in life but it is something to consider.

Also, a not insignificant number of workers at mondragon consider it to be democratic in rhetoric only and not in practice.
chownah

User avatar
fwiw
Posts: 634
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:06 pm

Re: Should Capitalism be outgrown?

Post by fwiw » Sat Jan 05, 2019 5:36 pm

chownah wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 2:14 pm
It can be seen that way but of course it is not that way....not only is a lack of democrac at the workplace not a characteristic of capitalism
Pardon my imperfect English. Perhaps "feature" would have been a more appropriate word? Or is it that you want to deny the fact that the large majority of capitalist enterprises lack democracy?

it is capitalism above all other economic systems that I have heard of which relies on the freedom to organize productive means in whatever way individuals chose to pursue which includes worker owned and managed businesses.

I agree. But do you think that if the economy was dominated by coops, there would be no significant change compared with what we presently have? If there would be significant change, then some may choose to give a new name to the outcome, since it is significantly different from what the situation was prior to that change. Some may choose to still call it capitalism. Would such a squabble matter at all?

there are alot of capitalist countries which have alot of worker owned and managed businesses...lots and lots....
Lots and lots? Really? This is what happens in USA:
Comparing these numbers to the size of the private sector we see that significant and broad-based employee ownership includes just 0.3% of U.S. Businesses and employs just 1.9% of the private sector.

Finally, we can include employee control as a third and final factor in EO. This gets us to the worker cooperative model. Again, there is no consensus on the exact definition, but according to the Democracy at Work Institute, there are 300 worker cooperatives with 7 thousand worker-owners.

source
chownah wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 2:14 pm
this is not new, different, or unusual....it is common.
In the light of the figures I just gave in the case of the USA, I agree with the first epithet. Not with the other 3.

Worker owned and managed business is a natural outcome of capitalism.....quite frankly though, from a productive standpoint they are quite often not the most efficient....
Do you have a source to substantiate your claim?

Also, a not insignificant number of workers at mondragon consider it to be democratic in rhetoric only and not in practice.
Yes, of course, this is bound to happen. Humans will be humans. But as a comparison even though some people on planet earth still get exploited and mistreated, abolishing slavery was a very significant progress. No coop will ever be perfect, but it's up to humanity to figure out better ways to live together and cooperate for mutual benefit.
Last edited by Dorje Shedrub on Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:19 am, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: Removed moderator note
... in my opinion

User avatar
fwiw
Posts: 634
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:06 pm

Re: Should Capitalism be outgrown?

Post by fwiw » Sat Jan 05, 2019 5:41 pm

More U.S. businesses are becoming worker co-ops: Here’s why

https://www.fastcompany.com/40572926/mo ... -heres-why
With new tools and political policies now in place to support them, there could be a boom in employee-owned business ahead as baby boomers retire and sell their companies to their workers.
...
Many businesses in the U.S. were founded as worker cooperatives. But a growing portion–as many as 40%–of co-ops in the U.S. are born out of traditional workplaces like A Child’s Place, whose owners decide to sell the business to their employees. As baby boomers, who own around 12 million businesses across the U.S., prepare to retire, around 70% of their companies are expected to change hands. Increasingly, children are not taking over businesses from their parents, so small business owners must look to sell or risk closing down and losing all their assets from years of investment.

But instead of selling to a private owner, there’s a real opportunity amid this “silver tsunami” to radically scale the presence of worker-owned cooperatives in the U.S. “Historically, co-ops do best when there’s a market failure,” says Melissa Hoover, founding executive director of DAWI. During the Great Depression, for instance, farmers struggling to access energy resources, set up electrical cooperatives that they collectively owned, and cooperative housing models took off in some cities. Nearly a century later, we’re living through our own version of market failure. As banks have consolidated, capital for small businesses has grown scarce. More small businesses are now closing than opening in the U.S., and jobs are consistently failing to provide livable wages to employees.
... in my opinion

User avatar
fwiw
Posts: 634
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:06 pm

Re: Should Capitalism be outgrown?

Post by fwiw » Sat Jan 05, 2019 5:43 pm

fwiw wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 5:36 pm
chownah wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 2:14 pm
Worker owned and managed business is a natural outcome of capitalism.....quite frankly though, from a productive standpoint they are quite often not the most efficient....
Do you have a source to substantiate your claim?
As I suspected, the assumption that coops are less efficient is demonstrably wrong:
Productivity improves by an extra 4-5% on average in the year an ESOP is adopted, and the higher productivity level is maintained in subsequent years. This one-time jump is more than twice the average annual productivity growth of the U.S. economy over the past 20 years.

https://www.nceo.org/articles/research- ... -ownership
:clap:
Last edited by Dorje Shedrub on Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Quoted ad hominem removed
... in my opinion

chownah
Posts: 458
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 2:08 am

Re: Should Capitalism be outgrown?

