How can America have BROADLY SHARED prosperity once again?

[UltraChad]

You object to that?

Yes.

 

[Politruk]

Yes.

So if men are drafted, should women be too?

 

[JohnEngelman]

It is socialism.

And at the end of the day, like all socialism, is pointed at the communist end goal.

 

[UltraChad]

View attachment 2511485

Oh look a pro-socialism quote from another terrible anti-American piece of fuckin' shit POTUS.

Anything to make you feel better about THIEVERY.

 

[UltraChad]

So if men are drafted, should women be too?

Yes. Why is that so hard for you to understand??

Must be the suggestion that women have equal responsibility........it always upsets Democrats.

 

[Politruk]

Oh look a pro-socialism quote from another terrible anti-American piece of fuckin' shit POTUS.

Truman wasn't that!

And if he had any Communist sympathies, the U.S. would not have intervened in Korea.

 

[LargoKitt]

No, it's just bad.

That's why so very few companies of any note operate like this.



LMFAO!!!! I've never seen a single example.



Then why has the best come from competition??

Why is USSR dead for 35 years now and not making the entire planet it's economic bitch???

Socialism is a big fat fail.



Cooperation yes....but FORCED EQUITY by the state, no.

People should be free to work how they like, not forced to work how leftist FEEL they should.

And when they are allowed to? The egalitarian collectivist don't do very well.

Scoop up a hundred people on the street in the middle of a sizable city. Ask them whether they are "working how they like". I'd imagine you'd get a big chunk of 'no way'. Capitalism is really no more 'free' than democratic socialism. Most people 'do what the boss says' and 'work 'cause they gotta pay the bills'. I don't like the Nazi style of National Socialism, and guess what, a giant corporation is more like that than a place where workers' rights and a social safety net are in place. Is it better to work your ass off until you drop dead because you want to eat rather than pay taxes and have social security? Isn't it good to have fire departments and roads and public education? People are about community not just 'I'm out to get mine and you can get in line.'

 

[Politruk]

Does anybody have any idea at all how America can have broadly shared prosperity?

It's obvious nothing Trump or Musk is doing is going to achieve that -- and nobody in this thread has even argued that it will.

 

[Politruk]

Does anybody have any idea at all how America can have broadly shared prosperity?

It's obvious nothing Trump or Musk is doing is going to achieve that -- and nobody in this thread has even argued that it will.

Nobody?

 

[LargoKitt]

Yes. Why is that so hard for you to understand??

Must be the suggestion that women have equal responsibility........it always upsets Democrats.

What? Wait. Democrats think women having equal responsibility is dangerous? What Kool Aid have you been drinking? Which party ran two women for president? Some Dems might think war itself is a crime, but they will support women soldiers and vets. For decades Dems have been the 'party of the people' and the GOP of 'rich, vested interests'. Who is spinning this backwards? Is it the Beck/Hannity/Rogan/Pyne/Severin loudmouths who trash people to build their ratings? Is it the Fox Jox?

 

[Politruk]

What? Wait. Democrats think women having equal responsibility is dangerous? What Kool Aid have you been drinking? Which party ran two women for president? Some Dems might think war itself is a crime, but they will support women soldiers and vets. For decades Dems have been the 'party of the people' and the GOP of 'rich, vested interests'. Who is spinning this backwards? Is it the Beck/Hannity/Rogan/Pyne/Severin loudmouths who trash people to build their ratings? Is it the Fox Jox?

Don't waste your time -- Chad has been banned.

 

[cnuveau]

Maximizing shareholder value is the primary driver for where we are. Corporations squeezing the workforce to generate ever increasing profits is unsustainable.

Only real way to balance it is to make sure that employees are included as shareholders and returning to the glory days of investing for dividends.

If public companies had a requirement to grant stock at certain tenure levels, that would help align the companies goals with the employees.

Also, returning to dividends cs trying to constantly increase the stock price would go a long way.

 

[Politruk]

Only real way to balance it is to make sure that employees are included as shareholders and returning to the glory days of investing for dividends.

You mean, "guild socialism" or worker-owned enterprises, as opposed to Stalinist command-economy socialism.

