"Does communism work after all?"

[Skybird]

It is a random coincidence that yesterday, when China's stock market sneezed, this essay about China'S economical acting and ambitions was published by Der Spiegel. It is a longer essay, but a very worthy reading, especially so if you happen to not have dealt with China before and are wondering why and how they are doing what they are doing, economically.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,druck-465007,00.html

In another thread someone was saying today that China sneezed and the rest of the world got a cold. There is truth in that.

In the same context:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,druck-385446,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,druck-461828,00.html

[The Avon Lady]

Sure it works! As long as the "haves" can control the "have-nots". Just like in the good ol' days!

We have a friend who travels to China several times a year for business. Go behind the facades of skyscrapers and the houses for the "have" and see how the economy is hardly trickling down.

I need not tell you how the human trait of jealousy will not let things stand as they are forever. If it will be suppressed, it will be brutal. If it foments country-wide, wages will shoot up and China will wobble.

Remember when the world thought Japan controlled the ups and downs of the global economy 2 decades ago? Yes, international economy is more global now but the lopsided advantages of countries like China and India will not be tollerated forever.

Let's come back to this thread in 2 decades time and see what's changed. ;)

[The Avon Lady]

I will tell you one thing that has never worked properly since its inception: the stock market. :nope:

[Skybird]

Sure it works! As long as the "haves" can control the "have-nots". Just like in the good ol' days!

We have a friend who travels to China several times a year for business. Go behind the facades of skyscrapers and the houses for the "have" and see how the economy is hardly trickling down.

I need not tell you how the human trait of jealousy will not let things stand as they are forever. If it will be suppressed, it will be brutal. If it foments country-wide, wages will shoot up and China will wobble.

Remember when the world thought Japan controlled the ups and downs of the global economy 2 decades ago? Yes, international economy is more global now but the lopsided advantages of countries like China and India will not be tollerated forever.

Let's come back to this thread in 2 decades time and see what's changed. ;)
I wonder if you have red the full article, and the conclusions in the last third of it or so...? Your reply is unusual pointless. Your remarks all in all got adressed.

[Captain Nemo]

Well I would say no, because as the article points out, many party intellectuals fear that their country is already drifting inexorably towards capitalism. For China to be as successful as it has and for this to grow, it has had to embrace capitalism. As for the poor remaining poor and the rich getting richer (Avon Lady) isn't that what capatilism is really all about? In the UK for example, go back a hundred years or so and you could say a similar situation happened here. It was only with the help of the Trade Unions and subsequently the Labour Party back in the early 20th Century that living standards for the working class got much better over time.

Nemo

[The Avon Lady]

[I wonder if you have red the full article, and the conclusions in the last third of it or so...? Your reply is unusual pointless. Your remarks all in all got adressed.
Chutzpah! :down: Yes, I had read the article. I simple summarized in 250 words or less. Or is that forbidden? :hmm:

[Letum]

Someone should point out that China is not communist. It's just a complex dictatorship that calls it's self "communist".

True communism, as defined by the great economic/political philosophers, has never fully worked on a national scale. If it was working on a national scale then it is unlikely that the country would be involved in the stock exchange and financial matters would not be a indicator of communism "working".

[Skybird]

Well I would say no, because as the article points out, many party intellectuals fear that their country is already drifting inexorably towards capitalism. For China to be as successful as it has and for this to grow, it has had to embrace capitalism. As for the poor remaining poor and the rich getting richer (Avon Lady) isn't that what capatilism is really all about? In the UK for example, go back a hundred years or so and you could say a similar situation happened here. It was only with the help of the Trade Unions and subsequently the Labour Party back in the early 20th Century that living standards for the working class got much better over time.

Nemo
I agree. And today we can see the gap between the poor and the rich widening fast again, both on western national and international levels. More and more wealth on the globe is massed in few and fewer hands, and with that, power.

Another view on it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6211250.stm

The bad habit of holding shares does not help in this. Morally, something is seriously flawed in that system. Demanding to get payed by workers doing the real tough work becasue I once lend their employer some money? Sounds like a parasite's behavior to me. It certainly helps to blow up the bubble.

And yes, I always rejected to buy shares.

If an apple costs one dollar, and you have three dollars, how many apples can you buy then? Maths, first class. That is what solid economizing is about.

[Letum]

I prefer to measure a countries worth by net happiness and not net produce.

It's interesting to see what countries score high.