Post by chownah » Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:42 am

fwiw wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 5:43 pm
fwiw wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 5:36 pm
chownah wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 2:14 pm
Worker owned and managed business is a natural outcome of capitalism.....quite frankly though, from a productive standpoint they are quite often not the most efficient....
Do you have a source to substantiate your claim?
As I suspected, the assumption that coops are less efficient is demonstrably wrong:
Productivity improves by an extra 4-5% on average in the year an ESOP is adopted, and the higher productivity level is maintained in subsequent years. This one-time jump is more than twice the average annual productivity growth of the U.S. economy over the past 20 years.

https://www.nceo.org/articles/research- ... -ownership
:clap:
My guess is that the source of this article will be a propoganda machine promoting small business run by worker owners/managers.....which is great because I support worker owned/managed enterprises....when the right people become owner/managers they are absolutely great....but in general they are not the most efficient because most of the people who want to be owner/manager/workers donot hold efficiency to be their highest values......and while efficiency is not MY higheset value (I won't mention the issue of what your highest value is) I do think that it is worth considering.....and looking at the overall "progress" in the economic scene it does seem that the highly competitive companies that bring in the big bucks are not democratically run and do not seem to be worker owned and managed.....which I think is a result of (among other less potent influences) a difference in efficiencies.

And....it really seems that you have dropped the mistaken idea that a non-democratic work place is a characteristic of capitalism....I think this is a much bigger and more important issue than efficiency. Anyone who wants to discredit capitalism by trying to promote the idea that it requires an undemocratic workplace is doing disservice to everyone as it consume people's energies by giving them the wrong target to attack.....if you want to direct people's attention to economic systems rooted in undemocratic method it is probably better to direct them to look at the power structure in the 20th century implementations of what is sometimes called "communism".
chownah
Last edited by Dorje Shedrub on Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Combative phrase removed

chownah
Posts: 458
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 2:08 am

Re: Should Capitalism be outgrown?

Post by chownah » Sun Jan 06, 2019 5:34 am

chownah wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:42 am
fwiw wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 5:43 pm
fwiw wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 5:36 pm


Do you have a source to substantiate your claim?
As I suspected, the assumption that coops are less efficient is demonstrably wrong:
Productivity improves by an extra 4-5% on average in the year an ESOP is adopted, and the higher productivity level is maintained in subsequent years. This one-time jump is more than twice the average annual productivity growth of the U.S. economy over the past 20 years.

https://www.nceo.org/articles/research- ... -ownership
:clap:
Your little data point will only persuade the gullible. My guess is that the source of this article will be a propoganda machine promoting small business run by worker owners/managers.....
.....
......(alot of other stuff which fwiw has had the good sense to not address)....
To which fwiw replied:
fwiw wrote: You keep making this kind of uninformed assumptions and keep being demonstrated wrong. Since you will not accept research data and instead prefer going with your impression, there is no point arguing further.
I won't address your accusation that I "keep being demonstrated wrong"....I checked out the source for the article you quoted and it is the National Center for Employee Ownership....whose business it is to promote employee ownership.....looks like I was right all along.

And this is the best part.....the statistic she presents about the improvement in productivity is about ESOP....which means Employee Stock Ownership Plans.....this is NOT worker owned and managed businesses!!!!.......it is just about employees buying stock in the companies where they work! Literally millions of the people in this study just had 401k plans which quallified them!!!! NON OF THIS has to do with worker owned and managed business! NON of it! There no doubt there were some business which were included that were worker owned and managed but it seems that the vast majority of the people in the study simply bought stock in the company where they worked which is not unusual at all....not in the least...many many companies even have special programs making it easier for their employees to buy shares in the company....THIS IS CAPITALISM....owning shares is overt capitalism regardless of who buys them and receives money because they own capital.....this has almost nothing to do with worker owned and managed businesses.


I just noticed that her article is not even talking about EFFICIENCY...it only talks about PRODUCTIVITY which are two entirely different things....

chownah

User avatar
fwiw
Posts: 634
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:06 pm

Re: Should Capitalism be outgrown?