 

[cnuveau]

You mean, "guild socialism" or worker-owned enterprises, as opposed to Stalinist command-economy socialism.

i don't think I’m suggesting something as extreme as worker owned enterprises. Employee stock purchase programs and employee owned companies exist today. Problem is that someone barely making ends meet isn’t going to participate. If equity was a part of the compensation package some of that market driven wealth will actually flow to the people generating it.

Was a time when pension programs and profit sharing was pretty common. It’s not a coincidence that those going way happened around the same time the wealth gap exploded.

 

[LargoKitt]

Maximizing shareholder value is the primary driver for where we are. Corporations squeezing the workforce to generate ever increasing profits is unsustainable.

Only real way to balance it is to make sure that employees are included as shareholders and returning to the glory days of investing for dividends.

If public companies had a requirement to grant stock at certain tenure levels, that would help align the companies goals with the employees.

Also, returning to dividends cs trying to constantly increase the stock price would go a long way.

Then maybe we could sneak toward employees being part of the formula who selects new high officers. Instead of 'outside' directors who are almost all other CEOs, CFOs, and COOs with a stake in keeping the profits in the hands of the Nantucket/Hampton crowd and who, incidentally, collect $150-200k a year for a few meetings.

 

[LargoKitt]

Don't waste your time -- Chad has been banned.

I don't like to see anyone get banned, even if trolling is their game. Because who decides what's fair?

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I don't like to see anyone get banned, even if trolling is their game. Because who decides what's fair?

The web owners decide, they have site rules. If you break them as Chad ( AKA Botanyboy and dozens of other alts) has, you get banned. This is a private site and free speech doesn't apply.

 

[Politruk]

Then maybe we could sneak toward employees being part of the formula who selects new high officers.

That would require worker-owned businesses with elected executives -- which is essentially a decentralized form of socialism. Hard to sell politically. In fact, it is a soviet arrangement in the original (pre-Bolshevik) sense of the word (which just means "council").

 

[cnuveau]

That would require worker-owned businesses with elected executives -- which is essentially a decentralized form of socialism. Hard to sell politically. In fact, it is a soviet arrangement in the original (pre-Bolshevik) sense of the word (which just means "council").

Really love strawmen huh? Nobody is saying a fully employee owned companies. Equity is used as a mechanism for raising money for the company so I don't see how that would ever work.

What we're saying is that ensuring that employees can also have some equity in the company is a way to help achieve your original question. If 10% of a companies shares are held by employees that's a pretty decent start and if its part of a compensation package where, even if small, low level employees are awarded shares over their tenure, it gives them a chance to build some kind of wealth tied to their contributions.

Shareholders absolutely have a say in executive management so that is how employees would have a louder voice in that process.

Lots of companies already do this to attract and retain talent, especially startups. Where this doesn't happen, at least at a meaningful scale, is with large companies that squeeze their employees to return those savings to shareholders.

Not everything is some grand socialist plot.

 

[Politruk]

It might be helpful to understand we are a land based on Equal Opportunity, that does not mean Equal Outcomes are guaranteed

That is only a political decision, not something essential to national identity. We can go for equal outcomes if we want to.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Oh look a pro-socialism quote from another terrible anti-American piece of fuckin' shit POTUS.

Anything to make you feel better about THIEVERY.

Gallup
August 13, 2018

Democrats More Positive About Socialism Than Capitalism​

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- For the first time in Gallup's measurement over the past decade, Democrats have a more positive image of socialism than they do of capitalism. Attitudes toward socialism among Democrats have not changed materially since 2010, with 57% today having a positive view. The major change among Democrats has been a less upbeat attitude toward capitalism, dropping to 47% positive this year -- lower than in any of the three previous measures. Republicans remain much more positive about capitalism than about socialism, with little sustained change in their views of either since 2010.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/240725/democrats-positive-socialism-capitalism.aspx

 

[JohnEngelman]

Oh look a pro-socialism quote from another terrible anti-American piece of fuckin' shit POTUS.

Anything to make you feel better about THIEVERY.