[Skybird]

[I wonder if you have red the full article, and the conclusions in the last third of it or so...? Your reply is unusual pointless. Your remarks all in all got adressed.
Chutzpah! :down: Yes, I had read the article. I simple summarized in 250 words or less. Or is that forbidden? :hmm:
I can't see that the authors were unaware of the things you were pointing at, and I did not understand your first answer as a "summary". And what the heck is a "Chutzpah"? Jewish curse, maybe? :lol:

[The Avon Lady]

And what the heck is a "Chutzpah"? Jewish curse, maybe? :lol:
You have a chutzpah to ask, when you could've googled for it and found this entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chutzpah) at the top of the results list. :D

[Skybird]

"zielgerichteter, intelligenter Unverschämtheit, charmanter Penetranz und unwiderstehlicher Dreistigkeit." (German wikipedia)I can live with that! :D

[Skybird]

I prefer to measure a countries worth by net happiness and not net produce.
Only as long as their happiness does not come at YOUR cost and you are the one to pay their bills.

[August]

Demanding to get payed by workers doing the real tough work becasue I once lend their employer some money? Sounds like a parasite's behavior to me. It certainly helps to blow up the bubble.

Perhaps that's because you seem to see the company and it's employees as two separate entities whereas they should all be on the same team.

A person who buys stock in a company does not lend it to an employer, he lends it to the company so they can use it to modernize and inprove their operation and products thereby keeping their people employed.

[SUBMAN1]

I will tell you one thing that has never worked properly since its inception: the stock market. :nope:

More so now that it is being privatized

[SUBMAN1]

I prefer to measure a countries worth by net happiness and not net produce. Only as long as their happiness does not come at YOUR cost and you are the one to pay their bills.

Last time I saw, countries that were the most happy were the first conquered throughout history. :p Everyone seems to want what they've got, and since they built all their happyness on happy things, they forgot about war. The people looking in however never forgot about war, and marched right on in!

-S

[Skybird]

Perhaps that's because you seem to see the company and it's employees as two separate entities whereas they should all be on the same team.

A person who buys stock in a company does not lend it to an employer, he lends it to the company so they can use it to modernize and inprove their operation and products thereby keeping their people employed.
Needless to say that I strongly disagree with that description. Sounds like the garden Eden of stockmarketing. But when the management of a company earns let'S say 1000 times as much money than it's factory employees, if the managers grant themselves a 30% increase in their already million-heavy incomes while at the same time they made decisons that brought their company into trouble so that employees get fired or have to accept loan-cuts, than I know what to make of that saying that they are all sitting in the same boat. Thinking of George Orwell: some are more equal than others. you base on the idealized theory, August. But it is an utopia only. Reality in 4 out of 5 companies (at least) looks far, far worse.

[moose1am]

What is a GOOGLE? :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

And what the heck is a "Chutzpah"? Jewish curse, maybe? :lol:
You have a chutzpah to ask, when you could've googled for it and found this entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chutzpah) at the top of the results list. :D

[STEED]

I will tell you one thing that has never worked properly since its inception: the stock market. :nope:


:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: ....................Hey wait a minute, recent news. :damn:

[STEED]

Communism= perfect society. And that has never happen yet. :smug:

[ASWnut101]

What is a GOOGLE? :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

And what the heck is a "Chutzpah"? Jewish curse, maybe? :lol:
You have a chutzpah to ask, when you could've googled for it and found this entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chutzpah) at the top of the results list. :D


It's officially a word in the Webster's (I think that's the one) English Dictionary. It means to search by a online "search engine":yep:

[The Avon Lady]

What is a GOOGLE? :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

And what the heck is a "Chutzpah"? Jewish curse, maybe? :lol:
You have a chutzpah to ask, when you could've googled for it and found this entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chutzpah) at the top of the results list. :D
It's officially a word in the Webster's (I think that's the one) English Dictionary. It means to search by a online "search engine":yep:
Another meaning for Google (http://www.toonopedia.com/google.htm) - with his goo-goo-googly eyes.

[August]

Perhaps that's because you seem to see the company and it's employees as two separate entities whereas they should all be on the same team.

A person who buys stock in a company does not lend it to an employer, he lends it to the company so they can use it to modernize and inprove their operation and products thereby keeping their people employed. Needless to say that I strongly disagree with that description. Sounds like the garden Eden of stockmarketing. But when the management of a company earns let'S say 1000 times as much money than it's factory employees, if the managers grant themselves a 30% increase in their already million-heavy incomes while at the same time they made decisons that brought their company into trouble so that employees get fired or have to accept loan-cuts, than I know what to make of that saying that they are all sitting in the same boat. Thinking of George Orwell: some are more equal than others. you base on the idealized theory, August. But it is an utopia only. Reality in 4 out of 5 companies (at least) looks far, far worse.

If my theory is utopian Skybird then yours is myopic. 4 out of 5 companies (at least)? Really. If that were even close to being true there would be no stock market at all because investors would be throwing their own hard earned money away (at least) 4 out of 5 times.

Those who purchase stock in a company are looking to see the company grow so they can make a profit on the money they've invested. Allowing management or anyone else (including the workers) to run the company into the ground not only eliminates that profit but most, if not all, of their investment as well.

