Let's discuss!

I think that organized business, especially organized big business is a very bad thing.

It brings us things like NAFTA and the WTO, lax environmental legislation, intellectual property rights to defend inefficient corporations who can't come up with inovative solutions to problems, it leads to things like bank mergers which reduce workers access to financial services.

It leads to the push for more privatization and deregulation.

Small business creates more employment.
Small business is more engaged in the local economy.
Small business does have a higher failure rate.
Every time Wal*Mart comes to town.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bhamathump:
Absolutly. Big Business Bad. Small Business Good.

---

Generally speaking: wrong.

quote:

---

Small business creates more employment.

---

Only to shuck it when times get tough (it's easier for big businesses, with their deeper pockets, to hold onto workers in bad times).

quote:

---

Small business is more engaged in the local economy.

---

What does "engaged" mean? Paying locals? Keeping money "in the community"?

quote:

---

Small business does have a higher failure rate.
Every time Wal*Mart comes to town.

---

Small businesses don't need Wal-Mart to do that; Wall-Mart just gets them moving closer to death that much more quickly.

quote:

---

We make every purchase possible at the local level.

---

Where you can't take advantage of economies of scale (especially if you're buying from other small businesses), thereby keeping prices relatively high for consumers.

Besides, given how interconnected an economy is, how can one be sure at some point some giant conglomerate or "big business" doesn't get involved in the chain?

quote:

---

Local farmers, local manufacturers, local second hand stores.

---

No economy of scale, economic provincialism, poor wages, generally nastier/more demanding owners.

quote:

---

Starve the trans-nationals!

---

Far better for workers to take over control of _all_ businesses, big and small.

Check out Jim Stanford's "Paper Boom" and Doug Henwood's "After the New Economy".

For a fair idea of how small-business owners think, see here:

http://www.cfib.ca/default_E.asp?l=E

and here (where anti-union sentiment is pretty strgonly expressed):

http://www.cfib.ca/mcentre/mwire/releases/on121604_e.asp

[ 03 April 2005: Message edited by: The Other Todd ]

Being large is not all of the problem, it's who owns controlling interest, and who makes decisions to become larger. Essentially, something like national health care needs to be large in order to cost less.

As an example, socialized medicine in dozens of countries cost less per capita than it does in the U.S., where health care costs are skyrocketing and health care delivery is the most privatized. Dozens and dozens of private insurance companies, each reproducing what is essentially the same bureaucracies over and over, and each with expensive CEO salaries and bottom lines to increase and dividends to pay to shareholders, will always, both in theory and in implementation around the world, cost more than socialized health care.

Adam Smith once wrote about his fears that corporations and capitalists would become too powerful for the good of the nation. He was concerned about coercion among capitalists in the same sector of the economy. In fact, socialists have been quick to point to how a number of companies provide competition in their sector of industry in the beginning and consumers enjoy competitive pricing. But what eventually occurs is a handful of large corporations tend to eat the competition whole, and then monopolies are what's left. So much for competition in the market place. As an example, conservatives, then liberal politicians promise us that they will investigate what's known as 'gouging' by insurance companies, especially in the area of car insurance. Still, those Canadian's paying the lowest premiums live in provinces with public auto insurance.

This is what capitalists and bankers were afraid we'd all come to the same conclusion over. It's why we paid trillions of tax dollars in western nations to fight a cold war. This is why millions had to die; for the corporate right to pillage and plunder any country on earth they so choose and make obscene profits. Imperialism and slavery couldn't last. Colonialism couldn't last. Predatory capitalism will come to pass.

Economies of scale. Is that like you can produce 10,000 hogs cheaper than 50? Check out that great Canadian film "Bacon". The organic pork I buy from my local family farm is only pennies more than the factory farm gets. No middle man (Corporation).

Or produce $150 running shoes for $2 by using child labour? The shoes still cost $150. Savings passed on to the consumer? Ha! Check out Adbusters Black Spot Sneaker.

We're driving this destructive behaviour by always demanding the "Lowest Price", thanks Walmart.

