5 ms·

Let's rewrite that to work in some real world requirements. That's 90B of value which could have gone to employees had the capital needs of those growing busin

by jddj 3y ago

Let's rewrite that to work in some real world requirements. That's 90B of value which could have gone to employees had the capital needs of those growing businesses been met by debt (often requiring coincident equity injections or personal guarantees), by bootstrapping, or by those same employees. Perhaps now there's space for a conversation. What might a world need to look like for it to be made up of those businesses in place of one where ownership can be traded for capital at risk?

AndrewKemendo 3y ago
Good idea My answer is anarchistic syndicalism: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/george-woodcock-what-is-anarcho-syndicalism https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/george-woodcock-what... In short, labor has to organize our own capital to create syndicates that peacefully outcompete existing unethical structures Its going to take hundreds of years of organizing and reduction in the pervasive sense of social terror and fear which leads people to hoarding behavior 12000 years of this structure won’t end by force or overnight It can only be done through steady peaceful direct action to transfer wealth from existing hoarders to individuals We then disincentive personal consumption and vanity the same way we got here, through Bernays style propaganda (marketing) and building infrastructure that incentivizes community development over personal consumption
- ProjectArcturis 3y ago
  You should choose a different name, because anacho-syndicalism will forever be linked most closely with a Monty Python scene. Arthur: Then who is your lord? Woman: We don't have a lord! Arthur: (spurised) What?? Man: I told you! We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune! We're taking turns to act as a sort of executive-officer-for-the-week-- Arthur: (uninterested) Yes... Man: But all the decisions of that officer 'ave to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting-- Arthur: (perturbed) Yes I see! Man: By a simple majority, in the case of purely internal affairs-- Arthur: (mad) Be quiet! Man: But by a two-thirds majority, in the case of more major-- Arthur: (very angry) BE QUIET! I order you to be quiet! Woman: "Order", eh, 'oo does 'e think 'e is?
  - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
    I mean…it’s one of the better sendups of capitalism that persists today Hard to argue with the logic
- randomdata 3y ago
  > labor has to organize our own capital But then labour becomes the business owner – exactly what they don't want to be. Labour chooses to become employees because they don't want the headaches of owning and operating a business. They just want a steady paycheque and let someone else take the risk.
  - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
    What risk is being taken? Financial risk? Opportunity risk? Employees take the most risk because they gave the fewest options in the market The risk a PE or bank takes giving a loan isn’t the same risk a loan holder takes by collateralizing their home.
    - randomdata 3y ago
      While certain estimations can be made, it is impossible to truly know if work is worth doing until after the work is already done. As such, workers have to make a choice: 1. Do the work and find out. If the work was worthwhile, they'll reap the benefits in spades. If not, they are left with the detriments. 2. Sell the work at a discount to someone else who is willing to find out. Most workers opt for #2 because they don't care to find out. They want the guarantee and are happy to let someone else suffer the consequences when things go wrong, even if that means letting someone else indulge in the rewards when it does work out.
AnimalMuppet 3y ago
Specifically, one of the businesses Berkshire Hathaway invested heavily in is the BNSF Railroad. Railroads take a lot of capital - tens of thousands of miles of track, thousands of locomotives (at $2 million each), railroad cars, and so on. Were the employees going to buy all that? No, they were not - they didn't have the money. So you need some people with money - some capitalists. Do you expect them to work for free? If so, good luck - you can expect all you want, but they aren't investing in your business. We can have a conversation about how much of the rewards should flow to investors and how much should flow to the workers. But "anything that doesn't go to the workers is theft" shows a complete lack of understanding. If labor can get the money and buys the tools, then sure, they get the rewards that flow to labor and the rewards that flow to capital. That's perfectly fair. But at that point, they're not just "labor" any longer - they're at least petit bourgeoisie.
- AndrewKemendo 3y ago
  Oh, I fully understand it. You just seem to think that there is no other way for some reason How can you just wave away the narcissistic psychopathy of capital return requirements? On what philosophical principle are you basing your position on? I’m not really sure how you can stand on any kind of principal here when all you’re doing is capitulating to the existing power structures “It’s just the way it is” isn’t a branch of ethics
  - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
    "I demand that it be this other way" isn't a branch of ethics either. And labeling some aspect of the existing way as "theft" doesn't make your argument any stronger. Neither does labeling it "narcistic psychopathy". If we're going to live a better life than in the stone age, we need tools that are better than stones. The more sophisticated tools are beyond the ability of one person to both make and use them - they take too much time to make. So we wind up with a specialized economy where different people make the tools and use the tools. And they both deserve to be rewarded - the tools enable much more to be produced; those who made that possible deserve to share in the rewards. But we're a money economy rather than a barter economy, because barter doesn't scale all that well. Well, in a money economy, if someone is going to use a tool they didn't build, then someone has to buy the tool - either the tool user or an investor. If the tool user doesn't have the money, then it has to be an investor. Do you demand that the investor do so for free? That doesn't sound fair. (It also doesn't sound like it will actually happen - why should the investor invest if there is no expectation of a return?) So now we have three people who need to share in the rewards - in tool maker, the tool user, and the tool buyer. And it is perfectly fair that all three share in the rewards. It is unfair to expect the investor to invest for free. Like I said, we can have a conversation about the amounts that different ones receive. But that's a completely different conversation from "everything that goes to the investor is theft".
hackeraccount 3y ago
I'd love to know where people get the confidence to speculate how much money a company should spend on labor or capital investments or how any of that money should be raised. I mean good for you but personally I'm barely sure how I should do the above for my own finances much less on the kind of scale you're talking about.
- jddj 3y ago
  I'd guess that in this forum a number of people will have had some experience both raising equity and being in positions of significant ownership and control, but still you're right. Like most opinions, they're an often unknowable mixture of genuine aptitude and naive bravado and it's good to try to stay humble.
- AndrewKemendo 3y ago
  The same way they can say “we think you should stop abusing your workers”

