David Harvey "The End of Capitalism"

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by VanishingPoi

Don, I am not talking about 'all' capital surplus in the country. Each community should decide where that surplus ends up perhaps in their own community or someone that needs it. Why does it all have to be about profit? Maybe the rest of that corn, potato, whatever can go to the folks who can no longer work, say your grandmother. Who knows, maybe you could export it to other starving people. The potential is endless. Not everything has to be profit driven.

Completely unworkable. It has to be done on a national level. Not all states or localities are created equal. Some have lots of surplus capital and some have none.

Also, if you work at a Honda plant in Ohio, does the surplus stay in Ohio, go to American Honda Motor Co. in California or does it go to Tokyo?

The best way to redistribute capital, IMO, is through the tax code. It worked pretty well for 40 years or so, built the strongest economy and the strongest middle class in the world. Then we were blessed with St. Ronnie.

John

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by VanishingPoi

You changed the word to power. That changes everything. It has to be democratic in nature.

Whoever decides what is done with the surplus does so by virtue of having the power to do so. "Democratic" is in danger of becoming a glittering generality in this discussion; the devil is very much in the details.

If the workers and nobody else decides, or votes up the committee that decides, then they have all the power. But any kind of modern manufacturing requires millions for equipment. If you try to create a scheme where nothing goes back to wherever those millions came from, things get 'complicated.'

Of course, you probably want to expropriate all that owned capital. But 'power' rears it's head again. Only a revolution would give a regime the power to do that. And even assuming this can be brought off, with 'relatively little' violence, you now have the totalitarian problem. The new regime has, with violence or the threat of violence, gathered all power to itself, swept away all opposition, dispossessed the capitalists, and dictated radical economic change. I do not think any sort of democracy can exist in the presence of such concentrated power. And I'm afraid history bears me out on this. The people's revolution, to implement the economic revolution, must destroy the rights of the people. I see no way around this dilemma.

I want, by lawful means augmented perhaps by some levels of direct action, to put back the harness and collar on a runaway capitalism that has thrown them all off. But I surely fear revolution, and therefore, the radical ideas that must require it for their implementation.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Completely unworkable. It has to be done on a national level. Not all states or localities are created equal. Some have lots of surplus capital and some have none.

Also, if you work at a Honda plant in Ohio, does the surplus stay in Ohio, go to American Honda Motor Co. in California or does it go to Tokyo?

The best way to redistribute capital, IMO, is through the tax code. It worked pretty well for 40 years or so, built the strongest economy and the strongest middle class in the world. Then we were blessed with St. Ronnie.

John

Much as it pains me to agree with a knot headed engineer, I have to agree.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by VanishingPoi

Why does it all have to be about profit? Maybe the rest of that corn, potato, whatever can go to the folks who can no longer work, say your grandmother. Who knows, maybe you could export it to other starving people. The potential is endless. Not everything has to be profit driven.

It's all got to add up somehow. Economics is how we try to understand this stuff, and politics is how we deal with the power to decide things, but in the end it comes down to physics. Activity has to create surplus value, or else it has to be sustained by surplus from somewhere else, or eventually it's going to run down.

It doesn't all have to be about 'profit,' as long as there's enough. Think hierarchy of needs. The surplus is economic 'food and drink.' Without it, you'll never even get to maintenance, or growth, or learning and research, or anywhere near to charity and art.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Much as it pains me to agree with a knot headed engineer, I have to agree.

I ain't no stinkin' injinere. I'm a nail banger like you.

John

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by Boreas

I ain't no stinkin' injinere. I'm a nail banger like you.

John

Oops, mistook you for Finn...shit, now I've made it worser.

I'm gonna go fix a sprinkler now.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by finnbow

It does suck here that all work is not afforded the same dignity and benefits. I was impressed by the German system whereby all work from department store clerk to plumber to lawyer are have their own career ladders, training, apprenticeships, etc. Then again, more is expected from every trade in terms of professionalism and competence.

It was amazing that at a department store, the floor personnel had undergone training/apprenticeships and fully understood their merchandise, from stitch count, to fabric to button material on every item of apparel. Everybody has health insurance and everybody, from the janitor to the CEO, has the same amount of vacation time.

A couple decades ago, I began hearing people saying, in regards to skilled labor positions; "That's BS, any idiot can do that." Anybody can weld, machine, repair broken machinery.......etc, etc?

I've also heard; "You don't really don't have to know everything about ______ to be in charge." Really? How can anyone make effective decisions with something they know nothing about?

It also bothers me that most businesses I've worked for will not allow anyone without a college degree advance any higher than a supervisory position, (if that) sometimes putting inexperienced but degreed folks in charge of departments over people who have been essentially running it with little or no supervision for years. Why not simply advance someone who already knows the ropes and does an outstanding job of it?

To my mind, these are a few examples of self defeating policies based on prejudices: The prejudicial belief that a certain set of skills are somehow overvalued or that one is incapable of leadership for a lack of higher education. I believe we waste a lot of potential in this regard. I also believe this could explain the loss of quality and value in American workmanship. Can we possibly build world class products in a society where we disdain specialized skills and refuse advancement to high performance employees?

I think not.

Dave

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Oops, mistook you for Finn...shit, now I've made it worser.

I'm gonna go fix a sprinkler now.

Thing about you 'n' me is we're the guys who fix the engineer's mistakes.

John

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Thing about you 'n' me is we're the guys who fix the engineer's mistakes.

John

How would we ever make a livin' without them pocket protector geeks...
Bless their pointy lil' heads.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

A couple decades ago, I began hearing people saying, in regards to skilled labor positions; "That's BS, any idiot can do that." Anybody can weld, machine, repair broken machinery.......etc, etc?

I've also heard; "You don't really don't have to know everything about ______ to be in charge." Really? How can anyone make effective decisions with something they know nothing about?

It also bothers me that most businesses I've worked for will not allow anyone without a college degree advance any higher than a supervisory position, (if that) sometimes putting inexperienced but degreed folks in charge of departments over people who have been essentially running it with little or no supervision for years. Why not simply advance someone who already knows the ropes and does an outstanding job of it?

To my mind, these are a few examples of self defeating policies based on prejudices: The prejudicial belief that a certain set of skills are somehow overvalued or that one is incapable of leadership for a lack of higher education. I believe we waste a lot of potential in this regard. I also believe this could explain the loss of quality and value in American workmanship. Can we possibly build world class products in a society where we disdain specialized skills and refuse advancement to high performance employees?

I think not.

Dave

Been there Dave but even without the degree I finally got recognition from the IEEE for my 'contributions to the discipline' as the Admissions Board put it. Mind you that cost me a job at one place. I was being interviewed and one of the five interviewees asked how I got to be an IEEE member without a degree, so I told him what board had said. Guess none of them wanted the competition.

Back when I was management in Bell if I was looking for new staff I would do my best to bypass HR.