Post by fwiw » Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:28 am

chownah wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 5:34 am
I checked out the source for the article you quoted and it is the National Center for Employee Ownership....whose business it is to promote employee ownership.....looks like I was right all along.
However, the author does not look quite like the untrustworthy type.
Doug Kruse has a Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard University. He conducts econometric studies on employee ownership, profit sharing, disability, worker displacement, pensions, and wage differentials. Professor Doug Kruse's book Profit Sharing: Does It Make A Difference? won Princeton's Richard A. Lester prize as the year's Outstanding Book in Labor Economics and Industrial Relations. He has testified four times before Congress on his economic research, and conducted several studies for the U.S. Department of Labor and for the U.S. Department of Education's National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research. Professor Kruse served as Senior Economist at the White House Council of Economic Advisers in 2013-2014. source


And this is the best part.....the statistic she presents about the improvement in productivity is about ESOP....which means Employee Stock Ownership Plans.....this is NOT worker owned and managed businesses!!!!.......it is just about employees buying stock in the companies where they work!

This is true, reveals a superficiality in my search for data, and greatly weakens my argument, since worker coops represent only a fraction of companies adopting ESOP, which makes it difficult to draw any conclusion for certain, However, its dismissal does not support the claim that "from a productive standpoint... quite often not the most efficient", it just shows that it has not been unequivocally disproved by this particular research.



So let me go and get more appropriate research data. Here we go:
Both studies find that on average overall firms can produce more with the technology of employee-owned firms. In other words, the way worker co-operatives organise production is more efficient. Fakhfakh et al (2012) show that in several industries conventional firms would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they adopted the employee-owned firms’ way of organising production. In contrast, they find that worker co-operatives would always produce at least as much with their own technology as with conventional firms.

https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files ... report.pdf
Virginie Pérotin

Qualifications

PhD, MA Economics, Cornell (USA)
Dipl. Ecole Supérieure de Commerce de Paris (France)

Experience

Before joining Leeds University Business School in May 2001, Virginie Pérotin was a Senior Research Economist at the International Labour Office in Geneva (Switzerland). In the past, she has held research positions at the London School of Economics and the Centre d'Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC), a research centre of the French Prime Minister's Office in Paris. Prof. Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the World Bank, the OECD and the European Commission on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes. She is a member of the Council of the International Association for the Economics of Participation and of the editorial board of the Journal of Entrepreneurial and Organizational Diversity
https://business.leeds.ac.uk/about-us/o ... e-perotin/

Also off the top of the internet:
Slichter (1968, p. 575): "The very fact that the workers have had an opportunity to participate in determining their working conditions is in itself favorable to efficiency. . . . [E]fficiency depends upon consent. Even though the specific rules and policies adopted in particular instances may not be ideal, the process of joint determination of working conditions at least offers the possi- bility of achieving greater efficiency than could be obtained under rules and conditions dictated by one side."
...
(Conclusion regarding the plywood industry in the US Pacific Northwest in 1995:)
What differences we have found imply that co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent (as suggested by the results reported in table 8).

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/up ... _craig.pdf
Last edited by Dorje Shedrub on Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:25 am, edited 3 times in total.
Reason: Removed meta-discussion
... in my opinion

chownah
Posts: 458
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 2:08 am

Re: Should Capitalism be outgrown?

Post by chownah » Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:17 pm

fwiw wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:28 am
let me address this
chownah wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 5:34 am
I checked out the source for the article you quoted and it is the National Center for Employee Ownership....whose business it is to promote employee ownership.....looks like I was right all along.
However, the author does not look quite like the untrustworthy type.
You seem to be the only person questioning or even mentioning the trustworthiness of the author....I said I thought that the article was presented by a propogandist organization whose job it was to work for worker owned and managed business and I was absolutely correct...it is their job to do so.....and of course the trustworthiness (or lack thereof) of the author is a total non-issue in this discussion because the article has nothing to do with worker owned and managed businesses....nothing at all....the article is a non starter having nothing relevant to our discussion.....the author is therefore irrelevant....
fwiw wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:28 am
And this is the best part.....the statistic she presents about the improvement in productivity is about ESOP....which means Employee Stock Ownership Plans.....this is NOT worker owned and managed businesses!!!!.......it is just about employees buying stock in the companies where they work!