by jddj 3y ago

AndrewKemendo 3y ago

Good idea My answer is anarchistic syndicalism: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/george-woodcock-what-is-anarcho-syndicalism https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/george-woodcock-what... In short, labor has to organize our own capital to create syndicates that peacefully outcompete existing unethical structures Its going to take hundreds of years of organizing and reduction in the pervasive sense of social terror and fear which leads people to hoarding behavior 12000 years of this structure won’t end by force or overnight It can only be done through steady peaceful direct action to transfer wealth from existing hoarders to individuals We then disincentive personal consumption and vanity the same way we got here, through Bernays style propaganda (marketing) and building infrastructure that incentivizes community development over personal consumption

ProjectArcturis 3y ago
You should choose a different name, because anacho-syndicalism will forever be linked most closely with a Monty Python scene. Arthur: Then who is your lord? Woman: We don't have a lord! Arthur: (spurised) What?? Man: I told you! We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune! We're taking turns to act as a sort of executive-officer-for-the-week-- Arthur: (uninterested) Yes... Man: But all the decisions of that officer 'ave to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting-- Arthur: (perturbed) Yes I see! Man: By a simple majority, in the case of purely internal affairs-- Arthur: (mad) Be quiet! Man: But by a two-thirds majority, in the case of more major-- Arthur: (very angry) BE QUIET! I order you to be quiet! Woman: "Order", eh, 'oo does 'e think 'e is?
- AndrewKemendo 3y ago
  I mean…it’s one of the better sendups of capitalism that persists today Hard to argue with the logic
randomdata 3y ago
> labor has to organize our own capital But then labour becomes the business owner – exactly what they don't want to be. Labour chooses to become employees because they don't want the headaches of owning and operating a business. They just want a steady paycheque and let someone else take the risk.
- AndrewKemendo 3y ago
  What risk is being taken? Financial risk? Opportunity risk? Employees take the most risk because they gave the fewest options in the market The risk a PE or bank takes giving a loan isn’t the same risk a loan holder takes by collateralizing their home.
  - randomdata 3y ago
    While certain estimations can be made, it is impossible to truly know if work is worth doing until after the work is already done. As such, workers have to make a choice: 1. Do the work and find out. If the work was worthwhile, they'll reap the benefits in spades. If not, they are left with the detriments. 2. Sell the work at a discount to someone else who is willing to find out. Most workers opt for #2 because they don't care to find out. They want the guarantee and are happy to let someone else suffer the consequences when things go wrong, even if that means letting someone else indulge in the rewards when it does work out.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago

Specifically, one of the businesses Berkshire Hathaway invested heavily in is the BNSF Railroad. Railroads take a lot of capital - tens of thousands of miles of track, thousands of locomotives (at $2 million each), railroad cars, and so on. Were the employees going to buy all that? No, they were not - they didn't have the money. So you need some people with money - some capitalists. Do you expect them to work for free? If so, good luck - you can expect all you want, but they aren't investing in your business. We can have a conversation about how much of the rewards should flow to investors and how much should flow to the workers. But "anything that doesn't go to the workers is theft" shows a complete lack of understanding. If labor can get the money and buys the tools, then sure, they get the rewards that flow to labor and the rewards that flow to capital. That's perfectly fair. But at that point, they're not just "labor" any longer - they're at least petit bourgeoisie.

AndrewKemendo 3y ago
Oh, I fully understand it. You just seem to think that there is no other way for some reason How can you just wave away the narcissistic psychopathy of capital return requirements? On what philosophical principle are you basing your position on? I’m not really sure how you can stand on any kind of principal here when all you’re doing is capitulating to the existing power structures “It’s just the way it is” isn’t a branch of ethics
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  "I demand that it be this other way" isn't a branch of ethics either. And labeling some aspect of the existing way as "theft" doesn't make your argument any stronger. Neither does labeling it "narcistic psychopathy". If we're going to live a better life than in the stone age, we need tools that are better than stones. The more sophisticated tools are beyond the ability of one person to both make and use them - they take too much time to make. So we wind up with a specialized economy where different people make the tools and use the tools. And they both deserve to be rewarded - the tools enable much more to be produced; those who made that possible deserve to share in the rewards. But we're a money economy rather than a barter economy, because barter doesn't scale all that well. Well, in a money economy, if someone is going to use a tool they didn't build, then someone has to buy the tool - either the tool user or an investor. If the tool user doesn't have the money, then it has to be an investor. Do you demand that the investor do so for free? That doesn't sound fair. (It also doesn't sound like it will actually happen - why should the investor invest if there is no expectation of a return?) So now we have three people who need to share in the rewards - in tool maker, the tool user, and the tool buyer. And it is perfectly fair that all three share in the rewards. It is unfair to expect the investor to invest for free. Like I said, we can have a conversation about the amounts that different ones receive. But that's a completely different conversation from "everything that goes to the investor is theft".

hackeraccount 3y ago

I'd love to know where people get the confidence to speculate how much money a company should spend on labor or capital investments or how any of that money should be raised. I mean good for you but personally I'm barely sure how I should do the above for my own finances much less on the kind of scale you're talking about.

jddj 3y ago
I'd guess that in this forum a number of people will have had some experience both raising equity and being in positions of significant ownership and control, but still you're right. Like most opinions, they're an often unknowable mixture of genuine aptitude and naive bravado and it's good to try to stay humble.
AndrewKemendo 3y ago
The same way they can say “we think you should stop abusing your workers”