Ethics applied to Economics

[thinkdr]

Thank you, Karpal for your thoughtful response.


I value freedom as highly as anyone.

Tell us more about the ethics that these others advocate. Be more specific, less vague.

What exactly bugs you about the theory of Ethics that I have proposed (which I say, time and again, is tentative and which welcomes upgrading and wants to incorporate any improvements into its synthesis.) What very specific criticism do you have of it?

When Economics is the topic, I am persuaded by those who argue that the current system is in a state of collapse, is chaotic in the extreme, and is ready to be replaced by something superior ...replaced one little step at a time, watching alertly that there are no unintended consequences, and not too-much Future Shock.

What is necessary is a transition toward a new economic system that works for all of us.


I welcome your suggestions!

[Karpel Tunnel]

Thank you, Karpal for your thoughtful response.


I value freedom as highly as anyone.

Tell us more about the ethics that these others advocate. Be more specific, less vague.

What exactly bugs you about the theory of Ethics that I have proposed (which I say, time and again, is tentative and which welcomes upgrading and wants to incorporate any improvements into its synthesis.) What very specific criticism do you have of it?

I welcome your suggestions!

It's not a criticism of your ethics. It's a criticism of the presentation of your ethics as The Ethics. And possibly your conception of there being one underlying set of values that, deep down, we all, in fact agree on. And notice that you say you value freedom as highly as everyone. That simply cannot be the case. People value freedom, however it is defined and it is defined in many different sometimes overlapping ways, differently. Some, are willling to kill for it. Some will not. Some will but not in the same situations others will. Some grant it only to adults. Some to children also. Many to varying degrees and different types of freedom Some are willing to kill innocents, as collateral damage or not, for freedom. Some refuse to. Some will exchange security for some limitations on freedom. Some will not and all to varying degrees. And so on. People have all sorts of valuations of freedom and while it is possible there are two people who value freedom and define it the same way, you cannot simply measure to even know this is the case.

It's a bit like saying I like ice cream as much as anyone. Only even less likely to be true, since the eating of ice cream is a much more limited concept/process.

I chose that value at random, with a background thought that if I remember right you could probably be loosely considered a liberal as opposed to a conservative. Right or wrong, this often means that a liberal, say in relation to business, is willing to restrict certain kinds of freedom (the accumulation of capital) in the interests of general well being as they view it. So I chose freedom thinking that your ideas in economy might stress values that would clash at least in terms of priority with conservatives. Let's not get locked down in whether my sense of you as tending towards liberal was correct. That is not the issue.

The idea that deep down we have the same values and priorities, really, is something I have sensed for quite some time.

IOW it has seemed like your position in general is based on the idea that if we rationally discuss our shared values, we can cut through our 'seeming' differences and achieve the society we all deep down want.

That when we discussed Ethics (capital E) it is a matter of getting down to our shared core values and then developing policy from that shared core.

I don't think we have a shared core. There is overlap, of course, between most people but there are core differences and not just in terms of priority. There is no Ethics that we all have. There are a number of ethical systems that grow out of different values and different priorities and different attitudes.

I am not suggesting trying to find common ground to build from is useless. I am suggesting that a recognition that, at least, there may be core differences is a better starting point. Because on some level I think many people DO think they have different core values from other people.

If the discussion starts from a more 'we all agree really' presentation, I think this ends up being condescending or seeming confused. Not condescending intentionally but implicitly.

So my reaction is not about some problem with an specific positions you have on ethics or economics, but precisely what I am saying. I think the situation is harder than you present it as being and also that the way you present it is in some ways instantly alienating, especially to those who have different core values from you.

[Ecmandu]

Trust me when I say this Karpel.

I’ve been to hell. Like, on a scale that your fantasies can’t even imagine right now.

One of the things I learned in hell is that every possible being in existence (including me) has a hell.

The beings who think they’re really tough actually just have empowerments that can be removed. I don’t want to get too into this part.

My whole point here is this: nobody, (and I mean ALL beings in existence), want their consent violated AND !!!

Everybody wants to learn on their own terms at their own pace.

