Thought experiment; The world is built on greed and greed alone. …and it doesn’t even make sense from a greed perspective.

[Amorphos]

The universal cooperative collective model

Thought experiment; The world is built on greed and greed alone. …and it doesn’t even make sense from a greed perspective.

I was watching ‘dream lives abroad’ on TV and it struck me that an unselfish approach to business would yield more efficient results. I’ll make this as short as possible;

A couple were taken to America to buy a business and were offered a few choices, point being was they didn’t want to actually do anything bar buy a business and live off its profits. I am not saying there is anything wrong with that, just that to me it shows an inefficiency in the capitalist model. I have rounded the numbers for ease of understanding;

Business cost; $500.000
Annual profits from business; $150.000 ~ after all costs have been paid.

I will use this as my average business cost and profit though obviously there would be many variations.

Simply put; if we placed $100.000.000 into any model, would any other model be able to do better than this [in the long term] universal cooperative collective model below?

With our hundred million I am going to buy as many small businesses as I can, each one will have a manager instead of an entrepreneur, will sell no shares and will do its own free banking. Basically banking and shares etc are all ways to add money to a business in the short term and create growth, however the business has to pay back the loans from banks at interest, and the shareholders will continually own a segment of that business, hence all such trappings are long term losses and inefficiencies in the model.

Out of my average $150.000 profit I am going to pay my workers a better rate than they had. note; if this model was that of an entire state then we would not need to pay supplemental working tax to those people as they are paid enough to survive. The managers and workers would get a little more + bonuses for extra productivity if achieved. Let us say this would be to the tune of $50.000 max [after bonuses] on average from my $150.000 profit, some of which would initially be in the form of rewards cards useable in other businesses within the group.

We now have a set of workers who are happy and can afford to look after themselves, remembering that ultimately we want rid of the instrumentation of state [such as working and child tax] in a fully privatised model. Services currently provided by the state would be run on a non-profit basis, all education would be free and based only on merit rather than wealth [bye bye public schools [in their current form anyhow]].

Btw my wage is drawn from the pool according to needs and would be regulated to no more than ten times the rate of the lowest paid workers ~ which would be the general guideline.

The other $100.000 average profit from each business would go into regional money pools, these would be the ‘banks’ of the cooperative model. Moneys from that would be allocated according to needs ~ to be determined by a council of business leaders/managers, those whom would be voted for in a yearly democratic election and would ultimately replace current councils [also instrumentation of the state] when the model is taken to state level.

From these money pools [at first a single one] we would also purchase more businesses, then as we would at first be buying businesses which need comparatively little investment, that would be a massive amount of yearly profit to utilise.

As for entrepreneurs and creativity generally, the council would be kinda like ‘dragons den’ on a regional basis. They would take on new ideas pay for the patent and build the business where they think a business has potential. If the business failed then the workers would be redistributed into other areas, and if needs be rather than have unemployment workers and managers could go on 4-5 day weeks and their wage be supplemented to the normal 5-6 day income [as we would be paying more if they were unemployed].

No family would be allowed to fail and wealth would be redistributed fairly. then eventually once the $100.000 is paid for [around 5 yrs I would think, that is if we paid it back before growing], we would have interest free growth and expansion, where the current capitalist model would be continually ‘skimmed’ and much of its wealth creamed off by the top 1% of households [the rich]. Eventually I would be worth more than if I had taken the selfish greedy route, and my children’s inheritance far greater than just money. Though really the whole point is that mass wealth would be independent of persons and shared by all.

[Rolling Thunder]

This makes absolutely no sense and is based on wildly inaccurate assumptions. Firstly, the idea that the world is built on greed. The human world, or "society" as you call it, is built on human beings. Since humanity feels more than just greed as a whole (Love, care, altruism, kindness, friendship, anger, jealousy, suspicion, etc, etc), then society is by definition not based solely on greed.

[intel]

Oh my god, frankly it's a really naive and outright silly approach to both principles of economy and human motivations. Where to start with? I am learning for exams, so I can't really write an essay atm, but I grant you, there is hardly and business that will give you annual profit of 30% of invested money... And if there is, it must be drug trade. Furthermore, if you're going to give each small business a manager and buy amount of small companies worth 100 000 000$ your companies will:
a) eventually compete with themselves
b) probably be from high-risk, prone to market fluctuations business branches
c) be inherently broken and ineffective, without perspective for development
d) unable to perform wide range of business actions.
e) be unprofitable for more than a decade
...and that's only a tip of an iceberg. Other arguments include finding thousands of cheap and good managers that would agree to lead such a small enterprise. I could go on and on.