If we pay a fair price to our neighbours for products and service in our communities we all live well.
Can't spare those extra pennies? Come on, we're both pounding this out on $1,000 computers just for fun.

quote:

---

Far better for workers to take over control of _all_ businesses, big and small.

---

We agree . I'm reading "After Capitalism" ,from managerialism to workplace democracy Seymour Melman.

I can't see the logic of not considering the full cost of what we buy "on sale". It's a moral issue.
As always. It's not consumption.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bhamathump:
Thanks for that "The Other Todd".

Economies of scale. Is that like you can produce 10,000 hogs cheaper than 50? Check out that great Canadian film "Bacon". The organic pork I buy from my local family farm is only pennies more than the factory farm gets. No middle man (Corporation).

---

quote:

---

Economies of Scale in Small Business

Many small businesses, particularly new start-ups, cannot benefit from economies of scale that is practiced and enjoyed by the larger companies. To name a few, this includes bulk purchasing and increased efficiency: all contributing to cheaper costs and increased profitability.

---

http://www.bizhelp24.com/small_business/economies_of_scale.shtml

quote:

---

Or produce $150 running shoes for $2 by using child labour? The shoes still cost $150. Savings passed on to the consumer? Ha! Check out Adbusters Black Spot Sneaker.

---

Not really (although economies of scale can happen here). What you describe here is just plain old "sweated" labour.

quote:

---

We're driving this destructive behaviour by always demanding the "Lowest Price", thanks Walmart.

---

True. But why do you think people demand this?

quote:

---

If we pay a fair price to our neighbours for products and service in our communities we all live well.
Can't spare those extra pennies? Come on, we're both pounding this out on $1,000 computers just for fun.

---

If I'd bought this computer from someone in my neighbourhood who'd made it without the aid of a factory and all that "usually" goes into making a computer, my wife'd never have been able to buy it. It'd be too expensive, "fair price" or no.

Relative to most of the world, we're pretty wealthy (at least when our wealth in measured in goods rather than money), that's true. But even poorer Canadians need to watch their spending to be able to make it through until payday; after all, their pays are usually the ones that get decreased the most rapidly and are the most difficult ones to get to go up.

A consumerist critique of capitalism is great and necessary, but it has to matched by one that concentrates on who owns the wealth and why, in short a critique of class.

quote:

---

I can't see the logic of not considering the full cost of what we buy "on sale". It's a moral issue.
As always. It's not consumption.

It's our Rate of consumption.

---

Be careful about making consumption patterns a moral issue; "consumer morality" tends to be the first thing to get jettisoned when one's supply of money dwindles. And most of the people (here and abroad) whom lefties are supposed to be helping and representing _are_ poor. It doesn't look good to wag a finger at them, telling them where to shop just so we can feel good about ourselves.

quote:

---

True. But why do you think people demand this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bhamathump:

If we pay a fair price to our neighbours for products and service in our communities we all live well.
Can't spare those extra pennies? Come on, we're both pounding this out on $1,000 computers just for fun. .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by paxamillion:

How about because they are paid wages that are less than the economic value of their output and have to live close to the financial edge?

---

Excellent. There is that.

quote:

---

What else?

---

I hate shopping at Wal-mart. It is a depressing place. But, if I need a garden rake or a picture frame or a frying pan, I must buy it at one of the three stores mentioned above.

What about "organized" business?

What about things like the Canadian Banker's Association which stands up for the rights of all of the poor oppressed bankers? Is that a good thing?

Or what about the CCCE...the Canadian Council of Chief Executives. Now that group of folks really gets a raw deal. Don't you think?

What about the Retail Council of Canada? You know I visited their website and they won't let anyone see their policy papers unless you're a member. Sounds like some kind of secret society to me.

I'm not sure if they're a member or not, but one big retailer recently went on strike. It sure inconvenienced a lot of people. Maybe there should have been "back to work" legislation?

Yes the strike took place in Jonquiere, Quebec when Walmart staged a "capital strike" against their employees. You see the employees wanted better wages and working conditions, but the Walmart Corporation said "nuts to that" and "hit the bricks" ... permanently.