[Skybird]

Perhaps that's because you seem to see the company and it's employees as two separate entities whereas they should all be on the same team.

A person who buys stock in a company does not lend it to an employer, he lends it to the company so they can use it to modernize and inprove their operation and products thereby keeping their people employed. Needless to say that I strongly disagree with that description. Sounds like the garden Eden of stockmarketing. But when the management of a company earns let'S say 1000 times as much money than it's factory employees, if the managers grant themselves a 30% increase in their already million-heavy incomes while at the same time they made decisons that brought their company into trouble so that employees get fired or have to accept loan-cuts, than I know what to make of that saying that they are all sitting in the same boat. Thinking of George Orwell: some are more equal than others. you base on the idealized theory, August. But it is an utopia only. Reality in 4 out of 5 companies (at least) looks far, far worse.

If my theory is utopian Skybird then yours is myopic. 4 out of 5 companies (at least)? Really. If that were even close to being true there would be no stock market at all because investors would be throwing their own hard earned money away (at least) 4 out of 5 times.

Those who purchase stock in a company are looking to see the company grow so they can make a profit on the money they've invested. Allowing management or anyone else (including the workers) to run the company into the ground not only eliminates that profit but most, if not all, of their investment as well.
Who cares as long as the first profit earnings were maximized. Common practice is that then you retreat and withdraw your money, and rush to your next victim to suck it's blood. In fact modern investement fonds tend to do especially like this: buy as many shares as needed to gain influence, then enforce business policies that help to get out as much profit as possible in the shortest ammount of time, and then leave it behind. It often includes oa healthy company taking credits and making debts - with which it is left after the investors retreated. There was no interest in the longterm perspective of that company one is investing in from the very beginning. - If you give somebody money and then demand that he should give you regular profit that finally even exceeds your investement, while you do nothing when he does the dirty work with his hands, so that he is effectively working for you and your financial interests, then this is in the end just this: buying a slave. From a moral standpoint, the system is undefendable. - You said investements so that the company can grow and modernize. Well, healthy economizing is if they run their business in that way that they do not give away the profits they make, but use these profits to invest in their modernization. what have other foreigners to do with that? If you do a good job, and produce something that attracts customer's interests, you will not only cover your running costs, but have a profit left. that is not exclusively reserved for the management, but for the workers as well. A part for each of them, and a part for further investment. Solid, and easy. The brother of my grandmother was running a textile company in exactly this way, men's fashion, shirts for the most - no foreign investors, no taking credits, the man said you cannot spend money that you have not earned before. There was a much slower growth than with other companies, but it was a solid increase, a constant continuation of the trend of slow growth - even in times were the branch already started to suffer from imports from Asia, and the general trend of fashion companies in Germany was pointing down. The company was healthy when he sold it. The new management "invested", and vbrought in capital from foreign investors, in order to modernize (whatever that should have meant, for the company obviously was competitive and had slowly increasing profits and offered safe jobs). The new investors ewanted to see quicker profits, the polcies were chnaged, and it became more risdky and less solid, and more and more it all was run with money that the company did not own. It ended how sooner or later every such story must end, if not after years then after decades: the once healthy business collapsed, finacial reserves were transfered into fonds of foreign investors, then bankruptcy, all jobs lost, debts, a social plan for which the state and the tax payer had to come up for. Only winner in this: thoise people who pumped money into it to gain control, take all profit, and once there was no more blood to be sucked out, they left the sinking ship. Fan-tas-tic. Our medias are filled with such stories, since many, many years.

[Skybird]

What has all that to do with China's way of modernizing it's economy? :lol:

[Onkel Neal]

Well I would say no, because as the article points out, many party intellectuals fear that their country is already drifting inexorably towards capitalism. For China to be as successful as it has and for this to grow, it has had to embrace capitalism. As for the poor remaining poor and the rich getting richer (Avon Lady) isn't that what capatilism is really all about? In the UK for example, go back a hundred years or so and you could say a similar situation happened here. It was only with the help of the Trade Unions and subsequently the Labour Party back in the early 20th Century that living standards for the working class got much better over time.

Nemo I agree. And today we can see the gap between the poor and the rich widening fast again, both on western national and international levels. More and more wealth on the globe is massed in few and fewer hands, and with that, power.

Another view on it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6211250.stm

The bad habit of holding shares does not help in this. Morally, something is seriously flawed in that system. Demanding to get payed by workers doing the real tough work becasue I once lend their employer some money? Sounds like a parasite's behavior to me. It certainly helps to blow up the bubble.

And yes, I always rejected to buy shares.

If an apple costs one dollar, and you have three dollars, how many apples can you buy then? Maths, first class. That is what solid economizing is about.

