It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Am I the crazy one or is it the rest of the world? - Complacent society.

page: 3
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


Oh god, wow, where to begin...

I read your economic view, I have to right away point out that I've already thought of this system
and consider it impossible due to a few simple facts, they are as follows.

- You're mixing entrepreneur and worker, I understand that you are trying to form
a socialist environment in which everyone is equal, but unfortunately if you've ever
owned your own business you'd realize that there are profound reasons as to why
there is a "class" separation in the workforce. An entrepreneur, as in the owner,
has a huge amounts of responsibility on his shoulders, he has to make sure everything
works, and I'm talking small business here not monopolies in which all tasks are segregated
into different departments. Advertising, capital investment, public relations, transport, all this is done
by one person, or two if it's a coop. When you hire a worker, all he cares about is his paycheck
at the end of the week, they don't care if the job is done or not, that is for the entrepreneur to worry about.
Why do you think you got bosses on people's cases? Because the work must be done fast
and good, there are time limits, can't have a guy listen to music and take 5 million breaks
when you have a limited budget on your hands. basically, the entrepreneur cares and runs the business,
workers are just extra hands that don't care about the job in the slightest.

Now, if you start distributing company shares, you will either have
a) More shares owned by entrepreneurs than workers, comes back to the same thing we have now,
in some cases workers might even be worse off.
b) If you make all shares equal, the entrepreneurs will be unwilling to take the risk
of running a business if they're making the same money as a regular worker.
Hence forth eliminating businesses. An entrepreneur starts a business in order to make more money
than he'd make if he were employed somewhere. That is the essence of entrepreneurship. PROFIT.

I see what you mean by everyone runs in the business, you're talking about coops.
Unfortunately not everyone is cut out to be an entrepreneur. I can't do telemarketing for the life of me,
I have a friend who makes a killing on sales. You see how that works? Everyone has strengths and weaknesses.

The reasons why many stores stay vacant is because you have huge monopolies, like Wall-mart or Costco to name a few, who grab all the business with lower prices. If you gonna buy 8 bars of soap for 5 bux at a small store, as opposed to the same product at Wall-mart for 3 bux, I think you gonna go to Wall-mart. That's all there is to it. We are now a Corpotocracy, learn to deal man. No one can compete with these giants, don't even try, you're store is gonna end up boarded up sooner than you can say bankruptcy. The only way out is to reform Capitalism, which means getting rid of multinational monopolies and banks and imposing strict laws that prevent monopolization, good luck with that. It's like yelling at a wall expecting it to move outta your way, not gonna happen.

Now, the reason why economic stimulus won't work, in relation to starting off these small businesses, is because after the end of the year, the business closes anyways, why? No ability to pay back the loan along with having a budget that's dangerously deep in the red, you'd need to keep throwing money at these small coops in order to keep em alive and competitive. Where is that money gonna come from eh? Government?
I see you already covered the tax issue in the other thread so I'm not even gonna bother adding that into the mix.

Don't get me wrong, coop capitalism is good, but only if you have a few entrepreneurs in the coop who are also workers (again not everyone cut out to be both, it's called hard work), so most of the time, you end up with entrepreneurs hiring workers, and as detailed before, company shares are a failure.

In either case, we can't compete with multinational monopolies. I'm still in favor of the current system though, minus multinational monopolies. If we had anti monopoly and banking laws, we'd do just fine. I agree with you, Globalization is a scam, we need localized businesses.



Imagine a Starbuck's ran with incredible amounts of overhead, people with investments to make more money, hourly employees paid low wages to make it all possible. Then take those Starbuck's employees and give them their own coffee shop next door.


I can definitely imagine that, it's called too much supply and not enough demand.

I'll continue this discussion at a later time, I have to be going.



 
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join