So yeah... thinkdr doesn’t understand objective ethics even remotely. It’s a lot of words without saying anything.

You’re doing the same thing Karpel.

[thinkdr]

We see Situational Ethics (Opportunism) being applied in The U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. today. Thus we are aware there are other sorts of ethics than the model I have named A Unified Theory of Ethics.

People do have many differing concepts when it comes to ethics. KT is right about that. And that is why I propose a simplified model based on evidence, and which if successful would suggest experiences that would serve as confirmation of the model. This is the procedure of science.

How people conduct themselves provides the data for this model to explain. It speeaks of predators, brain-damaged individuals (such as psychopaths and sociopaths - one of the latter occupies the White House currently.) It speaks of selfishness, hypocrisy, corruption, and tyranny. It has no illusions about evil. Iy has studied the doctors who worked in the camps during The Third Reich. ...and has clinically analyzed Der Feurer. It explains what "prejudice" is. Same for "kindness," and "moral growth."

Make things (morally) better!

Do no harm!
[Violation with consent is one way of doing harm.]
Ecmandu, I am sorry that you've been through hell.

All constructive suggestions welcome....

[Ecmandu]

Ok, here’s my constructive suggestion.

You are naive and you don’t know what you’re talking about.

But constructively ... it appears that you’re trying.

Here’s the deal thinkdr...

People who think zero sum realities are good, are horrible people. And there are billions upon billions of horrible people. I am 100% sure you are one of those horrible people.

So it’s kinda funny to see a guy like you discuss ethics.

[thinkdr]

In my previous post, I typed "Violation with consent...." when I meant to say: "Violation without consent...." This led to a misunderstanding, for which I apologize. It was a typo. Mea culpa !!!

See especially p. 19 of the STRUCTURE OF ETHICS booklet which I scribbled. There it explains that creating value in human encounters so that everyone concerned feels that they won is Intrinsically valuable for us. This is a non-zero sum move in 'the game of life.' It is an active process.

[Ecmandu]

In my previous post, I typed "Violation with consent...." when I meant to say: "Violation without consent...." This led to a misunderstanding, for which I apologize. It was a typo. Mea culpa !!!

See especially p. 19 of the STRUCTURE OF ETHICS booklet which I scribbled. There it explains that creating value in human encounters so that everyone concerned feels that they won is Intrinsically valuable for us. This is a non-zero sum move in 'the game of life.' It is an active process.

You really don’t get it (and this why I (for multiple reasons) called you naive). People just don’t give a shit. The reason they don’t give a shit is that on earth, consent violators have the best lives.

[thinkdr]

Hi, Ecmandu

By the time I noticed that horrible mistake, the typo, it was too late to edit, to correct that serious error. Thank you for understanding, and for teaching us where you are coming from -- your position on these issues.

I respectfully have to disagree that violators, predators, selfish, dishonest, the unauthentic, or hypocrites live "the best lives."
They would live a better life in an ethical world, one where people could trust most everyone. If a cell in the body is surrounded by healthy cells it has a better chance to thrive; the same with human groups and societies.

Speaking of 'an ethical world:' In several of the selections referenced below I wrote that a major way to get to such a world would be the creativity that results in new Ethical Technologies. Here is a link to a site that recently had a page that informed its readers of three such developments:
See: === http://www.innovations.com

It told us of what I might speak of as a "green new deal" in process ...a new windmill invention, already in practical use, that will supply each home that puts it on the roof with low-cost electricity; it has a battery which, without re-charging, provides easily at least three days of electric power. Then the site informed us of how this windmill can be linked up with a new rather-efficient low-cost way to desalinize salt water.

Then we learn how an entire town can grow its food supply in a small space, attended by "vertical farmers" who really, really love the work they do! This is now occurring in Wyoming.

These tech developments are truly Applied Ethics. People will have less grounds for violent quarrels, for rebellion, for looting [when done by those who tell themselves "I have nothing else to lose."]

{{There will still be arguments, but let's hope they will be part of the search for wisdom - and the love of wisdom, the analysis and clarification of concepts -- which is Philosophy

Yes, I am naive, and ignorant ...but who isn't?