If I work three times as hard as you, does my opinion count three times more than yours? ;)

[August]

Who cares as long as the first profit earnings were maximized. Common practice is that then you retreat and withdraw your money, and rush to your next victim to suck it's blood. In fact modern investement fonds tend to do especially like this: buy as many shares as needed to gain influence, then enforce business policies that help to get out as much profit as possible in the shortest ammount of time, and then leave it behind. It often includes oa healthy company taking credits and making debts - with which it is left after the investors retreated. There was no interest in the longterm perspective of that company one is investing in from the very beginning. - If you give somebody money and then demand that he should give you regular profit that finally even exceeds your investement, while you do nothing when he does the dirty work with his hands, so that he is effectively working for you and your financial interests, then this is in the end just this: buying a slave. From a moral standpoint, the system is undefendable. - You said investements so that the company can grow and modernize. Well, healthy economizing is if they run their business in that way that they do not give away the profits they make, but use these profits to invest in their modernization. what have other foreigners to do with that? If you do a good job, and produce something that attracts customer's interests, you will not only cover your running costs, but have a profit left. that is not exclusively reserved for the management, but for the workers as well. A part for each of them, and a part for further investment. Solid, and easy. The brother of my grandmother was running a textile company in exactly this way, men's fashion, shirts for the most - no foreign investors, no taking credits, the man said you cannot spend money that you have not earned before. There was a much slower growth than with other companies, but it was a solid increase, a constant continuation of the trend of slow growth - even in times were the branch already started to suffer from imports from Asia, and the general trend of fashion companies in Germany was pointing down. The company was healthy when he sold it. The new management "invested", and vbrought in capital from foreign investors, in order to modernize (whatever that should have meant, for the company obviously was competitive and had slowly increasing profits and offered safe jobs). The new investors ewanted to see quicker profits, the polcies were chnaged, and it became more risdky and less solid, and more and more it all was run with money that the company did not own. It ended how sooner or later every such story must end, if not after years then after decades: the once healthy business collapsed, finacial reserves were transfered into fonds of foreign investors, then bankruptcy, all jobs lost, debts, a social plan for which the state and the tax payer had to come up for. Only winner in this: thoise people who pumped money into it to gain control, take all profit, and once there was no more blood to be sucked out, they left the sinking ship. Fan-tas-tic. Our medias are filled with such stories, since many, many years.

Yet for all that there are there are thousands of publically traded companies which have managed to avoid your Faustian fate. Yeah the media loves to cover such stories like they do with anything bad or negative, but only a fool would believe that such stories represent the more than a small percentage of companies out there.

Oh and dude, paragraphs, please. No seriously...

[waste gate]

Well I would say no, because as the article points out, many party intellectuals fear that their country is already drifting inexorably towards capitalism. For China to be as successful as it has and for this to grow, it has had to embrace capitalism. As for the poor remaining poor and the rich getting richer (Avon Lady) isn't that what capatilism is really all about? In the UK for example, go back a hundred years or so and you could say a similar situation happened here. It was only with the help of the Trade Unions and subsequently the Labour Party back in the early 20th Century that living standards for the working class got much better over time.

Nemo I agree. And today we can see the gap between the poor and the rich widening fast again, both on western national and international levels. More and more wealth on the globe is massed in few and fewer hands, and with that, power.

Another view on it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6211250.stm

The bad habit of holding shares does not help in this. Morally, something is seriously flawed in that system. Demanding to get payed by workers doing the real tough work becasue I once lend their employer some money? Sounds like a parasite's behavior to me. It certainly helps to blow up the bubble.

And yes, I always rejected to buy shares.

If an apple costs one dollar, and you have three dollars, how many apples can you buy then? Maths, first class. That is what solid economizing is about.

If I work three times as hard as you, does my opinion count three times more than yours? ;)

What does opinion have to do with how hard anyone works?

[Skybird]

He probably meant to compare opinion, apples and prices for apples. But I did not got what he was after.

If you stand at the assembly production line, and your boss sits in the office - could his work be so much more worth that it is justified that you are paid let's say 2000 dollars per month, while he maybe gets 2 million? And if he makes a bad decision and you loose your job and others must accept loan cuts, while he just is fired, but still is left with 2 million dollars multiplied by the number of months he worked there, is that just?


We need laws that managements must accept legal liabilities for the decisions they make. So far, they only could loose their jobs, as long as they did not act criminally so that they could be brought to court. Incompetence is something you are not held responsible for by your orivate savings. You have no risks in that position. Such new laws of course must include their private savings. It cannot be that the worker when causing the assembly line standing still for the second time is loosing his job and his family faces existential threats, while managers just get fired but taking all the money they made with them - ridiculous sums, often even with payments continuing for months or even years. that'S a way I want to be penalized - not needing to work, but still being payed, at least being left with the hundreds of thousands, or millions that I made! It is easy to make risky decisions and policies if you do not have anything private at stake. If your own existence also is at risk - could you imagine how quickly business would change and become more cautious, and interested in creating soldiity instead of quick profit, unlimited expansion and risky fusions? I can tell you!

