Re: Defeating The Top 1%; Request For Criticism
From: Jonathan Smith (jonathansmith99_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 06/10/04
- Next message: Devil's_Advocate: "Re: Household Debt to GDP Ratio Explodes"
- Previous message: John Turmel: "TURMEL: Trio's pot case nixed, TO Sun"
- In reply to: Eric Atkinson: "Re: Defeating The Top 1%; Request For Criticism"
- Next in thread: Eric Atkinson: "Re: Defeating The Top 1%; Request For Criticism"
- Reply: Eric Atkinson: "Re: Defeating The Top 1%; Request For Criticism"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 10 Jun 2004 04:51:24 -0700
atki4564@iwon.com (Eric Atkinson) wrote in message news:<11bb2490.0406081614.17574479@posting.google.com>...
> 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.
It's what you need to make widgets.
>
> 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.
OK - so? You want a hamburger - you drive through McDs and for a
couple of bucks you have one. Beats the heck out of buying a grill,
buying ground beef, buns, etc, then spending 2 hours getting
everything set up, cooking it...
> Therefore, it is my intent to play this circle as if it were a chess
> game,
Huh? go figure. You'll need to explain this.
> 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).
Create co-ops. OK. So you'll create a co-op farm to put Del Monte
out of business. Go right ahead. Let's see if you can get the
requisite people to play.
> 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.
Actually, Peter would be out of business and wouldn't really give a
damm.
> 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.
Peter no longer exists. Now what? Paul is owned by his customers.
Peter was owned by his customers as well. Nothing has changed except
the nameplate - imagine that.
>
> 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.
Where do you come up with the idea that it's the top 1% that owns all
the factors of production?
>
> > 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.
Huh? Where do you think the $50 comes from that AT&T is paying for
referrals?
> 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!
So it now is a federal loan program.
Sorry - if you want to do this, wouldn't it just be easier to
nationalize all industries? Imagine, 99% of your people will be in
favor of it - and the other 1% will simple need to move to Alaska.
Didn't someone try this about 100 years or so ago?
> > - 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%).
Do you realize that there already is a mechanism to do what you
propose? It's called the stock market. Individuals can organize, buy
lots of shares and leverage that into seats on the board and voting
rights.
> 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.
You missed the point entirely.
js
- Next message: Devil's_Advocate: "Re: Household Debt to GDP Ratio Explodes"
- Previous message: John Turmel: "TURMEL: Trio's pot case nixed, TO Sun"
- In reply to: Eric Atkinson: "Re: Defeating The Top 1%; Request For Criticism"
- Next in thread: Eric Atkinson: "Re: Defeating The Top 1%; Request For Criticism"
- Reply: Eric Atkinson: "Re: Defeating The Top 1%; Request For Criticism"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