[thinkdr]

As you may have noticed, another egregious typo snuck in due to it being too late for me to edit out - before editing was no longer available. [I thought I became aware of that wrong link shortly after the post was submitted; made the change right away, but somehow it did not take.] Sorry if I caused some disappointment.

Please substitute this new link for the accidental blooper in the previous post: https://www.innovationt.com/

And please ignore, or delete, the link given in that earlier post.


The fact that the rich (billionaires) get richer and the (working) poor get poorer seems to be very true currently.
What do you think about the Workers Co-op structure, as a way of organizing a business, -- which was described much-earlier in this thread -- as a solution to preventing future economic 'busts: namely, the massive unemployment, and the misery it causes, under the present system?

[thinkdr]

.
{After thinkdr wrote: ...

creating value in human encounters so that everyone concerned feels that they won is Intrinsically valuable for us. This (active process) is a non-zero sum move in 'the game of life.'

}

People just don’t give a shit. The reason they don’t give a shit is that on earth, consent violators have the best lives.

I ask you, Readers, is what Ecmandu wrote good reasoning? Does it follow -even if it were so - that "violators have the best lives" ... does it follow from that that "people just don't give a shit"? or does the converse, or the obverse follow? Is there any relation between the two assertions?
And/or iIs he claiming: that since people believe that consent-violators live the best lives, therefore most people aspire to be consent-violators?
The latter is a proposition which, I would argue, is not true.

[Karpel Tunnel]

.
{After thinkdr wrote: ...

creating value in human encounters so that everyone concerned feels that they won is Intrinsically valuable for us. This (active process) is a non-zero sum move in 'the game of life.'

}

People just don’t give a shit. The reason they don’t give a shit is that on earth, consent violators have the best lives.

I ask you, Readers, is what Ecmandu wrote good reasoning? Does it follow -even if it were so - that "violators have the best lives" ... does it follow from that that "people just don't give a shit"? or does the converse, or the obverse follow? Is there any relation between the two assertions?
And/or iIs he claiming: that since people believe that consent-violators live the best lives, therefore most people aspire to be consent-violators?
The latter is a proposition which, I would argue, is not true.

Those were assertions, not reasoning. Which doesn't mean he is either wrong or irrational on the topic. It's just that it's not an argument, what you quoted there. The second sentence does not justify the first sentence. The second sentence is not justified by the first sentence. In fact it could all be a single sentence assertion. You disagree and make a counter-assertions. Perhaps some reasoning is about to happen where the argument supporting his assertions meets the counterargument supporting your assertion.

[thinkdr]

Thank you, KT. And thank you, Ecmandu, for giving us your view of human nature.

Yes, many people do suffer from the malady called "greed." It is an obsessive-compulsive disorder, a neurosis; it takes the form of a constant desire for "more, more." Or, "I never have enough!"

And yes, those who maintain that family structure is most important in inculcating ethics in the young, in setting a good example of role models for children; they are correct. It is the case that most people learn their ethics "on their mother's knee."

My project, though, is to teach Ethics to students of high-school and college age - and older - or to reinforce, or remind them of it. Maybe by then it is almost 'too late.' But to assume that is pessimism ...which itself is a sickness. I am going on the premise that in many families Ethics has been poorly taught.

Kids in broken homes don't see a good family structure. We must inquire as to the cause(s) of the broken home. Could lack of a steady income have something to do with it?

Provide everyone with jobs
If the private sector can't do it - due to the periodic busts of the prevailing economic system - then it is necessary to have the government do it !
That was the case during Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration. The Civilian Conservation Corp and all those other corps worked out very well as useful job provision. Folks were paid to entertain and even to paint murals. It was all meaningful and often useful work.

Thus a good argument can be made that a dependable income correlates strongly with ethical behavior. If one is desperate, he says to himself "I have nothing to lose." Then crime occurs: violence, looting, hating of those perceived as more fortunate or as convenient scapegoats. From hate evil-doing and trouble ensues.

p.s. Here is an interesting video offered for your viewing enjoyment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9BNi6I53p0
It presents one relevant perspective in the Philosophy of Economics. Was it helpful to reach a deeper comprehension of the current situation?