As long as managers do not really risk anything themselves, they are just playing - monopoly. They can win real money, but they can only loose nothing. Don't be surprised that they do the way they do, then. when I drive in a race simulation, I do stunts and take risks I never would dare to try when driving a real car - with my own health and wellbeing at risk.

In the example in the beginning, I would like to see a difference in loans between the lowest and the highest jobs in a company i the range of a factor of about 10. I think that does far more justice and is more realistic, when comparing the advanatges and disadvanatges of both kinds of jobs - the administration, and the worker stadning hour for hour at the assembly line.

If I work with my head, and you work with your hands, is my job then more worth than yours? Or the other way around? Imagine the toilet cleaner or the craftsman maintaining your electrical systems, and water, and heating would no longer do their job. You would learn in record time how important they are.

P.S. a psychophysiological fact: the human brain is not able to form real representations of numbers in excess of some twenty only. But managers or politicians easily speak about millions, billions, and losses of these they just wave off. It is fair to say that they really do not know what they are talking about, from a physiologist's standpoint. :lol:

[Onkel Neal]

It was a simple joke, as Sky said, on the relationship of apples and opinions. I cannot take Communism seriously, it's a dunderhead theory only supported by those with an appallingly loose grasp of reality and human nature.

If you stand at the assembly production line, and your boss sits in the office - could his work be so much more worth that it is justified that you are paid let's say 2000 dollars per month, while he maybe gets 2 million?

Yes.

The assembly line guy chose his job, he made the choices in education and his character and level of ambition determined where he is. That boss makes decisions that affect the whole company, decisions that could make or lose millions. If it's so easy, go ahead, start your own company, and feel free to pay the line workers $100,000 a year. No one is stopping you, but you.

Maybe instead of one captain running a ship, all the crew should make the decisions.

Next time you need eye surgery, or someone to negotiate a large business deal, get the guy who installs your carpet do do it. And makes sure you pay him the same as you would a surgeon or attorney.

[waste gate]

It was a simple joke, as Sky said, on the relationship of apples and opinions. I cannot take Communism seriously, it's a dunderhead theory only supported by those with an appallingly loose grasp of reality and human nature.

If you stand at the assembly production line, and your boss sits in the office - could his work be so much more worth that it is justified that you are paid let's say 2000 dollars per month, while he maybe gets 2 million?

Yes.

The assembly line guy chose his job, he made the choices in education and his character and level of ambition determined where he is. That boss makes decisions that affect the whole company, decisions that could make or lose millions. If it's so easy, go ahead, start your own company, and feel free to pay the line workers $100,000 a year. No one is stopping you, but you.

Maybe instead of one captain running a ship, all the crew should make the decisions.

Next time you need eye surgery, or someone to negotiate a large business deal, get the guy who installs your carpet do do it. And makes sure you pay him the same as you would a surgeon or attorney.


:up: :up: :up: :up:

[CCIP]

Whatever happened to the Marxist "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" then? :hmm:

[Letum]

Whatever happened to the Marxist "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" then? :hmm:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=429533&postcount=7

Thats what happend.

[Skybird]

It was a simple joke, as Sky said, on the relationship of apples and opinions. I cannot take Communism seriously, it's a dunderhead theory only supported by those with an appallingly loose grasp of reality and human nature.

If you stand at the assembly production line, and your boss sits in the office - could his work be so much more worth that it is justified that you are paid let's say 2000 dollars per month, while he maybe gets 2 million?

Yes.

The assembly line guy chose his job, he made the choices in education and his character and level of ambition determined where he is. That boss makes decisions that affect the whole company, decisions that could make or lose millions. If it's so easy, go ahead, start your own company, and feel free to pay the line workers $100,000 a year. No one is stopping you, but you.

Maybe instead of one captain running a ship, all the crew should make the decisions.

Next time you need eye surgery, or someone to negotiate a large business deal, get the guy who installs your carpet do do it. And makes sure you pay him the same as you would a surgeon or attorney.

That there shall be differences in loans I do not question. But the immense difference between the assembly worker and the company leader reaching into the range of four digit factors - this is ridiculous. There simply is no management process that is let's say one thousand times more worth than what the worker does. without workers, the management would be useless, so in a way the dependance is mutual. If noone is there willing to be led, the leader will find himself in a very lonely position.

I also seriously doubt the quality of many top mangements, their competence. Judging by how many experiments go wrong, they are not worth the ridiculous sums these people get payed.