[Amorphos]

Remember I have cut a long story short as this is a forum and nobody will read it if its too long. I am taking a few examples and showing how they could collectively be more powerful by being mutually supporting.

How would you create a fully privatised economy without a, making people poorer and b, making public services cost more! If you want rid of the state you need to get rid of the instrumentation of the state! That means paying people enough that they don’t need support from the state ~ which you are paying for anyways!!! It seams to me that right wingers want to make their cake and eat it, if you want rid of the state you either do it and make people poorer or you pay them a reasonable wage. Besides the inequality is extensive and is destroying our societies, poor people and credit locked people wont bring the economies of the world back from the brink, nor is corporate business going to create anything more than a mass MW society as is happening, the middle classes are shrinking and ever more people are on low wages don’t you know.

Rolling Thunder

I was of course referring to the capitalist model not the human condition.

intel

I was going by examples I saw on the show and from a few small business owners I know ~ who have a small amount of employees and make £200 per day for each worker while paying them between £100 and £120 which is almost 100% profit. Obviously it depends on the business type and a multitude of other conditions, but each example I saw had either a manager in place or very little for the owners to do [hence the use of managers for many businesses].

Let us not forget that 1% of households own 47% of wealth, that most nations of the world are in debt ~ to whom, investors. With that amount of wealth [can you imagine how rich some people/businesses are!] at disposal then a redistribution would clearly make the majority of people better off. How would you suggest it wouldn’t?

a, a cooperative does not compete with itself, that’s just nonsense.
b, there are less risks the more you add to the collective, and each business supports each other.
c, broke? When they are getting all profits in one massive pool which has no debt?
d, why?
e, the profits that owners and investors now earn would all be going into the pool.

I admit it would be difficult getting managers but many people already in the jobs virtually or actually run the businesses now [while owners get something of a free lunch]. Some managers could run more than one small business.

[Rolling Thunder]

The capitalist model is not greed-oriented alone. The only assumption where profit-maximisation is the goal is in the behaviour of firms, and even then, this is only an implicit assumption. Humans, in a capitalist model, are assumed to be utility-maximisers, which acknowledges so vast a degree of behaviour and variation in utility gained from that that no implicit assumption can possibly be made as to ascertain what will bring utility to a certain person.

[Amorphos]

Profit maximisation is what promotes greed and low wages for workers, though I agree it is not the aim of your average owner of a small business. I know the title of this thread is dramatic and greed of the individual is implicit in that, yet it is the model and not people I am attacking. I think people would gladly help each other out if they could.

Not sure how much this applies at the top of the hierarchy, there seams to be an incredible amount of wealth out there, I mean all the national debts of most nations in the world and all the general investments. that’s one hell of a lot of money!

As I said in my last post, if you want rid of the state [which even we anarchists do] you have to get rid of the instrumentation of state. If you do that then you keep people on MW they would be incredibly poor, and frankly if capitalism cannot offer progress for all, and another model can then what has capitalism to offer the masses. We just don’t have anyone other than capitalists to vote for, nothing a few large riots wont sort out though!

[Rolling Thunder]

Profit maximisation is what promotes greed and low wages for workers, though I agree it is not the aim of your average owner of a small business.

Actually it has nothing to do with low wages for workers, that statement is in contradiction with the entire body of economic observations from Adam Smith onwards. Few, if any employers are in a position to control the wages they offer employees - if set too low, people will not work for them, if set too high, they will lose money. The price of any particular labour is determined by the structure of that section of the labour market. Indeed, the largest buyer and sellers of labour, which have the most effect and control over the price of labour are governments, the scale of which dwarf all but the largest corporate entities.

I know the title of this thread is dramatic and greed of the individual is implicit in that, yet it is the model and not people I am attacking. I think people would gladly help each other out if they could.

And indeed they do already, in case you haven't noticed, in capitalist societies charity tends to play a monumental part in the provisioning and helping of those less-fortunate, which they do with the charitable donations of people whom have earned and made their money through the capitalist system. I would suggest this thread is a little too much drama and too little reasoning or research.

Not sure how much this applies at the top of the hierarchy, there seams to be an incredible amount of wealth out there, I mean all the national debts of most nations in the world and all the general investments. that’s one hell of a lot of money!

Yes there is, and without the incentive or reason to create that wealth, that wealth would not exist. Something of a self-fulfilling prophecy in that regard, mostly because, unlike animals, humans do not tend to produce when you take away the fruit of their produce from them.

