Re: Defeating The Top 1%; Request For Criticism
From: Eric Atkinson (atki4564_at_iwon.com)
Date: 06/09/04
- Next message: john grove: "Re: UNEMPLOYMENT rate in US tops Great Depression in new report ..."
- Previous message: Domenico Rosa: "Re: Ivins: Free markets the Enron way"
- In reply to: Jonathan Smith: "Re: Defeating The Top 1%; Request For Criticism"
- Next in thread: Jonathan Smith: "Re: Defeating The Top 1%; Request For Criticism"
- Reply: Jonathan Smith: "Re: Defeating The Top 1%; Request For Criticism"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 8 Jun 2004 17:14:21 -0700
jonathansmith99@yahoo.com (Jonathan Smith) wrote in message
> Your theory assumes you (and the "community") own the factors of
> production.
By factors of production I'll assume you mean the traditional
definition of land, labor, machines, and ideas.
In that regard, what I am assuming is that each of these factors of
production is only provided by the consent of a customer group's
willingness to CONTINUE purchasing them, as goods and services, from a
particular vendor, and thus providing sales to continue buying those
factors. In short, the short-term profits derived from those sales is
what provides these factors in the first place, forming an inescapable
economic circle.
Therefore, it is my intent to play this circle as if it were a chess
game, temporarily robbing Peter (of customers, at his own customer's
consent and self-organization) to pay Paul, his competitor, as long as
Paul provides incremental equity to this "organized" customer group
relative to that customer group's size within his particular market,
and then only buying that customer-relative-equity-share over a 20-30
year period (similar to a rent-to-own mortage transaction). From
there, assuming this "organized" customer group grew in size due to
popular political inertia, then Paul would eventually receive a very
valuable pair of golden handcuffs from which he could not escape
because the customer group ultimately provides all factors. Of course,
to fully control all such factors across an industry, the customer
group would eventually to form Paul's entire customer base and
continue growing, but provided the initial customer group had enough
economic and political lure to Paul in the first place, this process
would be self-feeding and irrevocable once started, continuously
robbing Peter to pay Paul.
I guess what I am banking on is that Paul's greed for more profit over
20-30 years will outweigh his desire to hand-down power to his hiers.
In effect, Paul is being asked to end his own royal family line (his
particular top 1% line) because (1) he and his family will be paid
handsomely for selling their business to their customers (and
employees) in a rent-to-own transaction and (2) if he doesn't sell
then one of the his royal family competitors will, for greed is a very
powerful ally.
> Good luck coming up with the capital to actually do this
Actually, getting the capital is the really simple part. For example,
telephone companies regularly offer $50 per new customer referral via
their independent sales programs. Assuming 65,000 local customers
organize themselves via the internet for the purpose of receiving this
referral fee, then that's $3.2 million, per year, which can be used to
fund and further organize their new 50-50 economic and political
system as I have described. And that's just one service - telephones;
similar referral programs exist for virtually every product or service
people buy. By this means, I am positive that all 65,000 people, in
just one local community, could easily raise at least $10 million by
combining just four or five common purchases (food, medical, etc).
After that, they'd have enough money, via referral fees (commissions),
to form their own federal bank. From there, their deposits combined
with their approximate 12.5 times capital credit line they'd receive
from the fed (the magic of fractional reserves) would put their
capital base in the hundreds of millions of dollars - all in a
relatively short period of time. Yet, it all started by making one
group decision about "what telephone company" they would bless with
their patronage, in return for this simple decision they received a
great deal of money that would have otherwise been under the economic
and political control of the top 1%. As I said, the top 1% cannot
oppose the purchasing power of the other 99%, for competition does not
allow the top 1% to think on a long-term basis, but the other 99%
certainly can!
> - and once you do, guess where the other half of your new found income
> comes from? You got it - return on investment.
Yes, what I think you are saying here is that this other half of
income will have to be re-invested to create new features and services
required by the customer group as competition proceeds over time, as
opposed to being used merely for luxury consumption. This is quite
true, but I'd rather have a democratic group of employees who elect
their own managers be in charge of this investment process (and it's
returns) than have top 1% upper managers dictate investment terms to
"yes-men" employees who are not utilizing their own full potential to
make these very important investment decisions (which I believe are
under-funded due to the outrageous luxuries of the top 1%).
On the other hand, top 1% upper managers are very smart people; they
can probably get themselves elected by their employees and then
convince their employees as to the best investment options available.
Top managers, of course, will want a premium, perhaps an additional 1%
or more equaity share for providing this entrepreneurial leadership.
This premium, as well as the investment decisions to be made, of
course, is a matter of negotiation between employees and their
entrepreneurial leaders.
On the other hand, not all this other half of income is currently used
for capital investment alone; a good bit of it used to buy some of the
most outrageous luxuries imaginable for top 1% upper managers and
royal families to enjoy. This, of course, would probably be lessened
to some extent by the system I have proposed unless these top 1% upper
managers could convince their employees that they deserve these
luxuries in return for their entrepreneurial leadership. What's likely
to happen, tom some extent, is that if top 1% upper managers don't
receive these luxuries from their employees, then another group of
employees elsewhere will provide them in return for their leadership.
Why? Because leadership is the 4th, and IMO, the most important factor
of production. Therefore, I believe employee groups will quickly find
that good leaders with great ideas don't come cheap. Great leaders
with broad experience and education will always be a hot commodity
among these competing employee groups, thus resulting in skewed income
ratios within the employee group's 50% share.
So, you're right, they're have to re-invest a good bit of this other
half of income in production itself as well as pay significant
premiums to retain their leaders, but at least they'll now do so by
their own democratic and fully informed consent instead of being serfs
at the behest of today's top 1% royal families. Bottom line,
"industrial monarchy" as it currently exists does indeed work well,
but is it the most efficient and effective means of getting the very
most in production possibilities out of the serfs? Democracy in
government has proven otherwise; now it's time for democracy in
business to do the same.
>
> js
- Next message: john grove: "Re: UNEMPLOYMENT rate in US tops Great Depression in new report ..."
- Previous message: Domenico Rosa: "Re: Ivins: Free markets the Enron way"
- In reply to: Jonathan Smith: "Re: Defeating The Top 1%; Request For Criticism"
- Next in thread: Jonathan Smith: "Re: Defeating The Top 1%; Request For Criticism"
- Reply: Jonathan Smith: "Re: Defeating The Top 1%; Request For Criticism"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
