From: joshb@xs4all.nl
On 2020-08-05, Blaine Fasulo wrote:
> Jos Boersema wrote:
>
>> If a business is using the bulk of an average person their productive
>> capacity for a year, the employee(s) have the right to buy themselves
>> an equal ownership in that business.
>
> absolutely, but that's just another flavour of dirty stinking parasitic
> "investor" neo-liberal capitalism.
Thank you for your reply. I'm sorry to have to dismiss your remark.
These people now working together in a business, are not parasites
on each other, it is not laissez fair Capitalism (due to laws like this,
and others, especially the law of land by right), and it has nothing
to do with investors.
Example: Blaine has played around a lot with his bike as a boy, and
he became known to his friends and family as someone who could fix
their vehicles and other appliances. Upon growing up, he realized
he could turn his experience in a business, to earn a living.
Since he has his free land, he has a place to do it. He set out to pick
strawberries on the hills of the Ardennes, and came back with enough
money to buy the materials for his first vehicle repair shed. For
an average two month wage, he put the shed up on his land, the part
he had near the city (industrial free land parcels). The parcels where
not large at 10×20 meter, but enough for the job. Two months later he
had it fixed.
After working alone for a few years, he had saved enough money to add
a brick office space and some other good stuff to his business. Since
he isn't in any sort of debt, his business is indestructable. It can
never go bankrupt. Even with zero clients for any length of time, the
business would still exist ready to go as if nothing was wrong. That
is what free land and savings do for a man. No debt paraticism.
Now come the day that he gets so busy, he can no longer clean the
business himself. He is getting overworked. So, he hires a cleaner
for three hours a week. Every friday the cleaner comes along. The
cleaner does not have the right to buy into the business, because
the bike repair shop is not using the bulk of one average person
their capacity over the course of a year, or more.
Business keeps going well, and he is looking to hire a new mechanic.
He gets someone from a school who wants to learn the craft. He hires
the person first only part time, because he is scared of loosing
control over his business. It turns out this new person was not that
good, so he lets him go. Then another person shows up and he hires
him, also part time. This person is a good mechanic. Before long
he is hiring this man for almost a year.
Now comes the point where the new employee can buy himself into the
business. It is also possible that the owner will try to stay well
under the limit of having one employee for a full year, full time,
but however which way he cuts it with part time or multiple people,
he will have a choice to make between growing his business over
this threshold and risking it becoming a co-operative, or staying
very small.
The employees have their own choice to make. They can just stay
employees, or buy into the business after the business has crossed
the threshhold. If they buy in, they will have to more or less
buy half of the business, if they are the first one. After the sale,
both sides have payed for half what the business is worth, in turms
of its shed, brick office space, tools and other goodies. Maybe
some employees in the future do *not* want to buy in, simply because
they are happy already and don't think it is convenient to pay the
sum, or they think about moving soon anyway, etc.
Everything is really quite fair. If you don't understand that after
reading the above, I'm at a loss at how to explain it to you. What
paraticism ?
> The main issue here is, the production
> of goods and services then distribution. By the people to the people.
> Banks, fiat money, investors, parasites etc capitalist crap, are not
> required and are to be avoided. In an computer algorithm, for instance,
> those task are optimized *_out_*, using CPU/MCU time and resources
> producing nothing of benefit.
People are not computers. Computers are programmed by people, which
means that if you follow orders of a computer, you are actually
following the orders of the person who programmed it.
Banks did not facter in to this mechanism of business co-operative.
Private fiat money did neither, although I think money as a public
fiat is a good system.
Investors did not factor in to this mechanism, although if someone
insists they could get a loan. In my proposed system there are special
laws to prevent loan paracitism, including the nullification of the
loan after 7 year of the sum for which there is no collateral.
I suspect you aren't a computer programmer of any sort ? Do you even
understand what you are proposing ? Do you honestly think it can work,
to wake up every day, and during breakfast you see on some monitor on
the wall what “the computer” wants you to do that day ? Such a system
sounds to me like some of the worst of dictatorship. Where is the
human element, where is your freedom ? Where is the element of two
or more people talking and deciding together, in their co-operative
for instance. Isn't that what life and being human is about ?
Who put you up to this, have you been influenced by “Zeitgeist”
propaganda on youtube ? I would rather not be a robot, thanks but
no thanks. Looking forward to your reply.
--
https://market.socialism.nl How economics works, and how to get it fixed.
Free Julian Assange and all other people attacked by western Fascism.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