What are your views on the matters touched on above?

[Ecmandu]

Ok, let me put it to you very simply.

I’m hyper sexual ... I will always want to have sex with anyone I’d want to have sex with.

I don’t have sex. It’s not fun.

But here you have all these fuckheads, running around, fucking anything they want, having babies, having families, and they fucking love their lives.

I refuse sex for MORAL reasons!!!

I think if you have sex with someone you desire, you are a winner in a world of 8 billion losers.

That’s the worst fucking idea I’ve ever heard!!!

But people do it day in and day out, perfectly content, and ZERO morality.

I’m trying to wake this species up. Sometimes it’s not fun.

[thinkdr]

In my recent post of Sept. 24, 2020 I claimed that Ethics could be taught to those of highschool-age or older. Will they care to learn? If they want to evolve into better human beings they will care. If they respect learning for its own sake, they care. If they want to stay out of trouble with the law, being ethical is a way to do it. If they want real happiness in life, it helps if one is ethical.

Let's discuss the difference between Success and Happiness.

Success is having what you want.

Happiness is wanting what you have.

If your life is full of happiness, you are a success. Yes, have ambition; and accumulate some capital -- adequate to put you into what Economists and Sociologists refer to as The middle (or the upper) Middle Class. Beware though that anything beyond such comfort might mean you are infected with Greed -- a serious Personality Disorder. If you always want "more," "more and more" you may have this neurosis - a character defect. Ethics teaches one to aim to possess a Good Character.

Kindness is one component, but it is not enough: continuous moral development, moral growth is necessary if you are to be ethical.

And remember
No Justice, no Peace.
This is what motivates the Black Lives Matter movement. Also one can see it as the people of African descent [within the last 200 years} who are Americans now asking for the same privileges as were gained by the Chinese, The Germans, the Italians and the Irish who came here and now are Americans, and who are treated with some respect by those who Serve and Protect, namely the police.

Many police departments have men of good intentions who turn out to be murderers of men and women of color, but who are not brought to justice for it: they don't stand trial and/or they are not convicted; and they pay little or no penalty for the murder. That is why protesters cry out: No Justice

What say you?

[thinkdr]

I have posted some of this discussion in other places but it is more appropriate here.

Many ethical philosophies teach and advocate that we are to help those in need, the poor and the less fortunate.

The best way to help those in need is to empower them to help themselves: either teach them useful skills, or set up a sovereign-wealth fund of some sort. This fund will endow them sufficiently that they can then pursue their own constructive projects.

Granted, many will choose just to play games, watch TV, or to fritter away their time; but every now and then an Albert Einstein, a Jeff Bezos, an Elon Musk will come along ,pursuing their respective hobbies, and they will create wealth equivalent to what thousands of lazy bums are not producing.
The productivity of those few virtuosos (along with the organizations they will found) will make it all worthwhile.

If we work intelligently for it, then someday soon, there will be less ignorance (due to improved methods of instruction that are more efficient and effective. They wil be effective when used for instructing in the points made in the best Ethical Theory (a theory based on science that is an integrative synthesis of the best in other theories. Such a theory is one that has clarity and depth. [That, incidentally, is how the References below have been described.])

It is then predictable that with less ignorance in the future most all businesses that launch (that start up) will be structured as Workers Cooperatives. The workers will be the owners, or will be putting in the sweat-equity that will enable them eventually to buy in as owners.
They will likely often tend to vote: to pay themselves more, work less hours, yet still get it done!

With regard to compensation and remuneration: the way these co-ops are set up, the highest-paid worker is only allowed to receive four-to-six times as much as the lowest-paid worker - thus leveling the hierarchy we see currently. At present we note that the top officials are often remunerated at more than a hundred times more than the lowest-paid worker gets. So let's endorse and promote workers co-ops That, in my considered judgment, will bring us closer to an ethical world.

Let's hear your views on these topics !!