I think we should have some laws against this kind of stuff. But organized business just seems so powerful.

[ 07 April 2005: Message edited by: radiorahim ]

We pay whatever car insurance premiums are set by coercive insurance companies aided and abetted by our(theirs, really) elected officials. Native people in our North pay exorbitant prices for milk and winter clothing made in the Philippines, Taiwan or El Salvador by sweatshop labour. We're told to be glad for cheap third world labour where it costs next to nothing to have a shirt stitched together by Dickensian London-style child misery or perhaps gulag labour in the USsA where the war on unions and working-poor is all but won. But what we pay ends up being a corporate 300% to 1000% markup over and above, thanks to the magic of the market place.

And in case any of us failed to ever realize just how wonderful all this corporate-capitalist glitz really is, we had to spend trillions on two world wars, corporate-led embargos of specific nations and a cold war to prove just how good we have it. We just can't help feeling like lucky dogs because it's all to our benefit. Life and capitalism are all about choices.

Organized business is good. Trust and obey, it's the only way. - veritas [evil laff]

[ 07 April 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oliver Cromwell:

What do you think would happen to savings, investment and employment if corporations were abolished?

---

What do you think would happen to savings, investment and employment if we got rid of all the feudal lords? Barbarians would raid willy nilly, there'd be nobody to organize production, in case you hadn't noticed it's your feudal lord who built that water mill--where would you be if you couldn't have your grain ground to flour, eh?

Like any other way of organizing society, instantly abolishing corporations would cause some dislocation. Look at Russia going the other way. That doesn't mean they're the optimum solution. Co-ops are fundamentally better than hierarchical corporations. That's the direction we should go. Instantly? Doubtless not. As quickly as practicable? Definitely.

As I said in another thread, I’m not aware of any significant institutional or legal impediments to the more widespread development of worker-owned co-ops. If we don’t see more of them, it’s reasonable to ask why not. Off the top of my head I can think several cases where worker ownership might be less than optimal, and I’m not a specialist in this field:

1) Heavily capital-intensive technologies. Suppose there’s a firm using a production process that requires 1000 workers using $1b worth of machinery, and it’s decided that they could use an extra worker. What would the job ad read? ‘Only millionaires need apply’?

2) Risk. What if the above production process involves a new technology that may or may not pan out? Would the job ad read ‘Wanted: workers who can eat a loss of $1m without working up a sweat’? It’d be easier to just look for 10m people who are willing to bet $100 on the new technology.

3) Social choice issues. Remember Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem? Unless you have a small, prescreened group, the chances of getting a consensus about how things should be run are essentially zero. If you’re one of 5000 workers at a co-op auto assembly plant, just how much ‘control’ do you really have about how things are run?

4) Diversification issues. Remember the Enron practice of forcing their employees to use their 401(k) accounts to buy Enron stock? And how those employees lost both their jobs and their savings when it went under? I suppose a more democratic governance structure would have avoided that, but maybe not – see point 3) above.

I have nothing against worker-owned co-ops, and I would strongly oppose any attempt to make them more difficult to set up. But if you want to claim that worker-owned co-ops are always optimal in all circumstances, and that other forms of firm ownership should be abolished, you’ve got a pretty hard row to hoe.

[ 07 April 2005: Message edited by: Oliver Cromwell ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oliver Cromwell:
Would people feel more positively disposed to corporations if there were re-baptised as “savers’ cooperatives”?

---

"Savers' cooperatives."

{snort} That's rich.

Up is down and black is white, too, eh?

quote:

---

Corporations are just a mechanism by which people can transform current sacrificed consumption into future income.

---

Bed time "Just So" stories for kiddies have no place here.

quote:

---

And it turns out that pretty much the only way that corporations can generate profits for their owners is to hire workers. Is that such a bad thing?

---

Would it be such a bad thing if EVERY one of the jobs in the corporation were open to anyone? Without owners?

You're correct that the only way for the ruling class to make money for itself is to exploit workers. Gold star for you.

quote:

---

What do you think would happen to savings, investment and employment if corporations were abolished?