This is true, reveals a superficiality in my search for data, and greatly weakens my argument, since worker coops represent only a fraction of companies adopting ESOP, which makes it difficult to draw any conclusion for certain, so until this point it makes Chownah's remark quite fair. However, its dismissal does not support his (so far completely unsupported) claim that "from a productive standpoint... quite often not the most efficient", it just shows that it has not been unequivocally disproved by this particular research.
To say it "greatly weakens" your arguement is quite an understatement....to this point of the discussion you had not presented a credible arguement at all....and not only that you brought information which contained terms which if taken to represent what you implicitly claimed they represented (ESOP is the term which does not represent worker owned and managed businesses which is how you presented it) would just misinform the reader and actually lead them to a false conclusion concerning what the article was all about and thus lead them to accept it as evidence of some truth in your narrative....and frankly this article is completely misconstrued if it is thought to support your narrative.....it has nothing to do with your narrative.

fwiw wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:28 am
So let me go and get more appropriate research data. Here we go:
Both studies find that on average overall firms can produce more with the technology of employee-owned firms. In other words, the way worker co-operatives organise production is more efficient. Fakhfakh et al (2012) show that in several industries conventional firms would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they adopted the employee-owned firms’ way of organising production. In contrast, they find that worker co-operatives would always produce at least as much with their own technology as with conventional firms.

https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files ... report.pdf
I called the website which presented the article as being propogandistic in support of worker owned and managed business which they clearly are in that it is their job to support those businesses and I have said nothing about the author of the aricle and it is you who brings up the question of his trustworthiness.....
fwiw wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:28 am
Also off the top of the internet:
Slichter (1968, p. 575): "The very fact that the workers have had an opportunity to participate in determining their working conditions is in itself favorable to efficiency. . . . [E]fficiency depends upon consent. Even though the specific rules and policies adopted in particular instances may not be ideal, the process of joint determination of working conditions at least offers the possi- bility of achieving greater efficiency than could be obtained under rules and conditions dictated by one side."
...
(Conclusion regarding the plywood industry in the US Pacific Northwest in 1995:)
What differences we have found imply that co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent (as suggested by the results reported in table 8).

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/up ... _craig.pdf
Same comment as your previous study.......you provide a skeleton of a conclusion without any information whatsoever about exactly what was studied, the methods used, the depth or breadth of the study etc.....nothing......

chownah
Last edited by Dorje Shedrub on Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Removed meta-discussion and combative rhetoric

Pseudobabble
Posts: 146
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:00 am

Re: Should Capitalism be outgrown?

Post by Pseudobabble » Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:39 pm

Human interaction (economic, social, w/e) is too complex to be 'managed' by any committee composed of limited human beings. The reason capitalism is still around is that it provides a framework (Rule of Law, contract enforcement, etc) for economic interaction which removes the need for such 'management', which is useful, because above a certain level of complexity there are so many secondary, tertiary, and n-th order effects of any action in the system that it becomes completely impossible to predict what the aggregate outcome of the action will be.

There is absolutely zero chance of successfully 'outgrowing' capitalism in a managerial direction, purely because the domain of economic interaction is becoming more complex, not less. This still leaves the possibility that the framework might be superceded by a more nuanced version.

User avatar
Dorje Shedrub
Posts: 361
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:47 pm
Location: Northern Indiana

Re: Should Capitalism be outgrown?

Post by Dorje Shedrub » Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:26 pm

Meta-discussion and combative rhetoric removed. Please be mindful of the TOS, especially the following. Failure to abide by the TOS will result in formal warnings and suspensions. Moderators do not have time to edit out petty remarks. Before responding to a post, please take a few moments, breathe, and be mindful.

Remember, this is a Buddhist forum, not a political free-for-all. :buddha1:

Also, dont forget proper post reporting procedures.

DS
TOS wrote:Members are expected to self-moderate, being mindful of the adage that 'behaviour breeds behaviour'. Mutual respect and friendliness should be the basis of all interactions. If you find anything objectionable, let the administrators or moderators know using the 'Report Post' function, but refrain from posting public responses because meta-discussion has the tendency to derail topics.


d. Disruptive meta-discussion (i.e. discussion about discussion, including in-thread complaints about the existence of discussions that you don't like)
Last edited by Dorje Shedrub on Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Added more content

User avatar
Dorje Shedrub
Posts: 361
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:47 pm
Location: Northern Indiana

Re: Should Capitalism be outgrown?

Post by Dorje Shedrub » Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:35 pm

chownah wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:17 pm

I called the website which presented the article as being propogandistic in support of worker owned and managed business which they clearly are in that it is their job to support those businesses and I have said nothing about the author of the aricle and it is you who brings up the question of his trustworthiness.....
Calling the source a propaganda machine comes across as an attempt to discredit the source, which is probably why FWIW provided information to support the credibility of the author, which is the primary source regardless of the stance of the publication.