[d0rkyd00d]

I will state, simply, what I learned from a wise Philosopher named Robert S. Hartman.

Let us here apply Ethics to the concept "economic system."

A good economic system creates wealth.
A bad economic system gives rise to poverty and permits extreme and abject poverty to exist.

As I explained earlier, when discussing the Hierarchy of Value (the HOV) formula, moral value has primacy over economic value.
I > E and I > S.

Hence the lack of morality in what is referred to as 'the free-enterprise system' leads to impoverishment.

Hi thinkdr, it looks like you've been formulating this theory for a while, so I'm sure you've addressed my questions somewhere.

I'm not understanding your argument regarding good and bad economic systems: how are you defining "economic system?"

[thinkdr]

Greetings, dorkydood

I define "economic system" this way:

A system of production and distribution and consumption.

I do not subscribe to a command economy, nor to a Central Planning economy; I prefer a so-called "free market" economic system. The one we have now, though, is not free: it favors corporations and the rich, and who you know, over the 'little guy.' It is heavily loaded in favor of the well-connected. It is "Crony capitalism" and is designed so that money flows to the already-super-wealthy.

I agree with J.M. Keynes that consumers "make the economy and the country go round." Put money in the hands of the needy and desperate and you will see vigorous economic activity. The economy will then really "hum."

China today has State Capitalism; it is often mislabeled as "Socialism." The latter word has about 25 definitions and those who use it conveniently don't specify which meaning they intend.

As you can see from this thread, I favor - within Capitalism - workers' co-ops which practice Democracy at work. They are democratically-run businesses. They do hire managers ....which then function as bosses, but they can be fired at any time by a majority vote of the owners. These outfits still need to raise capital but they may be able to do it online by volunteers who see a good idea ...as long as the contributors don't insist on a piece of the business. The best functioning example of a workers' co-op (nearly as vast as Amazon) is Mondragon in the Basque region of Spain. You can check it out on Wikipedia or in any search tool to get more information about it. New York has some big co-op businesses of this nature too. So far, however, they do not get much publicity. They choose to invest their income back into the business instead of spending it on promotion of the concept.

Today "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer." There may be something wrong there....

What did you have in mind when you asked your question?

What do you Readers at this Forum think about all these matters?? Let's participate

[d0rkyd00d]

Thanks for the explanation! The reason I was asking was because you said:

A good economic system creates wealth.
A bad economic system gives rise to poverty and permits extreme and abject poverty to exist.

Do you believe there are any truly "good" economic systems? Or they all a combination of good and bad? Is this more of an ideal we should be striving for?

[thinkdr]

Thanks for the explanation! The reason I was asking was because you said:

A good economic system creates wealth.
A bad economic system gives rise to poverty and permits extreme and abject poverty to exist.

Do you believe there are any truly "good" economic systems? Or they all a combination of good and bad? Is this more of an ideal we should be striving for?[/quote

Greetings, d0rkyd00d

You are most welcome! Glad I answered your question adequately.

I believe Norway, Finland and Denmark come close to being good economic systems because they have a proper, functioning social-safety-net. The well-off ''kick like anything' about the higher taxes they pay, but they wouldn't want to live anywhere else: they don't emigrate from their country.

They all are a combination. Let's promote the good and minimize the bad.

This good economic system is, to quote you: "an ideal we should be striving for," yet iit is more than that. Recall what I said towards the end of my previous post about the Democracy at Work structure for new start-up businesses (as well as for existing businesses that wish to convert over to it.) That could be the wave of the future IF WE WORK to encourage this development !!!

Workers co-ops that practice democracy may well be the way to go. Let's get busy and apply Ethics to economics by advocacy, campaigning, and promoting in every creative way possible this awesome structure for a business.

That is how to be effective and help bring us all closer to an ethical world.

...your ideas?

[thinkdr]

I believe this link is relevant to our recent discussion:

https://institute.coop/ownershipnow?mc_ ... ff3747cd62

What are your views on this?

Do you agree that we need more democracy in the workplace?
Is there anything you can do personally to encourage this movement?
Do you see clearly why this process is Ethics applied to Economics?

