patrick.net

Dan8267 says

Diverse ownership by more Edgars? or Centralize into One Edgar?

Another false dichotomy that has nothing to do with the ideas presented in this thread. You've missed the entire point. There is no need for any owners, government or private, central or competing. In effect every worker should own his productivity rather than owe it to some other "owner" simply for the privilege of being a working, productive member of society. Again, you are avoiding the issue at hand and spouting irrelevant dogma.

Every worker indeed owns his/her own productivity: by choosing to ask for a wage level that he/she decides, instead of being decided by some kind of government-appointed board. Capital goods also have ownership, so that the disposition decisions can be made. If it is not owned by diverse private ownership, then it is by centralized government ownership by default (i.e. disposition decisions to be made by non-competing bureaucrats); we already know what centralized government ownership by default is like, reference the "communes" of the 20th century if you are not familiar with the subject.

Reality says

The owner sets wage levels at his business; the worker can choose not to work there but work for someone with better wage levels.

Only if better wages are available, which they are not because of the steps taken to ensure that workers have no bargaining power. Steps that include both monetary policy and union busting.

And again, you haven't even attempted to address why the owner should be the one setting wages instead of automating that according to criteria which best serves society.

Once more you are repeating your talking points rather than addressing the issues.

Reality says

LOL. Would you want to own your car if I get to use it the equal number of hours as you do?

The owner class doesn't own the people or their labor, so why should they have unilateral say over distribution of business revenue created by the workers? Hell, the owner class isn't even necessary. Workers are necessary; owners are not.
Reality says

What you are proposing is little more than a complicated scheme that promotes accounting fraud

You still don't even comprehend what I'm proposing. You certainly have no evidence that my proposal increases account fraud. The example of a distributed economy I gave above actually makes accounting fraud impossible since the network does all the accounting, not owners or CPAs paid by owners to fudge numbers.

Reality says

stead of being decided by some kind of government-appointed board

Once again you completely ignore what is being said because it doesn't fit in your list of approved arguments to rebut and doesn't match your talking points. You even ignore what you quote: Reality quotes Dan stating

There is no need for any owners, government or private, central or competing.

Dan8267 says

Reality says

The owner sets wage levels at his business; the worker can choose not to work there but work for someone with better wage levels.

Only if better wages are available, which they are not because of the steps taken to ensure that workers have no bargaining power. Steps that include both monetary policy and union busting.

LOL. Some businesses offer more than others under any monetary policy. Looser monetary policies would just mean higher inflation and cost of living would be higher. Besides, what's to prevent the worker from starting his/her own business

And again, you haven't even attempted to address why the owner should be the one setting wages instead of automating that according to criteria which best serves society.

Because the owner is the owner: just like if I want to drive your car, you decide how much per hour you'd charge for the use.

Once more you are repeating your talking points rather than addressing the issues.

I addressed the issues; you are just too dense/slow to understand the consequences of your proposal. You are like the soviet commissar who decided to communize the ownership of milk cows from the "rich" cow-owning farmers, without realizing that if the cow is to be communized in the morning, the cow-owners would rather privatize the cow into their own stomachs before the sun rises.

Dan8267 says

LOL. Would you want to own your car if I get to use it the equal number of hours as you do?

The owner class doesn't own the people or their labor, so why should they have unilateral say over distribution of business revenue created by the workers? Hell, the owner class isn't even necessary. Workers are necessary; owners are not.

LOL. The owners own the capital goods that are necessary to production. The owners are necessary because executive decisions regarding the capital goods are necessary. You are making the same mistake that the 20th century communists in ignoring the importance of executive decisions on how capital goods are to be used. That too has to be competitive in order to be efficient. Therefore diversified competing private ownership is critically important, instead of relegating all capital goods to government ownership by default.

Dan8267 says

What you are proposing is little more than a complicated scheme that promotes accounting fraud

You still don't even comprehend what I'm proposing. You certainly have no evidence that my proposal increases account fraud. The example of a distributed economy I gave above actually makes accounting fraud impossible since the network does all the accounting, not owners or CPAs paid by owners to fudge numbers.

You are kidding yourself. 40% of LA economy today is under the table in order to avoid taxation and regulations! More than half of cigarettes sold in NYC are contrabands! Your idea of making owner's take based on percentage of revenue no greater than his median worker would just make the owner hide profit and balloon expenses, just like the war-time 10% profit cap did on the accounting books at munition makers.

Dan8267 says

stead of being decided by some kind of government-appointed board

Once again you completely ignore what is being said because it doesn't fit in your list of approved arguments to rebut and doesn't match your talking points. You even ignore what you quote: Reality quotes Dan stating

There is no need for any owners, government or private, central or competing.

I was not using talking points. You just don't understand the consequences of your proposal. I even went so far as to ask you, what would happen to your car ownership if all benefit of ownership is removed? Say, owning the car is worth $100 a day to you, for commute and pleasure; what if there is a $100/day tax on your car ownership? or a tax raised to such a level where making you physically and emotionally no better off than walking? Would you still own the car? No, you would not (if you answer yes, then raise the tax even higher, recursive until you answer no; that's the point at which all your ownership benefit is squeezed out of you). You would give up the car, just like everyone else owning car at that point. Then all cars will effectively be owned by government by default. What do you think will happen to the cars? They will be abandoned and abused.

Likewise, if you remove all benefit associated with owning capital goods, capital goods will be abandoned to default government ownership. That's exactly what happened in the 20th century in communist countries that "communized." The result was massive destruction of capital and misallocation of capital as capital goods became managed by non-competing bureaucrats even as they became nominally owned by "all people." Capital goods have multiple possible uses: a car can be a private conveyance, can be taxi, can be tree stump puller, can be dead weight door stopper, can be source of scrap metal, etc. etc. ownership decides how it is to be used and by who. Do not tell me someone using your car as a taxi would have the same productivity as the yahoo using your convertible to pull tree stumps in his backyard.

Reality says

Then all cars will effectively be owned by government by default. What do you think will happen to the cars?

You analogy does not even remotely apply. Basing distribution of revenue on productivity rather than bargaining power will not cause the productivity to be owned by government, but rather by those being productive and creating the wealth. Workers will have far more incentive to be productive and do a good job if they are getting paid according to their productivity rather than their bargaining power. Under the current systems most workers do just enough to not get fired because even if they worked their hardest, their wages won't increase because their wages are determined by bargaining power, not productivity.

Once more you resort to red herrings rather than addressing the core issue.