solon fox <solonfox@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On Apr 18, 8:10 am, "J.H.Boersema" <jo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>On Apr 17, 10:40 am, solon fox <solon...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
[...]
>> http://www.jhwh.be/law.html#6.3.a
>> _6.3.a Reaching Democracy
>> When the person or persons which has originally started a business
>> (see Article 6.2.a, Establish business) ends regularly working for
>> the business, and the business has more employees then a number to be
>> determined by the People or in their absence the Two Third majority
>> of Government, control and owner****p of the business is transferred
>> to the employees, in good faith, fairness, transparency and equality.
>> The starter is compensated fairly out of the value of the company,
>> and/or the private value of employees, and/or the value of future
>> profits generated by the company.
>> When there are: ..[10]. or more employees, the employees gain control
>> as described.
[...]
>> Within the given capitalist "trade everything until the system breaks
>> apart and we can start over"-system it could be a good idea to pass
laws
>> against outsourcing to protect the domestic production / consumption
>> cycle. Other protections can be: attempt to stimulate fair wages and
>> conditions in the other countries, heightening tariffs on the border.
>
>Agreed. We are ultimately at the mercy of those countries, their
>governance, their economies to act in a responsible manner to improve
>the quality of life for their workers - which is in their self-
>interests and they want to do anyways.
[...]
The company dictator****p laws are law in nearly all or all
countries. They all get this wrong, hence they must all change. This
isn't about asking the Chinese Government to increase labor prices,
but it is rather asking the Chinese people to set up their Countries
fresh, regardless of what some potential elitist minorities want.
This can mean smooth Government run change of the system, or it can
mean a forced People revolution. The Chinese can decide on that
for themselves. The same with India and every other country.
America may pay a price for having off shored factories and production
because those production facilities will fall into Chinese and/or
Indian (etc) labor hands. If some chip manufacturing is now done in
China than that ends up totally lost to the American economy. All
the expertise, all the machines and stuff, you see nothing of
it back in America. If for instance Intel has factories in China
and north America, then both chunks end up independent labor owned
companies. Potentially they will be competitive where they do the same
thing, and where they do different things they could end up trading
that difference, which is a form of cooperation. The competition will
be less harsh since no workers anywhere want to work as a slave.
Having less price competition means multiple competitive companies can
exist side by side in a more stable environment then before. Less "dog
eats dog" that you see now, where dictatorial management always wants
to eat and/or destroy the competition in order to combine more slaves
under their iron fist. More cows means more milk. It does not work like
that for labor owned companies: more cows does not mean more milk. The
will to sink/eat the competition is reduced, though not completely
gone. Size of a company is no longer directly related to the income of
those having power. 10 workers produce production X and get income Y,
1000 workers produce XXX but their income is not automatically YYY,
it will hover around the same as before. There is more production
and more profit, but also more labor to get a share of that profit.
From an economic-efficiency perspective this is good news, because
labor-income will be pro****tional to the most effective size for that
company/industry, hence companies will start to gravitate to their
most effective size, rather then gravitate to forever bigger. A
company size with efficiency 90% and 100 persons is more profitable
for those persons then a company with efficiency 89% and 100 000
persons in it. For dictator****ps a 100 000 person company at 10%
efficiency is still more profitable then 100 persons at 90% efficiency.
Company dictator****p laws gravitates the economy to inefficiency
through too large company sizes, while company democracy laws gravitates
the economy to the exact size maximum efficiency. I think bigger
companies can become less efficient, because they are less scrutinized,
individuals are less pressured by market forces. 3 huge company will
slug on no matter what, despite massive inefficiency in them, while
1000 smaller companies in total behave more efficient through time.
Things like im****t tariffs and consumer preference become more
effective as the price difference becomes less of a factor between
Nations. It is easier to buy a locally produced car if it is only
..5% more expensive then a foreign car, and it is easier to close
that small gap using im****t tariffs or trans****tation taxation.
--
_ _ /_\ _ _ http://www.jhwh.be
sign petition for Democratic
\ /v`vvv\ / Authorities Ventures Investments Demarcations
/_\_#_#_/_\ constitution today: http://www.jhwh.be/petition
\ / #168 http://www.xs4all.nl/~joshb/no-id-theft.html
|