A

s I said in my last post, if you want rid of the state [which even we anarchists do] you have to get rid of the instrumentation of state. If you do that then you keep people on MW they would be incredibly poor,

If you remove the instrumentation of the state then you remove the minimum wage, which in effect removes a price floor in labour. Which would mean greater fluctuations in wages.

and frankly if capitalism cannot offer progress for all, and another model can then what has capitalism to offer the masses.

Unfortunately you have failed to prove either that capitalism cannot offer 'progress', whatever that may is, and you have failed to prove your supposed model can even do so - let alone do so better than capitalism!

We just don’t have anyone other than capitalists to vote for, nothing a few large riots wont sort out though

Because violence has ever achieved meaningful and democratic reform of government?

[Armenum]

As humans, we always try to get the best for ourselves, our families, and our countries. It's a fundamental nature of ourselves and of any living being. We will always to "maximize our profits" in whatever realm; we will try to maximize our living experience. The notion of "greed" driving our society seems to me to be a more religious connotation that anything else.

[Justice and Mercy]

Hop to it. If your model is superior to other models you'll make more money than them, and others will follow suit.

[Amorphos]

Rolling Thunder

Few, if any employers are in a position to control the wages they offer employees - if set too low, people will not work for them, if set too high, they will lose money.

Not in this climate. Apart from that everyone I have worked for [as self employed that’s hundreds of ‘bosses’] has tried to rip me and other workers off, I nearly always find out and make them pay for it where I can but they cant help themselves. I understand what you are saying as concerns a higher level of businessman perhaps, but at ground level you just get a load of rip-off merchants, at least in the construction industry you do.

My main problem with this theory [apart from the general societal duality of the boss/worker relationship] is that bosses always have the upper hand, the workers need a job so they have to go by what they can get and there are always masses of workers. The results are clear enough wages are coming down and there are evermore MW or near that workers along with a shrinking middle class, meanwhile masses of moneys are being sucked to the top ~ a most inefficient model.

I agree about govt though here the aim is to get rid of the state without making people poorer.

And indeed they do already, in case you haven't noticed, in capitalist societies charity tends to play a monumental part in the provisioning and helping of those less-fortunate, which they do with the charitable donations of people whom have earned and made their money through the capitalist system. I would suggest this thread is a little too much drama and too little reasoning or research.

Charities help and put a smiley face on things, meanwhile traders make billions from derivatives while the workers get peanuts [in poor nations]. We the rich nations get a triple a rating while the third world pays far more interest, essentially that means we are making money out of them just by getting the nicer slice of the pie. You could pay third world workers ten times what they get without hardly scratching the surface of what we pay for products, I don’t want to pay for charities I want people to support themselves.

Yes there is, and without the incentive or reason to create that wealth, that wealth would not exist. Something of a self-fulfilling prophecy in that regard, mostly because, unlike animals, humans do not tend to produce when you take away the fruit of their produce from them.

that’s a very old argument, 99% of people would be if anything better off utilising my model or similar. All the workers would still be getting the same or better wages and managers would get more if they increase profits etc. there would be far greater incentive for ordinary people to improve their lives, and the wealth would not be wasted inefficiently e.g. on beyonce’s $1,000,000 gold trousers, people yatchs and more importantly on inefficient investment systems like banks, traders, stocks and shares etc ~ which are designed to centralise money and keep it there!

All we are really doing here is decentralising capitalism and removing societal dualism.

If you remove the instrumentation of the state then you remove the minimum wage, which in effect removes a price floor in labour. Which would mean greater fluctuations in wages.

Well no I already talked about principles and standards, the boss/manager cannot earn more than ten times the amount he pays his lowest paid worker etc. by removing the state I don’t want to remove democracy and govt itself. My guess is that a free market would induce even lower wages and far more poor who would be even worse off. There has to be standards and accountability moreover a desire to make a better society = progress. I certainly would abandon this model if I thought it would be regressive, but I cant see how it would be.

Unfortunately you have failed to prove either that capitalism cannot offer 'progress', whatever that may is, and you have failed to prove your supposed model can even do so - let alone do so better than capitalism!

Count all the pennies that the rich have and redistribute it, decentralise wealth and that creates more wealth for the majority of people, its very simple in essence. Centralised capitalism is comparatively an inefficient system in a universal context. This I have shown, ~ all that money which goes to bankers and investors would go to everyone, its that simple.

Because violence has ever achieved meaningful and democratic reform of government?

Without it or the threat of it we would be living in a feudal state, now of all times it is needed most.