And as I said, I want people earning hundreds of thousands and millions to be held responsible for their decisions. If they made weak decisions, that do serious damage, they have to give back an approriate ammount of money they have earned for deciding that failure. they must assist in repairing the damage. In private law, that is common consensus.

A demand that is shared by former chancellor Helmut Schmidt (SPD) and former foreign minister Genscher (FDP) as well, to name just a few. The failure of an assembly worker, and the failure of the top manager cause different dimensions of consequences. Nevertheless the one doing the smaller dmaage gets penalized more seriously, but the the one eventually kicking hundreds and thiusands of families into misery - looses nothing. That violates every common sense and reason. And it prevents to encourage more solid, responsible decision making of manager, and makes it easier for them to play with the risks that havbe to be faced not by them, but by others. the current airbus crisis is a good example, or the crisis between Daimler and Crysler. About how many thousands of jobs and existences we talk, do you remember? Former Airbus managers just got fired, nevertheless now enjoy their wealth. Germany looses 3800 jobs in an extremely weak region, France looses 4300, Spain and Britain also one or two thousand. those responsible loose nothing. How many jobs are in danger with Crysler? I forgot, but it also was talked of several thousand. Just two examples. And many German major companies, in times when their were losses, and cutbacks, and workers had lesser netto wages, and got fired - accepted to raise the earnings of their managers by up to 30%. What kind of economical crisis or troubled business should this be?

Can't disagree more with you, Neal. Differences in wages - okay. But also: shared risks, please, not a mentality of "the wins for me, the losses for the others". And differences in wages please within a reasonable range. a factor of 500, 1000 or several thousands is not within a reasonable frame. It is excessive and brutal selfishness.

[Skybird]

The assembly line guy chose his job, he made the choices in education and his character and level of ambition determined where he is. That boss makes decisions that affect the whole company, decisions that could make or lose millions. If it's so easy, go ahead, start your own company, and feel free to pay the line workers $100,000 a year. No one is stopping you, but you.


I also did not say that workers should be payed manager's fees, I said that top managers often earn too much. so instead of paying the worker 100.000, I would pay the manager maybe ten times or 20 times as much as the worker, depending on the company we talk about. And not hundreds of thosuands, and millions. That he makes decisions, is no argument. as I said, if he fails, and does not commit a crime, he will not be held responsible: he will loose nothing but his job. when you have earned alraeyd a million, the loss of your job hardly is life-threatening. For the worker, it is a most substantial threat to his family.

you also said that the worker choosed his job, and choosed his education. Sorry, but this idealization of social realities is perceived in europe as a typical anglosaxon tradition. Most workers are there, because they do not have a choice. But often, social realities are that of an almost predetermined fate. People do not have equal chances. Your social origin in the overwhelming majority of cases is a most decisive variable that heavily influences your fate. What you said sounds a bit of the "from dishwasher to millionaire" story. That is mone of America'S grweat myth's, it is almost a mythological basis. Sometimes , RARELY!, that works. If fate helps, and if you are lucky. And for every winner, I tell you, there are thousands of loosers. Some loose by their own fault. Most do not. They loose from the very beginning for being poor, raised in poor families, in social underclass, having less options available. there are also links between mental capacity, and the social environemnt you get raised in. . Ask some social scientist on the undeniable statistical links between social milieus and future perspectives. that kind of data is old news, really. What you say is not only absurd, but an offending of millions and millions who try and fight and try and try more - but simply can't make it, they lack the chance, or they fail to fulfill preconditions they cannot compensate by their own possebilities. We do not start into life, having equal chances. that is a myth, too. A very mean and cynical myth, I would add.

You see it far too simple. Please do not make the mistake the judge the vast crowd by the bad examples set up by the few who live like parasites from social wellfare - such dirtbags exist, yes. But in no way they classify for being labelled as the majority, or even a major portion of the crowd. If you don't believe me, come over here. I may be out of that business for a longer while now, but I still can show you around in Frankfurt, Berlin, to make you change your mind. I am sure it is not much different in America: the term "working poor" was formed there, not here.

If one amongst thousands makes it from rags to riches, then this hardly can be an example illustrating that the system functions if people only would work hard enough. If it proves anything, than that 999 do not come through. Many work until braking point - and still do not have enough. chances for thei children will be even worse than they were for the parents. Their numbers a rapidly increasing. If you do not see that in your country, i promise you it is only a question of time until you will see it nevertheless.

I am not arguing that every man should be made equal, and no differences anymore. But I argue that we need to try to reduces differences to reasonable dimensions, especially if the present situation is increasingly harmful for more and more millions of people.

[geetrue]

Are you sympathetic to communism, Skybird?

I am a simple man so after years of being taught to not only hate them, but willing to help elimnate their right to excist as a country I'm willing to try to understand them ... I see the USSR has changed.