Some feedback from readers would be appropriate......

[obsrvr524]

I will state, simply, what I learned from a wise Philosopher named Robert S. Hartman.

Let us here apply Ethics to the concept "economic system."

A good economic system creates wealth.
A bad economic system gives rise to poverty and permits extreme and abject poverty to exist.

As I explained earlier, when discussing the Hierarchy of Value (the HOV) formula, moral value has primacy over economic value.
I > E and I > S.

Hence the lack of morality in what is referred to as 'the free-enterprise system' leads to impoverishment.

That is one more reason why we need Ethics: so that the economic system under which we live can create more wealth, and that all citizens can share in enjoying some of it.

Do we need now to put into effect the UBI - which stands for "Universal Basic Income." Or some well-thought out form of it? Can you suggest a better reform? It would at least have to be one that will put some resources in the hands of the needy, so that they can possibly participate constructively in creating even more wealth for all of us to share.

Do we need to engage in a campaign to back the U.S. Dollar with some standard? Bucky Fuller suggested that the standard be: (global) productivity per man/hour. Can this index today be measured? Are economists or statisticians capable of this?

Your ideas??

I think that money has served for a very long time as a crude type of social credit score. For a very long time is has been promoted that the noble, wealthy class are privileged because if they were not ethical, they would not be so wealthy or influential. We peasants (as well as the nobility) know now (especially after the US Presidential debacle) that wealth and influence have only a slight and corrupted relationship to ethical purity.

Ethical purity has been the backbone of religions from the beginning. Every effort was made to ensure that professed ethics were the highest and most noble by whatever standards they thought appropriate at the time. But in every case it seems they have failed. Every time there are loopholes and ways of cheating. And that always allows the unethical ethics-cheaters to gain more influence or wealth than those obeying the rules. Those obeying the rules are more restricted so naturally those more free of the rules gain advantage.

They have always promoted that those of wealth "should" care for the less fortunate. When has that ever worked out?

So by trying to set a standard of social ethics credit score (as the CCP does currently) for wealth what would be any different? You say we have a "science" of ethics now. But look at what has happened to science? Now science is merely whatever rumor is said to be of science and profits the one spreading the rumor. Even science doesn't prevent political/social influence from corrupting the process called "science".

It seems to me that until you have an extremely secure method for preventing cheating the "scientific system" you propose, nothing would be any different than what has been going on forever. What would that look like?

Perhaps super surveillance of every individual throughout the world would help ensure that there was no cheating. But what about cheating that surveillance mechanism? That has recently been proven to be a serious problem even for the CCP. And even if a super surveillance system was perfect, there is still the enforcement mechanism. How would anyone ethically ensure perfect enforcement of ethical behavior even assuming the ethics was both perfectly known and perfectly surveilled?

What happens if people are just given tax money every month? How are they going to spend it? Isn't that relevant to whether it is ethical to give it?

If they spend their UBI in an unethical way, do they just keep getting it anyway? Doesn't everyone else paying for unethical spending constitute an unethical system?

It seems to me you have to decide on every tiny detail of ethical behavior before you can even suggest anything like UBI. And you had better get it perfect, else you will create a system of liars and cheaters who reign over everyone else proclaiming (just as throughout the past) "those peasants deserve their poverty because they are not being ethical" - or perhaps - "those peasants deserve being locked up or retrained because they did not spend their money ethically" (that is the CCP answer).

The CCP seems to be doing most of what you profess is the good ethical thing - yet they are very obviously not ethical at all. How does that happen? - the same way it has always happened.

So honestly, what have you proposed that is really any different than the same struggle for power that has been going on forever =

• proclaim an ethical standard
• surveil the population for compliance
• impugn those who are not favored
• seek to maintain control by cheating those very ethics

In this thread (and your others) I have not seen anything to change anything at all.

https://institute.coop/ownershipnow?mc_cid=24ea8fe2af&mc_eid=ff3747cd62

What are your views on this?

Do you agree that we need more democracy in the workplace?
Is there anything you can do personally to encourage this movement?
Do you see clearly why this process is Ethics applied to Economics?