Lord Mov

As humans, we always try to get the best for ourselves, our families, and our countries. It's a fundamental nature of ourselves and of any living being. We will always to "maximize our profits" in whatever realm; we will try to maximize our living experience. The notion of "greed" driving our society seems to me to be a more religious connotation that anything else

See above. By this model we would still be doing that but in a different way. Only the super rich would be affected negatively [at first anyway].

Justice and Mercy

Hop to it. If your model is superior to other models you'll make more money than them, and others will follow suit.

eh? bit churlish wasnt it. Give me a good few millions and I surely will [$100.000.000 was the number in the op]. it is simply something that would have to be done in a big way, it would take many, many years to get anywhere otherwise. Let us not forget that the current model has all its own rules and instrumentation! Here we are talking about a change in the model, perhaps it could be first done with the public sector so as to not upset the apple cart, david cameron has already talked of using cooperatives ~ this is the same thing on a grander scale.

[Justice and Mercy]

eh? bit churlish wasnt it. Give me a good few millions and I surely will [$100.000.000 was the number in the op]. it is simply something that would have to be done in a big way, it would take many, many years to get anywhere otherwise. Let us not forget that the current model has all its own rules and instrumentation! Here we are talking about a change in the model, perhaps it could be first done with the public sector so as to not upset the apple cart, david cameron has already talked of using cooperatives ~ this is the same thing on a grander scale.

Sounds like you can't do what people have been doing for centuries under the profit model.

Hmm.

[Amorphos]

Vezon

I do realise people want more [not necessarily greed], but I equally realise that the vast majority of people would get more under a system like this or e.g a syndicate model etc]. what people want is to make it, to get a free lunch, but that just doesn’t happen for most and certainly wouldn’t happen here.

Capitalism isn’t the best, you get a minority with most. Having said that this is a ‘capitalist’ model it is simply based on a balance of decentralised and centralised capitalism rather that purely centralisation. All I can see from continuing with centralisation is further societal duality and unfair distribution of wealth.

Whay isit that everyone thinks that anything other than what we got is some kind of communism or socialism, the internet is a kind of socialism but is not anything like the old kind. I simply propose networks of businesses working together for mutual benefit.

There would be no unemployment in this model [as explained in the op].

Capitalism doesn’t do better than all other models, it simply doesn’t have many competitors, communism flatlines economies but virtually nothing else has been tried.

And who cares about unequal distribution of wealth? I don't. My family is a middle class one.

Answers itself!

Bankers have so many skills that we are in this mess? surely there is a miscalculation occurring here. Besides this model doesn’t need banks as they currently stand.

It is better for 99% of people if wealth doesn’t belong to anyone in particular but may be utilised by all, do the math, your capitalist model is less efficient simply because of that.

Justice and Mercy

I would happily go back to family run businesses on the high street, what you are not taking into consideration is that capitalism comes in many forms, and since the govt/bankers changed all the rules of how they spend your money we have dropped the well oiled machine for this one ~ which is patently crap!

[Justice and Mercy]

I would happily go back to family run businesses on the high street, what you are not taking into consideration is that capitalism comes in many forms, and since the govt/bankers changed all the rules of how they spend your money we have dropped the well oiled machine for this one ~ which is patently crap!

Capitalism is a certain thing of certain properties. It comes in one form and one form only.

[Amorphos]

Capitalism is a certain thing of certain properties. It comes in one form and one form only.

Utter nonsense, the capitalism we had under the british empire was quite different to what we have now, and Chinese capitalism is different to american capitalism etc.

[★Bandiera Rossa☭]

The problem is that the current system produces excess for a privileged minority, the more efficient system would have a much more equitable share of wealth. The problem with the initial analysis is that the current emphasis is not on productivity - it's actually on the opposite (Excess products are destroyed) but on centralization of capital.

[Amorphos]

^^ Good point!

[Panzerbear]

The problem is that the current system produces excess for a privileged minority,

this is not correct. the "current system" as in free market capitalism produces exessive wealth only for those business owners (and majority of wealth in the US is indeed created and NOT inherited) that are constantly improving the quality or affordability of their products. they have to fight with their competitors in order to fill demand for these products, and the consumers of these products vote with their dollar for better products. so the most efficient members of society get rewarded.

there is absolutely nothing that is "priviledged" in such system, because one idiot move can easily make any business owner bankrupt in a heartbeat, due to brutal nature of free market competition.

the more efficient system would have a much more equitable share of wealth.

absolutely the opposite - the minute you start taking money from the rich and give them to the poor (according to your pseudo-intellectual notion of "fairness"), you are making the use of capital extremely inefficient and no wealth gets generated in the process.