CATO Institute

Socialism Is Legitimately Popular​

A big driver seems to be young people’s resentment of the rich.
February 4, 2020 • Commentary

or decades, the word “socialist” was treated more as a smear than as a viable stance in national politics. Then, the remarkable popularity of Bernie Sanders and his “democratic socialism” among young people in the 2016 primary shocked many observers. Poll after poll since then has confirmed this new reality. Gallup, for instance, recently found that half of millennials and members of Gen Z have a favorable view of “socialism,” compared with a third of Baby Boomers.

A big driver seems to be young people’s resentment of the rich: National surveys Cato has conducted with YouGov show that young people are 20 to 30 percentage points more likely than older people to believe the rich gained their wealth by taking advantage of people

https://www.cato.org/commentary/socialism-legitimately-popular

 

[Politruk]

CATO Institute

Socialism Is Legitimately Popular​

A big driver seems to be young people’s resentment of the rich.
February 4, 2020 • Commentary

or decades, the word “socialist” was treated more as a smear than as a viable stance in national politics. Then, the remarkable popularity of Bernie Sanders and his “democratic socialism” among young people in the 2016 primary shocked many observers. Poll after poll since then has confirmed this new reality. Gallup, for instance, recently found that half of millennials and members of Gen Z have a favorable view of “socialism,” compared with a third of Baby Boomers.

A big driver seems to be young people’s resentment of the rich: National surveys Cato has conducted with YouGov show that young people are 20 to 30 percentage points more likely than older people to believe the rich gained their wealth by taking advantage of people

https://www.cato.org/commentary/socialism-legitimately-popular

It's demographic change that is going to kill the GOP in its present formation -- not racial or ethnic change, but generational. They can't stop that with border controls. If the GOP wants to survive, it will have to develop an agenda and message more appealing to Gen Z.

 

[LargoKitt]

Gallup
August 13, 2018

Democrats More Positive About Socialism Than Capitalism​

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- For the first time in Gallup's measurement over the past decade, Democrats have a more positive image of socialism than they do of capitalism. Attitudes toward socialism among Democrats have not changed materially since 2010, with 57% today having a positive view. The major change among Democrats has been a less upbeat attitude toward capitalism, dropping to 47% positive this year -- lower than in any of the three previous measures. Republicans remain much more positive about capitalism than about socialism, with little sustained change in their views of either since 2010.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/240725/democrats-positive-socialism-capitalism.aspx

A puzzle is that Americans' view of socialism seems to be based on National Socialism which people equate with drab dictatorships. Germany, China, Russia and the Balkans all played with this model. One could argue that several South American and African countries also played with this model. Perhaps Lenin's 'dictatorship of the proletariat' skewed the model, making overweening oligarchs the new 'bosses'. What got lost in that shuffle was democracy. Scandanavian countries kept the democracy in both government and business. They espoused the idea that a 'safety net' for all citizens actually makes a more healthy economy. With plenty of healthy business. Perhaps the most useful discussion these days is around profit. Is it defined only as money? And profit for whom? In a public corporation everyone is an employee. But we sneak the old privilege system back in by giving certain employees ownership and not others. Why do that? If everyone, including the stock owners (who represent the 'community' of the corporation) are owners, then everyone can 'take a hit' if the corporation is in trouble, and everyone can benefit if it succeeds. The product of the company could also reflect the values of the people who work there. (How do you feel about making cluster bombs that blow legs off kids?(

 

[LargoKitt]

i don't think I’m suggesting something as extreme as worker owned enterprises. Employee stock purchase programs and employee owned companies exist today. Problem is that someone barely making ends meet isn’t going to participate. If equity was a part of the compensation package some of that market driven wealth will actually flow to the people generating it.

Was a time when pension programs and profit sharing was pretty common. It’s not a coincidence that those going way happened around the same time the wealth gap exploded.

If you can export manufacturing to countries with workers able to work for a tenth American wages then our union protections go out the window. Do we keep the US a gated 'manager neighborhood' and export all manufacturing? Of course A.I. robots can do a lot of the paper shuffling. So who is going to buy the products made overseas if our jobs are gone. Will tariffs bring them back? Maybe American workers will become so poor they can compete head to head with Chinese.