Some feedback from readers would be appropriate......

- just more small minded communist propaganda.

[thinkdr]

Recently came upon this quote from Philosopher-Scientist Albert Einstein. He wrote this in his role as philosopher:

Two things are infinite --

the Universe

and human stupidity.

p.s. In a piece of writing I dashed off way back in late 2009, in dialog form, readers can see what I mean by "Ethics," when I use the term. The field includes the topics mentioned by these discussants around the table.
Let us know what you think of it ...okay?
Here is a link to it:
http://www.wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadehar ... ETHICS.pdf

[obsrvr524]

Recently came upon this quote from Philosopher-Scientist Albert Einstein. He wrote this in his role as philosopher:

Two things are infinite --

the Universe

and human stupidity.

If he said it then you don't have to keep demonstrating the truth of it, do you.

[thinkdr]

hi there, obervr

What is it exactly that you have against the idea of workers in a company owning a piece of the business?

For that is what the worker co-op represents. They call it "democracy at work" since the employee/owners get to vote on their hours and their pay; they have a voice in the matter. They also vote on whether to hire an outside manager, to help guide company policy. The major difference with other businesses is that rule that the new manager can only be compensated at four-to-six times what the lowest-paid worker makes in pay; in contrast with the 160-times as much which is often the case now in non-co-op businesses. And this ratio enables the top officials in conventional businesses to get very wealthy, thereby intensifying the inequality imbalance that damages our economy by keeping it unstable.

In the 1950s the U.S. was more in balance, as it had a strong middle-class. We don't have that any more today. Do some research: investigate the policies that Dwight Eisenhower campaigned on ...and actually delivered. {How much did assembly-line workers who had a strong union get paid on average then?}



p.s. Are you familiar with the book by Anne Applebaum, Twilight of Democracy: The Seductive-Lure of Authoritarianism.

[obsrvr524]

hi there, obervr

What is it exactly that you have against the idea of workers in a company owning a piece of the business?

For that is what the worker co-op represents.

Hasn't the US had shared ownership companies for a long time? Why force it upon everyone?

They call it "democracy at work" since the employee/owners get to vote on their hours and their pay; they have a voice in the matter. They also vote on whether to hire an outside manager, to help guide company policy. The major difference with other businesses is that rule that the new manager can only be compensated at four-to-six times what the lowest-paid worker makes in pay; in contrast with the 160-times as much which is often the case now in non-co-op businesses. And this ratio enables the top officials in conventional businesses to get very wealthy, thereby intensifying the inequality imbalance that damages our economy by keeping it unstable.

They call that "union labor". The US has had that for a long time too.

Where are these companies now? How well are they doing? And why do you want to force all of them to be the same way?

In the 1950s the U.S. was more in balance, as it had a strong middle-class. We don't have that any more today. Do some research: investigate the policies that Dwight Eisenhower campaigned on ...and actually delivered. {How much did assembly-line workers who had a strong union get paid on average then?}

Your middle class has been the target of globalist authoritarians for decades. Socialism can't allow a middle class. Socialism is about separating the upper and lower classes - the privileged wealthy and the oppressed workers.

Labor union companies or corporations end up highly political and corrupt (just look at what your teachers unions are doing right now). They very strongly affect your entire political system. Your State governors and many congressmen end up being elected entirely on the whim of the unions. But what about those not in a union? Unions are not controlled by the same laws as elected legislators. They are often socialist style organizations themselves.And they often use fascism to enforce their union party's choices (got famous for it). And also realize that if everyone is in a union getting "higher wages" - higher wages are meaningless. A higher wage is only significant when there are lower wage people who suffer even more as those unions get more and more pay.

You are actually talking about increasing the corruption of a system vastly corrupt already - and under the guise of being "ethical". That is not being ethical at all - quite the opposite. There is a far far better way to be ethical.

If you want every corporation in the US (or world) to have a 3 party division of authority (similar to the US Constitution) - that would allow for your voting idea and get rid of much of the corruption. And that is why your States are required to have it that way.