I just have to be a little leary of the theory ... of course this doesn't mean that I hate you.

I decided to look up the meaning.

com•mu•nism

1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property
b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2cap
a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R.
b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production
c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably
d : communist systems collectively

[Onkel Neal]

Whatever happened to the Marxist "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" then? :hmm:

Dustbin of history? :)

[August]

Top managers of very large companies with many thousands of employees may make huge salaries, but they are very, very few in comparison to the total number of employed in an organization of that size. Lower and middle management certainly don't make that kind of cash, they often make less than even some of the guys down on the factory floor.

In the kinds of companies that pay their executives that kind of money you could restrict them to 10 or 20 times the low end workers salary, as Skybird suggests, divide it amongst the rest of the employees equally and they'd all get maybe 10 bucks a piece extra a week. Big deal.

Sky is right, everyone does not have an equal chance in life. What we do in life directly affects our childrens and their childrens chances for success as much as luck and fate do. Utopian dreams of somehow reversing or resetting the bad luck and mistakes of previous family generations to provide succeeding generations the exact same chances in life are as impossible to attain as the Communist ideal.

[kiwi_2005]

Communism CAN work. It has some good ideas.

Its been controlled by the wrong types.

[August]

Communism CAN work. It has some good ideas.

Its been controlled by the wrong types.

It's ripe for control by the "wrong types" and therefore completely unsuitable as a national system. This is because in any large group of people you will find plenty of that sort so eventually a Stalin type will get into power and subvert it. You can't prevent it, its just human nature and the law of averages.

I believe that Communism could only really work in a society that was small enough for everyone to personally know everyone else. When the effect of each members contribution to the society can be seen and appreciated personally and not have their labors benefit some stranger whose reciprocation is both unknown and soon doubted.

[Skybird]

Are you sympathetic to communism, Skybird?

Hehe, I just waited for someone indicating that Skybird is a communist, I knew it was only a question of time. Obviously you need a stereotyped concept of an enemy, then. since you are a kind guy and I like you I do you the favour and give you want you want: Yes, I am communist. I also believe in anarchism. I am a child born from inzest, not to mention that I am gay. I love the colour pink, and I believe that God is dead. Ah, and btw, I am totally anti-american, convinced Bush basher and I hate all rotten Americans around.

I also have a perverse hobby, I find it funny watching Pavlovian dogs starting to slobber after the key stimulus was shown to them. Here is yours:

COMMUNISM!

-----


Opposite to Kiwi, I do not believe that communism works. but I also don't see that capitalism or democracy works too well. Both are basing on a flawed understanding of man, this they have in common: Both believe that man is reasonable, altruistic, and modest, and both have these attributes as a nessessary precondition in order to function properly, according to capitalist or communist theory. but man is not reasonable, nor altruistic and modest in his material demands.

Capitalist market economies have installed a surprising lot of market regulations and protective measurements, not too mention the chnagingh set of penalty and protective customs (Strafzölle, Schutzzölle). So much for the state not interfering with the market (another myth I am no friend of: that market alone would govern with invisible hand to the best of all, finally: it means to install economical anarchy in which the set of competitors is thinned out and the survivors become stronger and stronger. Monopolism is where it leads to, that'S why this idea is especially popular with corporations who are alraedy in a strong position).

I agree with August that the scale of a company has to be taken into account. However, my criticism I see as valid for almost all internation corportations in the fields of chemistry, cars, energy, aeronautics, arms, and more and more food as well. these are the international players. Small, local enterprises with 20 employees are in most cases not the problem, and the span between wages at the top and at the bottom must not be our concern, since they are alraedy acceptable.

Unfortunately I forget their name, but a year or longer ago I red about a Spanish corproration in a German print magazine on economics, a major article, I even do not remember what business they were in. They practice according to what I demand. The leadership earns not more than around ten or twelve times as much as the lowest employee at the bottom of the hierarchy, there is a barrier that is not allowed to be jumped. Every profit that is saved after paying wages and running costs, is not wasted to foreign stockholders who have no further interest than just to make money, otherwise know nothing about the business and have no interest in the business and no relation to it, for they do not sell stocks but remain independant. Winds are reinvested in their own company, and into modest and reasonable raises of wages, eventually. their priority was to come along with the money that was earned before, and not to make financial debts to turn evolutionary growth into running revolutions prematurely. the long report I red back then told a success story that is almost unique in Europe. They are slowly but constantly expanding, their finances are rock-solid (at least back then when the report was written), they are invulnerable to hostile takeovers for they did not participate in the stockmarket madness, the jobs are safe, the employees are highly motivated due to the good working conditions and social security, there is strong team spirit, and after just a couple of years they had multiplied their size several times. They key to it, they said, was to give up to economize with a goal of becoming as big as possible in as shortest time as possible, but to practice voluntary modesty in loans even at the top of the hierarchy, understanding that all are sitting in the same boat, not giving jobs to managers who see the company only as a vehicle to make a personal career and maximum income, and most important: to economize with solidness and sustainability in mind. When I red about them, I was highly impressed. It was a success story like I have not often heared one. what was a small enterprise with only a handful jobs, now is a company that operates almost nationwide, with thousands of jobs. If only i would remember what business they were in and what their name was, ecologically produced food, cosmetics and clothing, I think, but memory may fail me. Any Spanish board member maybe knows. It sounded almost too perfect :D (dirty mean skybird, always finding a hair in the soup...) If someone knows who I mean, maybe he can complete my description.