---

If the corporate form _in toto_ were abolished, it'd be one massive contraction of the economy and a huge depression (the anarchists, at least, would be happy). States would most likely follow as they're corporate entities as well.

What about if only the rentiers (as rentiers) were euthanized? The corporate form would still be there, it could be made much more democratic than it is, and could be used more efficiently as an engine for wealth creation for eveyone instead of a select few.

[ 08 April 2005: Message edited by: The Other Todd ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oliver Cromwell:

1) Heavily capital-intensive technologies. Suppose there’s a firm using a production process that requires 1000 workers using $1b worth of machinery, and it’s decided that they could use an extra worker. What would the job ad read? ‘Only millionaires need apply’?

---

Why assume the money would have to come from individual workers as if they were share-buying capitalists? Why couldn't the money come from elsewhere, raised by taxes and/or specified loans?

quote:

---

2) Risk. What if the above production process involves a new technology that may or may not pan out? Would the job ad read ‘Wanted: workers who can eat a loss of $1m without working up a sweat’? It’d be easier to just look for 10m people who are willing to bet $100 on the new technology.

---

quote:

---

3) Social choice issues. Remember Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem? Unless you have a small, prescreened group, the chances of getting a consensus about how things should be run are essentially zero. If you’re one of 5000 workers at a co-op auto assembly plant, just how much ‘control’ do you really have about how things are run?

---

The infantile left will hate this, but:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm

I expect a corporation would allow an individual worker about as much control as any democracy would (without a ruling class to skew it).

quote:

---

4) Diversification issues. Remember the Enron practice of forcing their employees to use their 401(k) accounts to buy Enron stock? And how those employees lost both their jobs and their savings when it went under? I suppose a more democratic governance structure would have avoided that, but maybe not – see point 3) above.

---

A government that deals much more with the adminstration of things than the governing of people would also help prevent this sort of thing, I'd imagine.

quote:

---

I have nothing against worker-owned co-ops, and I would strongly oppose any attempt to make them more difficult to set up. But if you want to claim that worker-owned co-ops are always optimal in all circumstances, and that other forms of firm ownership should be abolished, you’ve got a pretty hard row to hoe.

[ 07 April 2005: Message edited by: Oliver Cromwell ]

---

I'm not sure: has anyone actually made that assertion here? That co-ops are perfect?

Small business creates more employment.
Small business is more engaged in the local economy.
Small business does have a higher failure rate.
Every time Wal*Mart comes to town.

Sorry I prefer my Wal mart and I love my sony store. As for local made stuff I usually can find a superior foriegn product at a comparable price

Small business creates more employment.
Small business is more engaged in the local economy.
Small business does have a higher failure rate.

What about "organized" business?

What about things like the Canadian Banker's Association which stands up for the rights of all of the poor oppressed bankers? Is that a good thing?

Or what about the CCCE...the Canadian Council of Chief Executives. Now that group of folks really gets a raw deal. Don't you think?

What about the Retail Council of Canada? You know I visited their website and they won't let anyone see their policy papers unless you're a member. Sounds like some kind of secret society to me.

I'm not sure if they're a member or not, but one big retailer recently went on strike. It sure inconvenienced a lot of people. Maybe there should have been "back to work" legislation?

Yes the strike took place in Jonquiere, Quebec when Walmart staged a "capital strike" against their employees. You see the employees wanted better wages and working conditions, but the Walmart Corporation said "nuts to that" and "hit the bricks" ... permanently.

I think we should have some laws against this kind of stuff. But organized business just seems so powerful.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hinterland:
Fucking triple post? Sourapple, shut the fuck up for a bit, won't you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hinterland:
I'm still trying to decide which is more moral...being tough and vulgar behind a computer screen, or being abjectly stupid and trollish...behind a computer screen

...dilemas, dilemas...

---

So what was the purpose of the post? So am I suppose to cry and leave? are my feelings to suppose to be hurt?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hinterland:
You're right. I was just in a particularly foul mood. I still am, but I should exercise more impulse control. Sorry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hinterland:
You're right. I was just in a particularly foul mood. I still am, but I should exercise more impulse control. Sorry.

---