DS
Homage to the Precious Dzogchen Master
🙏🌺🙏 Chögyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche
🙏🌺🙏

chownah
Posts: 458
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 2:08 am

Re: Should Capitalism be outgrown?

Post by chownah » Thu Jan 10, 2019 3:05 am

chownah wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:42 am
And....it really seems that you have dropped the mistaken idea that a non-democratic work place is a characteristic of capitalism....I think this is a much bigger and more important issue than efficiency. Anyone who wants to discredit capitalism by trying to promote the idea that it requires an undemocratic workplace is doing disservice to everyone as it consume people's energies by giving them the wrong target to attack.....if you want to direct people's attention to economic systems rooted in undemocratic method it is probably better to direct them to look at the power structure in the 20th century implementations of what is sometimes called "communism".
chownah
I want to clarify what I said as I think the first sentence is likely to be interpreted in a way which counter to what I was trying to express and this is a result of my lack of clarity.

Instead of saying "it really seems that you have dropped the mistaken idea that a non-democratic work place is a characteristic of capitalism" which implies that you have stopped thinking that a non-democratic work place is a characteristic of capitalism I would have been better to have said "it really seems that you have ignored the issue I have raised concerning the mistaken idea that a non-democraticc work place is a characteristic of capitalism". That is to say, it seems to me that you accept the idea that the principles of capitalism require a non-democratic work place and you have ignored this issue. I think that the issue of democracy in the workplace is a much much more important issue than efficiency.

Also, it seems to me that worker owned and managed businesses in general can not be shown to be more efficient than typically managed businesses and that no evidence has been brought here to show otherwise. Sound bite representations of conclusions from studies without a full disclosure of the context (the context being a thorough understanding of the scope, depth, breadth, methods etc. of the study) are meaningless without the full context.

I think that generally worker owned and managed business are less efficient....why do I think that?.....because if they were more efficient then what the world would have is alot of worker owned and managed businesses..... because their efficiency would give them the competitative edge....but that is not what we've got. I think that in the real world innovation wins out over democracy and innovation is a product of individuals mostly and innovative individuals quite typically have to overcome the resistence of democratic processes for their ideas to be realized.....ask elon musk why he came to america to do businesss....he has commented that it is in america where one has the most latitude to realize ones vision.
chownah

User avatar
fwiw
Posts: 634
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:06 pm

Re: Should Capitalism be outgrown?

Post by fwiw » Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:08 pm

chownah wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 3:05 am
it really seems that you have ignored the issue I have raised concerning the mistaken idea that a non-democraticc work place is a characteristic of capitalism". That is to say, it seems to me that you accept the idea that the principles of capitalism require a non-democratic work place and you have ignored this issue.

This is not what I say. I agree that non-democratic workplaces is not necessarily part of a capitalist enterprise, Mondragon being sort of an example, and as far as I know Russian communist workplaces were not much more democratic than US capitalist ones. What I say is that the number of capitalist enterprises in which one might fairly say the workplace is democratically run is extremely low compared to that of undemocratic capitalist workplaces. In that sense, it can be said in my opinion that undemocratic workplaces are *typical* (perhaps a better word than "characteristic") of capitalism. I don't see how anyone could argue the contrary, but I'm all open if one can show otherwise.

I think that the issue of democracy in the workplace is a much much more important issue than efficiency.
Agreed

Also, it seems to me that worker owned and managed businesses in general can not be shown to be more efficient than typically managed businesses
Economists beg to differ. (See my earlier post)

Actually, i have tried to steelman the opinion you express. I found this.


it seems to me ... that no evidence has been brought here to show otherwise.
It seems to me that reading the study I linked to in my earlier post could have helped with that. This other study mentions it in its abstract:
This paper... concentrates on... the relative productive efficiency of co-ops
https://siepr.stanford.edu/sites/defaul ... -003_0.pdf

Sound bite representations of conclusions from studies without a full disclosure of the context (the context being a thorough understanding of the scope, depth, breadth, methods etc. of the study) are meaningless without the full context.
i have provided the full context. Anyone could click on the link I put there. If they really wanted to know. I could also have quoted the entire article, but given it's 26 pages long, I thought quoting short exerpts from it would be easier for everyone.