So, there are alternatives to orthodox capitalist economizing. Seing the latter more critically also is a must considering the environmental problems we need to face in the imminent future, and even already in the present. these are caused by a way of economizing for which "modesty", "self-restriction", "sustainability" are almost foreign words. business is war, one needs to fight against enemy companies else one gets swallowed, this is the spirit in which our economical leaders are trained. We already swallow this message with our mother's milk: we live in a world that is run by this martial principle when we are kids, juveniles, and are at school long before we start thinking about our future jobs. We support this system by accepting the living styles in which we are situated. No one of us is innocent.

May I assume safely that this topic on China is completely off-topic now? :lol:

[Onkel Neal]

[quote=geetrue]Are you sympathetic to communism, Skybird?
Hehe, I just waited for someone indicating that Skybird is a communist, I knew it was only a question of time. Obviously you need a stereotyped concept of an enemy, then. since you are a kind guy and I like you I do you the favour and give you want you want: Yes, I am communist. I also believe in anarchism. I am a child born from inzest, not to mention that I am gay. I love the colour pink, and I believe that God is dead. Ah, and btw, I am totally anti-american, convinced Bush basher and I hate all rotten Americans around.

/quote]

Actually, you sound just like a communist. Every now and then you get started on economics and although you conclude by saying you are not a communist, your words paint a starkly different picture. And if someone mistakes you for a communist, it has nothing to do with them wanting to find an "enemy" or "stereotype" at all. It's how you express your opinions; what else would one conclude?

Now excuse me, I have to go walk my Pavlovian dogs... ;)

[Skybird]

I sound like a communist? Where? Exact reference, please, and pointing at the exact parallel to communist theory. But I see. There is only black and white, so if I criticise the Western system, that automatically makes me a communist, necessarily, even when I have expressed several things that do not only violate capitalist views - but communist views as well. :doh: How one is labelling me, is not important anyway. If there is some truth in my opinion or not, that is what counts. Dogmatic labels are for trench-warriors. In all your replies, Neal, you have exagerrated what I said into extremes, like "paying workers 100.000 dollars" - where I had in fact argued that not so much the wages of workers should be multiplied several times, but that the incomes of top managers needs to be limited, which is something totally different. Are fictional extremes the only way to counter my thoughts? Does the ordinary reality with corporations like Germran Telekom or American Bell, Shell or Exxon, EADS or Boeing hold so little arguments able to counter mine? Sure, then exaggerations and extremes are tempting... I remember that several times over the years on this board "social market economy" was mistaken by several conservative people to be the same like "socialism". If you are not with us, you are against us, that means. What to expect then, when it comes to capitalism and communism... :lol:

BTW, I did not started this topic on Western economics, but on China - I say that for the third or fourth time now. I quoted the essay's headline as topic headline. But it can be a different headline as well, to take away the ideologic tension here: change it to "Does the Chinese system work after all?" The Chinese, said the essay, call it a "social market economy with Chinese characteristics" anyway... :lol:

[dean_acheson]

"China's speedy ascent to become a global economic superpower is troubling to many: to the industrialized nations of the West because they fear for their jobs; to politicians because the global balance of power is shifting; and, last but not least, to economists because it is so puzzling to them."

What a bunch of useless tripe...

For God's sake, can't we go back to selling them opium? That is the only thing they have ever seemed to want as a western import, that, Computer processors and Nuke bomb technology....

This is just the latest volume of yellow scare crap. You have a country with the largest population in the world. It has never been a republic. It has always been a world 'power' even in the 'darkest' days in the late 19th century, but it will never be a world superpower akin to the hard British Empire or the softer American one simply because the Chinese don't have any 'ideas' to export that carry with other people, as did the English with Adam Smith and John Locke.

The vast majority of folks in Peoria or Leeds don't much care for the ideas of Mao or his progeny, which is that of a command economy, that is except for college professors or folks dumb enough to think they will get to be part of the group that does the commanding...

[MadMike]

http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/shirtsquare-lousy.jpg

[kiwi_2005]

http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/shirtsquare-lousy.jpg

okay that is funny :rotfl: