Public Cash In (+15 characters)

Business may become the new boogeyman. Profit efficiency and ideas like it could easily be used by the public to take back power, assets and income from business in a permanent way. Decentralization and cord cutting are the beginning.

Power comes from providing goods and services that the public chooses to buy.

You cannot take power away from businesses and give it to somebody else because power isn’t something you can pass around like a 9 volt battery. If a business provides services that people purchase, they gain power. If they fail to provide services the public wants to buy, they lose power. If you take power from those who make things and give it to those who do not make things, then nothing will change, because there is no power in doing nothing, and power is always generated by those who produce…

If you give a moron a million dollars they will not have a million dollars for long, as the lottery proves over and over again…

The aim ought to be killing the goverment sector. oligopolies, and cronyism. Business is good. Those things are parasites…

Business in aggregate (“oligopolies, croynism”) needs to change just as much as the state. Organizations like MaidSafe need more opportunity and access and backwards entities like Adobe need less. Not everything goes, organizations that clearly harm or undermine society need to go under. The broken IP system is another example, as is the stockmarket, as is banking, also energy-media-pharma-telecom. Business must change. We need more fully employee owned firms.

The folks I work for put fruit in boxes and ship it to the supermarket. I don’t think they are very evil.

When you bash on 'business" you are mostly talking about folks like them. Find a different word if you are talking about something else…

Its not small business, its the fortune 1000 and associates.

1 You didn’t specify.

2 Most of my customers sell under brands that are household names.

3 How big is too big? If a small business is successful it becomes a big business. Which was my point in the first place. You cannot make them small. People want what they have to sell, and they don’t want what your powerless guy doesn’t have to sell… If your powerless guy had a product he would also have power, and Warren would be trying to tear him down as well…

Higher wages, or the competitive wage from the other thread, less hours, a lot more time off, much better benefits and much better protections, privacy and democracy in the work place, all of which the better informed unrigged vote can provide. As unemployement has spread the share going to capital had increased from 25% to about 50% even as productivity is way up and worker protections have dropped. Nothing justifies this. Its reaching in the point in the US where most people can’t take on more debt and cant sustain their buying habits without it. The bankruptcy protections which kept lender skin in the game are largely gone and the rates are usurious.

So again the share going to capital is not justified by an increasingly extractive and undermining contribution. In a working system no business can get away with raising or lowering costs without a corresponding increase in value its offering provide.

Your answer in no way addressed my comments…

My answer points put that this type of change seems inevitable.

Change to more of the same. As my points assert in a manner that you absolutely failed to address…

You can take power away from some and give it to others, but power will always flow back to it’s natural buoyancy.

If you shake vinegar and oil it can stay mixed for a few minutes, but it always goes back…

Those who have products that the public want will always have the power… You might be able to mix that up for a short time, but it will always re-stratify.

You cannot legislate that power ought to be distributed to the powerless any more than you can legislate that oil and water mix…

That is simply not the case unless you think monarchy is the only form of arrangement over the long haul. We spent the vast majority of our time on this planet free of it and free of the unnecessary power differiential.

No. Monarchy is a different beast. They do not get their power from providing products to consumers… That is a different form of power…

I am not talking about military might, I am talking about economic power. Economic power will ALWAYS flow to the people who have products that consumers want to buy. Trying to change that is impossible as it is to mix oil and water…

Care to convolute again Or are you going to engage the arguments I have laid out for why that is the case?

That stuff about commerce is secondary at best. We’re wired for a hunter gatherer level of excertion and motivation. It was a permaculture situation with some migration or roaming. To recreate something with the flavor of our natural habitat give each person a plot a tractor and say sink, swim or beg. Other then that we end up with the common defense and welfare- we can use birth control but we can’t just kill off those that don’t fit or encourage starvation. We can also tie it to play and attempt to encourage real human development for peace and stability.

Even in subsistance economies the guy who grew the grain and baked the bread had far more power than the guy who didn’t.

Economic Power comes from creation of products.

Open source technology is the best method for re-stratifying economic power because it lessens the barriers to entry for folks who want to create… But when they create - they become business, and they trade their creations for power. There is nothing wrong with that. That is what we want.

And when they are very successful they need to be very big business in order to deliver the volumes of products demanded… Logistics of ordering accepting delievery of supplies, assembling products, shipping and distributing products, selling products, and replacing or servicing products is more than on guy will ever be able to accomplish at much scale. Businesses exist for a reason.

In the hunter gather period it was probably the gal doing any food prep and not sure it afforded much power. In the feudal subsistence period the power of the guildes and merchants supports the point.

But that economic power especially for open level playing field oppotunity and innonvation needs to be circumscribed so its not raw unmitigated political power or human nature will then step in close stuff up.

I don’t think we are going back to the hunter gatherer period. In those days there was a drought and your kids died…

Yah, that would be an improvement over having some greedy jerks…

I would rather keep businesses around, thank you.

We have it pretty darn good… If you look for oppression or you just want to stir up political discontent then you can find things to label as oppressive, but if they truely where oppressive, You wouldn’t afforded the opportunity to sit around being critical all day – the oppressors would come and get you…

Vigilence is a virtue, its not a static situation, its moving toward a better situation for most people or away. The reasons for crack down are almost never compelling, and if its allowed its generally going to increase.