Ockham's razor and Russel's teapot leave the burden of proving the least likely assumption (here being the assumption that the articles linked to above in their whole would actually say the contrary to what they say in the quote I provided, or the assumption that the trend of efficiency in coops would be the opposite of that of companies resorting to ESOP of which they are a part) to the proponents of that least likely assumption.

because if they were more efficient then what the world would have is alot of worker owned and managed businesses..... because their efficiency would give them the competitative edge....but that is not what we've got.
In 2013 Mondragon was Spain's 7th largest corporation and worth 15 bn €... NOt to mention there may be a lot more factors at play for the success of a corporation than mere productive efficiency.

I think that in the real world innovation wins out over democracy and innovation is a product of individuals mostly and innovative individuals quite typically have to overcome the resistence of democratic processes for their ideas to be realized.....
...or exactly the opposite, when innovation is actually in the interest of the people.

ask elon musk why he came to america to do businesss....he has commented that it is in america where one has the most latitude to realize ones vision.
I am no fan of Elon Musk who is obviously a deranged megalomaniac. As far as I know, he coerced Tesla workers into not forming unions and then lied about it all over twitter. And I fail to see what he contributes to humanity that would be truly valuable in the eyes of a Buddhist
... in my opinion

chownah
Posts: 458
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 2:08 am

Re: Should Capitalism be outgrown?

Post by chownah » Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:34 am

fwiw wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:08 pm
It seems to me that reading the study I linked to in my earlier post could have helped with that. This other study mentions it in its abstract:
This paper... concentrates on... the relative productive efficiency of co-ops
https://siepr.stanford.edu/sites/defaul ... -003_0.pdf
Did you read the section which concentrates on the relative production efficiency of co-ops? Here is the concluding paragraph of that section:
A general conclusion about the production efficiency of worker co-ops compared
with conventional firms is difficult to draw. It would be remarkable if one organizational form
dominated the other in every setting. There are enough instances in which co-ops seem no less
efficient than capitalist firms that a presumption of co-ops’ relative inefficiency is not warranted.
Doesn't seem like a very strong statement in support of co-ops.
....also....the section on efficiency contains this:
27 Though equation (9) was estimated, we found that a more restrictive specification could not be
rejected by conventional statistical criteria. This more restrictive specification replaced the
estimated fixed time effects with a time trend (one trend for the co-ops and one for the capitalist
firms) and replaced the firm-specific fixed effects with a co-op dummy. The results reported below
refer to this specification when fitted by instrumental variables (using input and output prices and
year and firm dummy variables as instrumental variables) to co-ops and to the unionized capitalist
firms separately and to those mills producing only plywood.
It is easy to see from this that there is a bias in the study of the plywood mill which was not resolved or even addressed. It is sometimes a bias like this which can point the conclusions of a study in the wrong direction entirely....that is to say a bias can be the complete cause of a statistically significant result being in support of an idea which is correlative and not causitive.
chownah

User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 140
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:30 pm
Location: US occupied Northern Mexico

Re: Should Capitalism be outgrown?

Post by lyndon taylor » Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:55 am

What does all this matter?? CO-ops are obviously better for the workers, do you only care about corporate profit???
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk.

http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/

User avatar
fwiw
Posts: 634
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:06 pm

Re: Should Capitalism be outgrown?

Post by fwiw » Sun Jan 13, 2019 5:51 am

lyndon taylor wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:55 am
What does all this matter?? CO-ops are obviously better for the workers, do you only care about corporate profit???
I don't think Chownah cares primarily about profits. Although they are important, they are certainly not my number one preoccupation. He probably think it's important because according to him it's apparently the leading factor in making coops more of a commonplace.

:focus:


Here is what a "free" market leads to:

Denied: How some Tennessee doctors earn big money denying disability claims

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2 ... 077220002/
Tennessee doctors are paid to review applications to the federal disability program. How much they earn depends on how fast they work. Some doctors work very fast.
...
At least two doctors under contract with the state are felons, including Thrush. Two other physicians had their medical licenses placed on probation. Another physician had his license revoked twice in the past 20 years and now works on a restricted license that bars him from treating patients.

Five current and former contractors and state employees said they believe disability applicants are being wrongfully denied in an effort to process as many applications as possible. Most spoke to The Tennessean on the condition of anonymity, for fear of reprisal.

“It’s like a cash register,” said one contract physician. “From our perspective it’s unethical. From a consumer’s point of view it can be a tragedy.”

One doctor who raised the issue through official channels lost his contract. Dr. John Mather, the whistleblower, was the former chief medical officer for disability programs at the federal Social Security Administration, and worked as a contract doctor for the state after he retired.

“Who knows how many applicants for disability benefits have had their applications denied without justification,” he said.
... in my opinion

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests