One solution to "austerity & privatizing",is workers organizing for workers-own system.

57 posts / 0 new

Imagine the government agencies telling government workers they`re going to lay off some of the work force and privatize out some government work? Then imagine the effected government workers forming "workers-own" business to bid in the work the government is contracting out? I cannot imagine a "exgovernment workers-own" business losing to a special interests private business in bidding for contracts?

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Comments

Public corporations run democratically, like public/national banks, is a great idea.

The problem right now is that this is a fascist heading time in our history, so private corporations are in cohoots with what's left of the government. That's the big picture. We need to have a general mobilization to stop fascism before public corporations owned by workers will be allowed to exist and prosper.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm

I think unions/workers should take their pension plans out of the stock market and invest in their own fate. Calpers and other large unions could withdraw their BILLIONS from greedy banksters and start a co-op with small business loans to UNION workers to start, run, and own their own business.

Put their money where the rhetoric is and take on the greedy capitalists and see how they do. I wish them the best but suspect they would be better served keeping their money invested in JP Morgan, GE, Citi, IBM, Apple, Google, and all the other evil corporations....

liberalsyndrome's picture
liberalsyndrome
Joined:
Jun. 15, 2012 7:27 pm

Or if those corporations crash & burn after EU banks, they will be served just like those who had their money in Lehman Brothers — poof! All gone!

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm
Quote tayl44:

Imagine the government agencies telling government workers they`re going to lay off some of the work force and privatize out some government work? Then imagine the effected government workers forming "workers-own" business to bid in the work the government is contracting out? I cannot imagine a "exgovernment workers-own" business losing to a special interests private business in bidding for contracts?

Why not take it even further. Why not help laid off workers begin their own enterprise. For over 20 years Italian workers have been allowed to take lump sum unemployment benefits to start new businesses. They first had to get 8 or more other workers to take the same lum sum payment, then they received government assistance with advice and business models to get started. They have been very successful with this strategy.

The big problem with the form of capitalism we now practice is the corporate structure, i.e., small number of individuals making all the decisions. As we are experiencing this small group of individuals are by their charters directed to be only interested in PROFIT. The corporate structure is the problem. That structure needs to be changed.

Worker owned enterprises are a beginning. Workers are more invested in making sure the enterprise succeeds since it is theirs. They would not pay huge salaries to the executives; decide to leave the country; chose to pollute the community; as well as many other destructive things that are happening now with the small group of individuals making all the decisions.

Captialism is an economic system. That's all it is.... a system. It can be changed and modified when it ceases to work.

We need to change the form of capitalism being practiced in America.

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 12:16 pm

Capitalism is an economic system. Over the last 236 years its served the USA pretty well. We are the wealthiest, strongest, safest country on the planet. What would you replace it with? I provided a list below of "other" economic systems...

Planned systems
Calculation in kind
Indicative planning
Planned economy
State socialism

Market systems
Market socialism
Socialist market economy
Mutualism (economic theory)

Types of mixed economies. Economic systems that contain substantial state, private and sometimes cooperative ownership and operated in mixed economies - i.e., ones that contain substantial amounts of both market activity and economic planning.
Distributism - Catholic ideal of a "third way" economy, featuring more distributed ownership
Georgism - socialized rents on land
Mixed economy
American School
Dirigisme
Nordic model
Japanese system
Mercantilism
Social market economy also known as Soziale Marktwirtschaft
Social corporatism
Socialist-oriented market economy
Progressive utilization theory
Indicative planning also known as a planned market economy

Do you support an incentive based market or one where its planned? One where commerce is consumer driven in exchange for profit or one where the state distributes commodities, labor, and profits are discouraged?

liberalsyndrome's picture
liberalsyndrome
Joined:
Jun. 15, 2012 7:27 pm
Quote liberalsyndrome:

Capitalism is an economic system. Over the last 236 years its served the USA pretty well. We are the wealthiest, strongest, safest country on the planet. What would you replace it with?

It has served some in the USA pretty well, not all. The form of capital that is now being practiced isn't working any more for the majority of our population. Economic systems have to evolve and change, they are not statis entities. If an economic system, like all other systems, do not adapt and change to circumstances, it will fail, as ours is now. I am not saying to throw capitalism out, but it has to change and evolve.

Since we have a political system that is based on democratic principles, doesn't it make sense that we should have a economic system based on democratic principles? Why not give workers a choice if they want to work in an authoritarian environment or in something else?

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 12:16 pm

Yes, there are always poor. Around the world everyone has people that are either unemployable or have no interest in conforming with society. But you didnt answer the question.

WHAT ECONOMIC SYSTEM WOULD YOU REPLACE CAPITALISM WITH?

Second question...

OVER 236 YEARS WHAT ECONOMIC SYSTEM OUTPERFORMED CAPITALISM IN THE USA?

liberalsyndrome's picture
liberalsyndrome
Joined:
Jun. 15, 2012 7:27 pm
Quote liberalsyndrome:

Yes, there are always poor. Around the world everyone has people that are either unemployable or have no interest in conforming with society. But you didnt answer the question.

WHAT ECONOMIC SYSTEM WOULD YOU REPLACE CAPITALISM WITH?

Second question...

OVER 236 YEARS WHAT ECONOMIC SYSTEM OUTPERFORMED CAPITALISM IN THE USA?

Yes I did...... Let me state it again...

The form of capital that is now being practiced isn't working any more for the majority of our population. Economic systems have to evolve and change, they are not statis entities. If an economic system, like all other systems, do not adapt and change to circumstances, it will fail, as ours is now. I am not saying to throw capitalism out, but it has to change and evolve.

Since we have a political system that is based on democratic principles, doesn't it make sense that we should have a economic system based on democratic principles? Why not give workers a choice if they want to work in an authoritarian environment or in something else?

Do you understand that this is my answer?

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 12:16 pm

So based on your description you are for a centrally planned Socialism mixed economic system? Something where some central planner determines what is fair and makes sure everyone gets equal share?

Workers have choice. They can quit, change jobs, get education, or start their own business. Those are the opportunities afforded by capitalism

liberalsyndrome's picture
liberalsyndrome
Joined:
Jun. 15, 2012 7:27 pm
Quote liberalsyndrome:

So based on your description you are for a centrally planned Socialism mixed economic system? Something where some central planner determines what is fair and makes sure everyone gets equal share?

You can twist my word all you want. I NEVER mentioned a central planner. I have and continue to stress democracy in the work place.

Quote liberalsyndrome:

Workers have choice. They can quit, change jobs, get education, or start their own business. Those are the opportunities afforded by capitalism

This is no choice..... one authoritarian situation into another.... no choice.

The form of capitalism that we are now practicing in America is no longer working. It needs to be modified. The corporate structure needs to be changed. Democracy should be practiced in the work place.

The form of capitalism that we are now practicing in America is no longer working. It needs to be modified. The corporate structure needs to be changed. Democracy should be practiced in the work place.

The form of capitalism that we are now practicing in America is no longer working. It needs to be modified. The corporate structure needs to be changed. Democracy should be practiced in the work place.

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 12:16 pm

There are 4 basic economic systems.... Pick what you think you want or invent a fifth!

- traditional economies: In traditional economies, the three economic questions are decided mainly by social customs. .

- market economies: In market economies, the economy is like capitalism in U.S and the economic questions are decided by individuals in the marketplace

- command economies: In command economies, is like communism and the questions are decided by the government.

-mixed economies. In mixed economies, they are decided by a combination of market decisions making and government order.

I wish we had a pure market based economy because I think MANY of the social issues would fix themselves as the government was removed from commerce. In reality I think we have a mixed system where its 70% market based ecoomic system and about 30% command (centrally planned) because of central banking, social programs, Dept of Ag, Dept of Ed, and other government apparatus.

If you like mixed, were you think more like 50% market and 50% command (centrally planned)?

Who would you nominate to determine what is fair that would have power to redistribute?

liberalsyndrome's picture
liberalsyndrome
Joined:
Jun. 15, 2012 7:27 pm

India has a mixed economy about 50% free market and 50% govt owned (I think). This system works well. It calls itself a sovereign socialist secular democratic republic. Its constiution has this preamble which includes Equality and Fraternity but skips the "pursuit of happiness."

WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens:

JUSTICE, social, economic and political;

LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;

EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;

and to promote among them all

FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;

IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Preamble_to_Constitution_of_India.pdf&page=1

pshakkottai's picture
pshakkottai
Joined:
Jul. 11, 2011 11:27 am

Capitalism and communism and socialism won`t work for the new world,they`re not "economic democracy". The people will have to control economic systems of the future,to have any sense of honor and justice for it. Karolina, how can the state stop workers from creating their own business? If they pass a law,they might as well make us "slaves" again,then there will be a "revolution"!

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

What happens when at the national level, 50% of the democracy wants spending on a particular program and 50% does NOT? Simple majority wins?

Who is going to seize, confiscate, and manage the democratic assets? What if someone does not wish to surrender their property or assets to the collective?

I fear your "economic democracy" is a recipe for a 2nd civil war. Central government has already failed on so many fronts to try to co-opt them to enforce this concept is inconceivable. We are already more divided than I ever imagined this country could be in my lifetime. All the class warfare rhetoric only amplifies that anomosity between Americans. Within every argument there are two sides and often they are both a little right and also a little wrong.

Anyone making more that $250K per year is frustrated by a failed government that seizes their assets to fund more failing programs with no accountability. Please save your Buffet pays less taxes that the secretary analogy! Its simply not true in a pure dollar value. The top 10% of wage earners in USA pay for 70.5% of ALL personal income taxes, yet they typically dont use the full benefits they are entitlted to by law, or dont qualify because of means testing.

The bottom 50% of wage earners pay only 2.25% of personal income tax at the federal level, yet they demand more, and more, and more but refuse to accept that they two must pay into the Government for these programs. I understand times are hard but continuing to vote for unions that have held back industry and workers doesnt help. Voting in Obama because he promises free stuff doesnt help either. They need help but they hurt their own interests and there comes a time when the differences become unreconcilable.

What is that old joke? The only problem with Communism is that eventually you run out of rich to pay for it... If you let each of the 50 states vote to either keep capitalism or ratify a bill that would make them part of a collective "economic democracy" how many states you think would actually vote for that??? In the states where it did happen I can tell you what would happen. First the rich would move their wealth and assets out of that state or country. Then business would feel threatened and flee. Pretty soon all you have is noble intentions of social justice, broken promises, a ballooning debt, and high unemployment. Kind of like Greece, Spain, Italy?

liberalsyndrome's picture
liberalsyndrome
Joined:
Jun. 15, 2012 7:27 pm

And this year we will see a referendum on the Ryan Budget, we will see which voters want to dismantle Medicaid, end Medicare, and severly limit the welfare state.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm

"50% vs 50%",that`s all you can think of to oppose economic democracy,besides life is never fifty vs fifty,but as always,some people see what they want to.Economic democracy vs the rest is no contest,if the insane 1% want a war with all the problems they have already,can some be beyond insanity?

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

What your advocating for is the 6th pillar ofcommunism!

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm

How do you equal democracy to communism?

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Taking capital from investors and giving it to workers is not democracy.

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm
Quote CollegeConservative:

Taking capital from investors and giving it to workers is not democracy.

And yet you think that taking capital from the workers who produced it is democracy. There are two sides to every situation.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

The did not take the risk of purchasing the machnery andmaterial and market the product.

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm
Quote CollegeConservative:

The did not take the risk of purchasing the machnery andmaterial and market the product.

That doesn't outweigh the fact that "some" capitalists take great advantage of the labor that produces their income. Without the labor there wouldn't be an opportunity to "risk" the market in order to gain wealth. Unions help to protect the laborer from "some" capitalists that will want to take advantage of laborer. In a perfect world there would be no need for unions.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

I'm not arguingagainst private unions I'm arguing against forcibly taking over the means of production. If you want to buy out your employer as a group that's great

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote CollegeConservative:

The did not take the risk of purchasing the machnery andmaterial and market the product.

That doesn't outweigh the fact that "some" capitalists take great advantage of the labor that produces their income. Without the labor there wouldn't be an opportunity to "risk" the market in order to gain wealth. Unions help to protect the laborer from "some" capitalists that will want to take advantage of laborer. In a perfect world there would be no need for unions.

Hey BW even I disagree with you on this point. A capitalist will always try and pay his labor as little as he can get away with. It's up to the laborer to negotiate to get as much as he/she can. And collective bargaining increases the worker's chances of getting a better deal.

It may surprise you to hear that from me, but I know how business owners think. They have their best interest at heart, not the welfare of the people working for them.

But there are problems with unions that I won't go into in this post. Especially public unions.

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 6:45 pm
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote CollegeConservative:

Taking capital from investors and giving it to workers is not democracy.

And yet you think that taking capital from the workers who produced it is democracy. There are two sides to every situation.

Sorry BW, can't agree with you here, labor does not supply any capital to the situation, therefore you can't take capital away from labor because they never had it in the first place.

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 6:45 pm

This post make a little sense. If you understand workers creating/owning their own business,than maybe you can understand economic democracy? Unions need not apply! I started this thread to talk about a new concept,most know capitalism and communism is fail ideas,why waste time on them. I believe in freedom,for those that still want capitalism and communism,let them follow their belief to their doom.With one enforcible rule,they do no collateral damage!

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

tayl, I don't know if I commented on this thread yet or not. Are you against unions? It seems to me that unions are very useful for the 99% to increase their bargaining power. The "conservatives" here keep using the straw man argument of "communism" because they can't acknowledge that unions are an expression of our constitutional rights, freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. The 1% has stolen the capital produced by labor and the 99% percent has a right to take it back. There are a lot of ideas people have about a better way to live but the "conservatives" don't want to acknowledge that because they don't have an argument against it. They think that if they can just shout us down and spread disinformation then they can keep their corporatocracy.

nimblecivet's picture
nimblecivet
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Unions are fineewhat does that have to do withtaking capital and redistributing it?

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm

Such amazing and simplistic economic 'thinking!' A real tribute to the catechists in the Biz School Seminaries on Capitalism. Like the "four kinds of economies" that leaves only 'modern capitalism' as the champion we have to fall in line with. Or, the "risk" of the capital and operational costs with no real value given to the labor. Oh, the risk. Not for the workers whose loyalty can be sold out for quarterly cash grabs. They have not invested in the operational costs or the machinery. They just have their lives framed by their work and homes, so when the jobs go away why should they feel they have been risking anything?

What the money-lenders don't get is that people's lives are even more important than their debts. Making a loan of money ought to be a risk on the ability of the borrower to repay, not just an asset on the books that can be enforced by the cops leaving the human being on the rocks. Economies have to deliver to gain respect. Nothing about supply side has kept any of its promises. What began as the formula for magical prosperity for all is now revealed as the declaration of elite wealth rights to tell the rest of us to suck air.

Labor always risks as much or more as the bosses in these businesses. Investors can move their money. Bosses and CEO's have the wealth and bonuses to move, and usually have homes away from home rather than being dependent upon community and family roots. It is those who have fewer options who have the most at stake in the business being there and doing well because they have the most to lose and the least to protect themselves with.

In the forms of economy discussion, let us get out from under the bs and get some things straight. Nobody on the Left here is calling for Big State run businesses or command and control anything. That is what we oppose as the nature of Corporate. We love small businesses and personally and worker owned enterprise. We want a financial utility to help these businesses thrive as well as a social policy where participation in the economy will be maximized rather than minimized. By participation, we mean an active, civil 'ownership' rather than a serf's work to serve others.

There is so much nonsense in the current economics fog that we might as well focus on what matters. We have to have a sustainable and renewable economy, not a resource consuming, growth fed cancer model. And we have to have an economy that serves a human end, not one that leaves us debased. Progressives see that as a bottom-up model with the macro serving rather than controlling things. We put ecological and human reality first and make economics deal with what is really real.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm

Thats simply not true investpr allways risks'more.

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm

Labor can vote with its feet and move elsewhere to greener pastures elsewhere. When you have sunk a bunch of capital into a business it is much more painful to walk away.

Sorry business owners have no responsibility to their labor other than to pay them what they promised they would and meet OSHA workplace standards. Period, end of discussion. If there are contracts in place (for example a union) they have to abide by that. Now if a business wants to be able to recruit and retain good employees, they had better be doing more than that, but that becomes the owner's business decision at that point.

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 6:45 pm

The hits just keep on happening.

Myth One. It is in the interest of the employer to pay labor as little as possible. Not really. Unless you make "as possible" include all the recognition of the value of a trained and knowledgeable workforce the employer can depend upon for consistency and quality. You might have to pay something more for that. And, in order to attract and keep them, you might want to make sure that they were getting what they needed in their larger lives in benefits and vacations or flexible schedules. The idea that labor is an overhead expense while machinery is a capital asset is an example of twisted accounting.

Myth Two. There is a difference that matters between public and private unions. Sigh. This follows the nonsense that says that government cannot create jobs and represents some drag on the real economy of the private free market. BS!! Jobs are jobs, and whether workers are paid by taxpayers or by businesses, they still get to use collective bargaining to negotiate wages and other benefits, conditions. There are no essential differences to the concerns of public or private managers about producing value in products or services to justify the investments being made, nor are there in what workers want and need in order to be respected for their contributions to the enterprise. When "capital" is defined apart from what a laborer invests in "work," that respect is diminished by the game rather than by the distortion of it. "Work" is a life-investment worth at least as much respect as money in our accounting.

Myth Three. Competition is what refines the waste and leaves us with merit rewarded in the bottom line. What is wrong with this myth is that it is neither practiced nor how a good economy works. If the present system wants to try its competition model, it could agree to end the monopolies and cartels that define modern Corporatism. They are not efficient, nor do they deliver quality. They are very good at extracting wealth and concentrating power, but not on seeing where that leads.

It turns out that markets are about cooperation more than competition. Comparative advantage is about mutuality, not king of the mountain. Interdependent systems require interdependent morality and perspective. Redistribution of wealth becomes as natural and accepted as weeding the garden and watering what needs it. Or, it is like concern for the health of the body shared by all the parts. If our neighbor is in trouble, pitching in is how we insure against our own time of need as well as how we avoid the damage to all in the neighborhood.

We see this clearly in real estate where a foreclosed upon neighbor is not only a lost friend and a family we know and whose suffering is shared by us, it is also a threat to our own home's value. There is no discernment in our mortgage system, and no apparent sense of shame and responsibility in its callous pursuit of money from its own victims. It is hard not to know that this is terribly wrong; and that is all the more reason the shills have to proclaim the sacred authority of the debts and the immorality of redistribution.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm

drc2,your logic is from haven,people with your logic should be running the world educational system. The 1% representers can never expand their mind to even answer a question directly,much less follow a logical train of thought.That tell you,they`re on a "distraction agenda". May God have mercy on them.

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Do u really think there is no difference between public andprivate sector unions?

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm

Wow, DRC2, you are wrong on all three accounts. If this was a baseball game it would be strike one, strike two, strike three you're out of here!

We are so far apart, I won't even bother to make any more response other than to say that if you feel that the government can create a job you live on a different planet than I do!

And you do get a little close in your first point that a good employer will recognize that good employees are worth keeping and it is worth the effort to keep them happy. However employees are an expense, so as an employee you had better be generatating value to your employer above and beyond what you are getting paid, or out the door you will go.

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 6:45 pm

How do you communicate with people who vision is limited? How do you communicate with people who don`t want to expand there vision? You don`t,you let God or the Devil communicate with them!

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Of course anyone who disagrees with you has limited vision, obviously. The problem is, the are a whole of us out there, and we will show up at the polls in November, just like we did in November of 2010.

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 6:45 pm

The only people who still trust elections is the 1%,why? Because they "steal them"!

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

At the end of the day, an election is still one person, one vote. I'm not saying that money can't influence an election, but even in the most corrupt system, a dollar bill has never voted. Dead people yes, dollar bils no.

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 6:45 pm

At the end of the day,which would you rather to have,the power of dead people voting or the influence money? Can money expand a limited view?

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Perhaps, what is needed is a blend of data, expertise, critical thinking, and judgment. What is the total dollar amount that working people have contributed so far to the financial community? Can a credit union be created and funded by that money? Can cooperatives be created and funded via this credit union? Can these cooperatives design, build, manufacture, and sell innovative products and technologies? Can these cooperatives compete with imported products? Can these cooperatives create jobs? Can these jobs generate enough income to pay household bills? A rather extreme example: a cooperative wants to initiate entrepreneurial activities in the celestial bodies in our solar system (Moon, asteroids, Mars, etc). For instance, mining exploration using robotics. The idea is to obtain raw materials that are needed in this planet for industrial applications but are really scarce. Clearly, many cooperatives are needed with different technological expertise: robotics, aerospace engineering, mining machinery, etc. The structure is simply a joint venture between many cooperatives. The goal is to generate wealth for everybody that is involved at any level with the project. There are some important issues that require careful attention to detail and diligent implementation: how to prevent corruption, how to avoid unethical behavior, how to ensure the accomplishment of intended goals, how to organize the interaction between all component structures without creating a faceless bureaucracy, etc. The nature of these problems is self-evident but the solution is not necessarily obvious. Certainly, decent and honest people involved in the project is a must. Hard-working, motivated, bright people are clearly needed to solve the problems that lie ahead. However, there is a lingering problem that has to be addressed: changing the culture. It is ridiculous to expect that people who have made "greed is good" their religion and worship personal gain above all else can contribute effectively to any of these cooperatives. Individuality is best recognized through fair play and achievement. Meritocracy has been criticized because the system has become rotten to the core and those who currently are at the top are not the best and the brightest but the scum that has nothing to offer to the 99% of the population. Having mentioned caveats and warnings, the task is daunting but not impossible. Many times, people were told that a lot of things were simply impossible. Many geniuses were ridiculed by those who claimed they knew better. A quick look at history books shows that these geniuses who were able to survive and succeed despite the odds have their names in our collective memory. What about those in positions of power and authority who readily dismissed the geniuses? Nobody rememebers their names.

cachough's picture
cachough
Joined:
Jun. 26, 2012 5:41 pm

Cach,a very very wise post,all i can add is, we know for a fact the present economic systems are failures,so we better head back to the "drawing broad". Having a system of "two heads are better than one" move pass a system of, " two heads in competition" would be the next logical step?

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Are there not countless cooperatives and credit unions now?

WorkerBee's picture
WorkerBee
Joined:
Apr. 28, 2012 12:22 pm

They all have no power over the economic kings as much as one stock holder has any power over the CEO of the corp. When we have power of our money the same as our political votes ,then the economic kings will have respect us. A true public bank can give political power to our money,instead of moving our feet with change,we "move our money"! We move from 'special interest economics' to "civilize economics". All members of a public bank will have the same vote,whether they have $1 or $1 million,a true economic democracy.

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Sorry capitalism, with all its faults, is the only economic system that works in the real world.

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 6:45 pm

Mau,the more you guys express yourself,the more you look like you`re from another world. A system that has the planet on its death-bed,is the only system that works?

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

OK, show me a system that has worked better in the real world.

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 6:45 pm

A truly democratic government system(tax-payers) bail out capitalism & communism,what more do you need? Where would we be without FDR "New Deal",some say there would have been a "revolution" without it,and we still had WW2. We the people don`t get control of our economics from special interests,"may God have mercy on this planet".

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Ok im Down with that but unless u contribute more than u take you don't get a voice.

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 9:48 am
Quote tayl44:

They all have no power over the economic kings as much as one stock holder has any power over the CEO of the corp. When we have power of our money the same as our political votes ,then the economic kings will have respect us. A true public bank can give political power to our money,instead of moving our feet with change,we "move our money"! We move from 'special interest economics' to "civilize economics". All members of a public bank will have the same vote,whether they have $1 or $1 million,a true economic democracy.

Where do you think you as an individual would have more say in the operations, a Nation wide federally run bank or at a local credit union?

WorkerBee's picture
WorkerBee
Joined:
Apr. 28, 2012 12:22 pm

Currently Chatting

Time to Rethink the War on Terror

Thom plus logo

When Eric Holder eventually steps down as Attorney General, he will leave behind a complicated legacy, some of it tragic, like his decision not to prosecute Wall Street after the financial crisis, and his all-out war on whistleblowers like Edward Snowden.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system