The problem with the initial analysis is that the current emphasis is not on productivity - it's actually on the opposite (Excess products are destroyed) but on centralization of capital.

true

[Amorphos]

absolutely the opposite - the minute you start taking money from the rich and give them to the poor (according to your pseudo-intellectual notion of "fairness"), you are making the use of capital extremely inefficient and no wealth gets generated in the process.

If people got more money to spend they can buy more products. What is inefficient are the mechanisms of capitalism e.g;

1. If you created a model without billionaires then you save money and achieve the same thing.

2. A bank loans at an interest so if you could invest via free banking that would be an efficiency ~ for business, which in turn would yield greater profits to add to the wealth pool of the syndicate/cooperative group.

3. If you sell say 49% of your business to the stock markets, then although that gives you a massive initial wealth injection, it remains short tem gain for long term loss ~ those shareholder now own 49% of your company and the equivalent of its profits.

Money saved in such areas on a national and international scale would be beyond belief, and with that you can invest in new businesses. Not to mention that a fairer progressive model would give us a better society, and save cost with less crime for example. Not to mention; a better society!

[Panzerbear]

If people got more money to spend they can buy more products. What is inefficient are the mechanisms of capitalism e.g;

1. If you created a model without billionaires then you save money and achieve the same thing.

what in the world are you talking about?

a) how can you "create" a model? are you planning on implementing social engineering that is doomed to fail as usual?

b) I fail to see how exactly is a billioner a problem in free market capitalist system. they store their money not under their mattresses, but in banks or directly invest the money into businesses. banks in turn also invest money in businesses or lend the money to people who need it via loans. in addition, billioners lead lavish life style, thus employing entire service industries which wouldn't have existed otherwise.

c) you would not achieve the "same thing" because individual profit motive is precisely that makes free market capitalism run like a well-oiled machine. if you are removing this profit seeking motive, you are ing it up for everyone, not only the billioners. in the economy everything is interconnected.

2. A bank loans at an interest so if you could invest via free banking that would be an efficiency ~ for business, which in turn would yield greater profits to add to the wealth pool of the syndicate/cooperative group.

the whole reason why a bank lends money to someone is to make a profit.

what the hell is "free banking"? it is impossible. its like claiming that if you were to work for free the world would be efficient place and your business owner would save money on salaries. this is exactly the opposite of efficiency, because there will be no workers. or in your case, no banks for that matter, which is the life blood of the economy. you will be shooting yourself in the foot that way, its obivous.

3. If you sell say 49% of your business to the stock markets, then although that gives you a massive initial wealth injection, it remains short tem gain for long term loss ~ those shareholder now own 49% of your company and the equivalent of its profits.

I am sorry, I don't think I understand where is this long term loss coming from. please read about why IPOs happen and what are the effects of it. business owners most of the time execute an IPO because they extremely benefit from it.

Money saved in such areas on a national and international scale would be beyond belief, and with that you can invest in new businesses. Not to mention that a fairer progressive model would give us a better society, and save cost with less crime for example. Not to mention; a better society!

... or you could stop living in the fairy tale world, take some classes in economics and understand what you are talking about is just plain silly.

[Vezon]

Okay, I have a problem with this. You seem to not realize that people are greedy/desire more. Sure, you could have people work for enough to live on. But they wouldn't be happy. They would always desire more. Capitalism isn't the perfect solution, but it is the best. It utilizes people's desire for wealth to help others. Suppose a man started a business. Why did he start the business? Well, there are various possiblities. It could be money, fame, or, though this is usually not the sole reason, to help others...but this only works if the product is right. The guy who invented the wheelchair could have done it strictly to help others, but I don't think the guy who invented the blender did. Anyway, I guy starts a business to get something for himself. Investors give money because they want to get more money. The business needs workers, so it hires people. The business wants to see more production, so it offers overtime pay. The workers want more money so they can buy luxury goods(goods one does not need to live, such as tvs, fast cars, etc.) The fact that workers want nice things, lots of nice things, inspires others to start businesses to supply that desire. The cycle continues. It's not perfect. Unemployment and recesion are, of course, facts of life. But it is far better than anything else. If this is not true, than why is it that capatalistic countries have higher standards of living than any other? If you go to the communistic countries, people there are dirt poor(at least a large percentage are). And who cares about unequal distribution of wealth? I don't. My family is a middle class one. I don't object to bankers getting $500,000 a year. They have the skills that the company is willing to pay large amounts of money for. Or what about business founders? They took huge risks when they founded there company. If they suceed, they have the right to keep a large paycheck.