> > Er, I consider "profits" to simply be a euphemism for stealing, so who > would you be stealing from, to give the rest of the people these stolen > monies?
The only equitable businesses are non-profits and charities, as they don't > attempt to get more money out of the consumer than required to keep the > business going .i.e. paying for production, employees etc. In the capitalist system as it currently exists, profits have unfortunately come to be synonymous with stealing. Businesses are motivated to get more money out of the consumer than they should because they're required to by their owners/shareholders. They work for the owners/shareholders and not for the people. This is not how cooperatives work. If the people own the business, the business works for the people. You should check out some existing cooperatives to see how they work. The culture is completely different. *http://www.co-operative.coop/corporate/widermovement/* * http://www.co-operative.coop/corporate/aboutus/our-democracy/The-Co-operative-Group-Values-and-Principles/ * * * On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 7:27 AM, Logan Streondj <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:51 AM, Aaron Hosford <[email protected]>wrote: > >> All this talk about a cooperative socioeconomic framework, and yet I get >> no reaction when I suggest universal cooperatives as a solution. If we were >> to embrace the cooperative business model, but take it to it's logical >> conclusion (where everyone owns a share), the profits would be split >> equally among us all, >> > > Er, I consider "profits" to simply be a euphemism for stealing, so who > would you be stealing from, to give the rest of the people these stolen > monies? > > The only equitable businesses are non-profits and charities, as they don't > attempt to get more money out of the consumer than required to keep the > business going .i.e. paying for production, employees etc. > > Though admittedly some "charitable organizations" abuse their power such > as hospitals, by doing procedures which are wholly unnecessary or > overcharging simply because someone has "good insurance premiums". Though > outside of insured programs it's generally more equitable, problems always > exist, however at least they aren't also overtly stealing by overcharging > on top of it. > > giving each and every person an equal base income, >> > > I do agree with basic income. > Considering that money is made out of thin air nowadays, > it is quite plausible that the government could just pay everyone, > and then tax anyone that makes extra. > > It could significantly simplify the welfare system with all it's checks > and balances, if everyone just gets the same flat rate as a base. > > >> and therefore an equal share in the excess production of the economy, >> > > Excess production is a bad thing, it's wasteful. > > >> without significantly modifying the core economic concepts we are already >> all familiar with (money, corporations, jobs, etc.). Employees would get an >> income on top of this base amount, in order to motivate them to do the >> additional work that others aren't doing, but each time a job is eliminated >> due to automation or other efficiency gains, the wages that are eliminated >> go into everyone's pockets instead of the select few. This also has the >> side benefit of creating a miniature democracy out of the shared company, >> which operates parallel to and largely independently of the government. >> >> Ya this kind of gratis sharing, only works in groups under around 150 to > 200, anyhing over that and there are too many moochers and scammers > abusing the system. While below that it's possible to keep track of > everyone with a human social brain -- is why eco-communities under Dunbar's > number are best. > > >> Matt, you like to play with big dollar amounts. If we somehow took all >> the profits made last year in the US and split it equally among all its >> citizens, how much would those citizens have received per month? Now factor >> in all the wages paid to jobs you are predicting will be automated away. >> What's the monthly amount then? >> > > You could get a lot simply by subdividing corporate bonuses. > $10,000 a year (no taxes) is decent living for a person even in a city. > Bonuses in 2011 of top 500 averaged 3.5 million so thats enough to support > 350 people each. Though in total the 500 of them made 5.2 billion so that's > enough for 520,000 people. > > http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottdecarlo/2012/04/04/americas-highest-paid-ceos/ > > >> A universal cooperative system would graduate smoothly from the first >> amount to the second as a larger percentage of jobs are automated, or back >> again should it turn out we create new jobs to replace the original ones. >> The only difficult step here is in the masses acquiring profitable >> corporations and converting them to universal cooperatives. >> > > Ya, that's the thing, I disagree with the for-profit model, I think it's > the root of the reason the poor are being robbed and rich are getting > richer. > > >> Governments could begin the process now, by allocating a certain amount >> of the budget towards purchasing profitable corporations via imminent >> domain -- on behalf of the people, not the government, so the citizens >> maintain direct control. >> > > Oh they could easily have purchased GM, and most of the top banks instead > of bailing them out. But as you can tell, they aren't calling the shots. > > >> This too would be a fairly smoothly varying process, and no current >> shareholders or owners need be forcibly disenfranchised of their wealth >> (aside from taxation, which is already happening). >> > > Or already being avoided. Similar to how Mitt Romney pays fewer taxes than > his maid or w/e. > > >> >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 4:08 AM, just camel <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I collected some not-so-academic video links on what some groups and >>> movements are working on ... in case you get bored in between running ultra >>> marathons and compression algorithms ... http://rbe.info/ >>> >>> >>> On 01/08/2013 07:28 PM, Matt Mahoney wrote: >>> >>>> So does that mean you are for wealth redistribution or against it? >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------**------------- >>> AGI >>> Archives: >>> https://www.listbox.com/**member/archive/303/=now<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >>> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/**member/archive/rss/303/** >>> 23050605-2da819ff<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/23050605-2da819ff> >>> Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/**member/?&id_** >>> secret=23050605-53e85d0d <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> >>> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com >>> >> >> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/5037279-a88c7a6d> | >> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com> >> > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/23050605-2da819ff> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
