4 ms·

"The problem is that capitalists typically don't know how to divide the pie well and socialists typically don't know how to grow it well," Dalio wrote. He wants

"The problem is that capitalists typically don't know how to divide the pie well and socialists typically don't know how to grow it well," Dalio wrote. He wants to avoid both the status quo and socialism, and he's hoping that the elections in both the US and Europe that happen over the next few years result in a reformed capitalism." . I really don't see how this could happen, but even if there's some kind of accommodation, it's simply a band-aid to the underlying problem. Which is that the 'means of production' needs to be OWNED by the people producing. Not a corporate owner (or even an 'entrepreneur'), and not 'the state', but the collective that actually does the work, commensurate with their overall contribution. There's also a huge issue around land ownership, and the rents that derive from it. Currently, simply owning land in a fast-developing city gives you a share in the bounty that others are creating, and also taxes those generating it. Land itself is a common inheritance. Should air or water also be subject to such 'ownership'?

CompelTechnic 8y ago
>Which is that the 'means of production' needs to be OWNED by the people producing. Not a corporate owner (or even an 'entrepreneur'), and not 'the state', but the collective that actually does the work, commensurate with their overall contribution. You sound similar to an anarcho-syndicalist, which is a position I've never understood well. Let me ask a question in the form of example. Bob, Ted, and Jim want to start a pin factory. All three want to work for it. So they pool their capital, contributing $250k, 300k, and 350k respectively, receiving proportional equity, invest in equipment, and all three go to work making pins after 2 months. They hire other workers. The contract for all workers gives a vesting schedule that gives them equity over time as well. The fact that CAPEX has to be provided by employees is not a good feature of this. Should shareholders that have never held a job with the firm not be allowed to invest in it? That is exceedingly restrictive.
- Miner49er 8y ago
  Outside investors can be allowed I would think, but not given shares. For example, a credit union could give a loan and collect their interest. The credit union wouldn't get any equity.
  - nybble41 8y ago
    That sounds like a pretty good deal—for the credit union. They get paid their fixed share no matter how poorly the firm performs (short of bankruptcy). The firm and its employees are taking almost all of the risk. Selling equity would allow the firm to raise capital while splitting the risk with the investor(s). It makes the investor a partner in the firm's success or failure.
- empath75 8y ago
  I think there's probably a middle ground here where there is a meaningful percentage of the ownership stake that is set aside for the workforce as a whole, with rebalancing as the company grows, and internally as people gain seniority or leave the company.
lucozade 8y ago
> Which is that the 'means of production' needs to be OWNED by the people producing I would tend to agree except that it's an awful way to diversify risk and a comically bad way to allocate capital. Even if you were to exploit resources to their maximum, I'd give you at most two generations before you'd need to use force to keep the system working. And this isn't a defence of capitalism, especially not modern US capitalism. That's pretty shitty too but it does scale and is mostly stable. And while we're here. So water is a common inheritance and can't be owned. Water treatment is owned by the water treaters. There's no state or corporations to sub them. How do you get clean water given no-one is going to be stupid enough to starve to death as a water treater?
pesmhey 8y ago
All complex organisms have some level of resource-intensive, executive control - civilizations are no different. Most people wouldn’t even know what to do with the means of production, other than in aggregate by buying stuff in a semi-free market with healthy regulations. I would agree though that right now the brain is eating the fingers as it puts food in the mouth. But shooting the brain doesn’t fix the problem.
- dondawest 8y ago
  I disagree: Beheading the brain worked pretty damn well for Revolutionary France, and revolting against the brain worked damn well for Revolutionary America.
- iron0013 8y ago
  "Most people wouldn’t even know what to do with the means of production" I feel like this should be put in some kind of "shit capitalists say" hall of fame!
squish78 8y ago
I'm curious what your alternative to land ownership would be

CompelTechnic 8y ago

>Which is that the 'means of production' needs to be OWNED by the people producing. Not a corporate owner (or even an 'entrepreneur'), and not 'the state', but the collective that actually does the work, commensurate with their overall contribution. You sound similar to an anarcho-syndicalist, which is a position I've never understood well. Let me ask a question in the form of example. Bob, Ted, and Jim want to start a pin factory. All three want to work for it. So they pool their capital, contributing $250k, 300k, and 350k respectively, receiving proportional equity, invest in equipment, and all three go to work making pins after 2 months. They hire other workers. The contract for all workers gives a vesting schedule that gives them equity over time as well. The fact that CAPEX has to be provided by employees is not a good feature of this. Should shareholders that have never held a job with the firm not be allowed to invest in it? That is exceedingly restrictive.

Miner49er 8y ago
Outside investors can be allowed I would think, but not given shares. For example, a credit union could give a loan and collect their interest. The credit union wouldn't get any equity.
- nybble41 8y ago
  That sounds like a pretty good deal—for the credit union. They get paid their fixed share no matter how poorly the firm performs (short of bankruptcy). The firm and its employees are taking almost all of the risk. Selling equity would allow the firm to raise capital while splitting the risk with the investor(s). It makes the investor a partner in the firm's success or failure.
empath75 8y ago
I think there's probably a middle ground here where there is a meaningful percentage of the ownership stake that is set aside for the workforce as a whole, with rebalancing as the company grows, and internally as people gain seniority or leave the company.

lucozade 8y ago

> Which is that the 'means of production' needs to be OWNED by the people producing I would tend to agree except that it's an awful way to diversify risk and a comically bad way to allocate capital. Even if you were to exploit resources to their maximum, I'd give you at most two generations before you'd need to use force to keep the system working. And this isn't a defence of capitalism, especially not modern US capitalism. That's pretty shitty too but it does scale and is mostly stable. And while we're here. So water is a common inheritance and can't be owned. Water treatment is owned by the water treaters. There's no state or corporations to sub them. How do you get clean water given no-one is going to be stupid enough to starve to death as a water treater?

pesmhey 8y ago

All complex organisms have some level of resource-intensive, executive control - civilizations are no different. Most people wouldn’t even know what to do with the means of production, other than in aggregate by buying stuff in a semi-free market with healthy regulations. I would agree though that right now the brain is eating the fingers as it puts food in the mouth. But shooting the brain doesn’t fix the problem.

dondawest 8y ago
I disagree: Beheading the brain worked pretty damn well for Revolutionary France, and revolting against the brain worked damn well for Revolutionary America.
iron0013 8y ago
"Most people wouldn’t even know what to do with the means of production" I feel like this should be put in some kind of "shit capitalists say" hall of fame!

squish78 8y ago

I'm curious what your alternative to land ownership would be