Why can't people pool themselves and start companies with guaranteed labor instead..

[Braznor]

...instead of share capital which is just paper money?

Imagine there is a pool of talented engineers, technicians, skilled workers and uhm...uhm... managers too, all of them unemployed?

Why can't the state help them find employment for them by guaranteeing them capital credits and help them start companies especially the manufacturing segment of your country? The employees and state could both hold shares in the company or association so created. And heck with a 'made in America by Americans stamp' and good products, such companies could start off with enormous goodwill and lots of assured customers. Such a business model might even go a long way towards solving unemployment problems and raise the living standards of your country for the economic betterment of all your citizens.

Instead of bailing out bankers, why can't your government help your people bail out themselves out of economic and employment deprivation using such a business plan? Will it become too much of a threat to the current plutocrats of your country?

 

[sixone]

Who gets to decide what the goal of the business is? The government? What if the government is subsidizing competition for an existing company, which might not be able to compete with the subsidized business?

 

[Sho'Nuff]

I think this is a very bad idea.

1. I doubt there is a pool of "talented" engineers, etc., out there who are unemployed.

2. Unless you are proposing an entirely new economic paradigm (e.g., commune's of yesteryear), businesses need to make money . . . not simply employ people.

3. The government (state) already provides tons of assistance to small businesses. State guarantees of capital credit would make your proposed new businesses (most of which will likely fail) wards of the state. It is essentially communism . . . or at least a clear road to communism.

4. Communism employs everyone, true. But it has been tried on numerous occasions and at numerous times, and has failed spectacularly in almost all instances except one (China), and that one "success" came from relaxing traditional communist and isolationist policies.

5. I don't think the government should have bailed out bankers. I think those banks (and AIG) should have been allowed to fail. It would have hurt, sure. But sometimes the best lessons are the most painful ones.

6. Finally - you have not proposed a business plan. Ergo my vote is that this is a very bad idea because you are using improper terminology to cloak a bad idea with more palatable language.

 

[BladeVenom]

Why can't the state help them find employment for them by guaranteeing them capital credits and help them start companies especially the manufacturing segment of your country?

New businesses have a very high failure rate. It would be even higher if the government funded them.

 

[Kroze]

History has proved again and again that liberal utopia only work in theory. Man is flawed. It always end up in dictatorship/communism.

 

[sixone]

History has proved again and again that liberal utopia only work in theory. Man is flawed. It always end up in dictatorship/communism.

...and then it veered back towards capitalism.

 

[Kroze]

...and then it veered back towards capitalism.

Academia have a name for this cycle too.

 

[Braznor]

1. I doubt there is a pool of "talented" engineers, etc., out there who are unemployed.

In such an organization. the need for extremely talented people in such divisions will be very few. The backbone of employment instead will be dependent on a large pool of motivated trained workers who might have been good at their jobs, but still got laid off because of outsourcing of manufacturing due to off shoring or stupid ass management decisions to increase short profits.

2. Unless you are proposing an entirely new economic paradigm (e.g., commune's of yesteryear), businesses need to make money . . . not simply employ people.

If I recall, Israel had these work communes in its initial years of existence and they had been vital during the initial years of that nation. I cannot understand why such a business model cannot work out of Americans especially since you have so much tremendous resources as compared to Israel now or then.

3. The government (state) already provides tons of assistance to small businesses. State guarantees of capital credit would make your proposed new businesses (most of which will likely fail) wards of the state. It is essentially communism . . . or at least a clear road to communism.

4. Communism employs everyone, true. But it has been tried on numerous occasions and at numerous times, and has failed spectacularly in almost all instances except one (China), and that one "success" came from relaxing traditional communist and isolationist policies.

A company owned by employees is very different from a company owned by the state (communism) In the business model I proposed, the employees hold the shares of the companies largely by themselves and state just ensures its share of capital is given due protection and both the employees and the state will hold directorships. The state could even step out of the business once its share has been paid off by the employees using the revenues to buy off the shares held by the state.
[/QUOTE]

In terms of communism, there were/are multiple points of failure. Chief amongst them are lack of motivation on part of the employees, repression, zero stake on part of the employees to share in the profits and bad market evaluative decisions and too much focus on defense spending. If you take the example of the China of today, you will notice that much of these early communist mistakes do not exist in the new Chinese model nor in the model I'm proposing.

5. I don't think the government should have bailed out bankers. I think those banks (and AIG) should have been allowed to fail. It would have hurt, sure. But sometimes the best lessons are the most painful ones.

The most important criteria for the bailout should not have been survival of the bankers, but instead the guarantee not to repeat the decisions which about the bankruptcy in the first place. Again this same criteria could extend to the business model I proposed and an agency to oversee such critical decisions may need not be done by the government itself, but instead a private agency similar to one rating current stocks and bonds.

6. Finally - you have not proposed a business plan. Ergo my vote is that this is a very bad idea because you are using improper terminology to cloak a bad idea with more palatable language.

You are free to vote as your wish and I already provided for this option in the poll. I recommend we continue on this discussion especially in light of the answers I responded with for the points in your post. Good idea or bad idea, any civil discussion is always a good thing

 

[Braznor]

New businesses have a very high failure rate. It would be even higher if the government funded them.

Any new business is a risky venture. But that doesn't mean new businesses shouldn't be started.

 

[Braznor]

...and then it veered back towards capitalism.

Communism is the longest road towards capitalism. ^_^

 

[Kroze]

Communism is the longest road towards capitalism. ^_^

Communism is nothing more than separating the have and have not, there's no middle class.

The 'have not' will suffer tremendously for a long time because it's "longest road towards capitalism."

You obviously have no idea what it is like to live under communist rule, it's not a utopia.

 

[Braznor]

Communism is nothing more than separating the have and have not, there's no middle class.

The 'have not' will suffer tremendously for a long time because it's "longest road towards capitalism."

You obviously have no idea what it is like to live under communist rule, it's not a utopia.

No thanks, I dislike both communism and socialism. And the concept I propose is neither of these since the businesses will be allowed to retain the profits for themselves. Just instead of shareholders, the beneficiaries will be the motivated employees who run the company with some extent of monitoring from an external agency (either private or government or a combination of two) And again the monitoring is done not to control the objectives of the company, but chiefly to ensure compliance with best practices.

 

[Drako]

I wish I understood the OPs question.

I do not understand what that run on sentence means. Can anyone explain?

 

[sixone]

No thanks, I dislike both communism and socialism. And the concept I propose is neither of these since the businesses will be allowed to retain the profits for themselves. Just instead of shareholders, the beneficiaries will be the motivated employees who run the company with some extent of monitoring from an external agency (either private or government or a combination of two) And again the monitoring is done not to control the objectives of the company, but chiefly to ensure compliance with best practices.

Best for whom? Will the company be allowed to take the same tax deductions that any other business would be taking, or are they required to pay more because they can?

What if they want to lobby the same government who is providing their financial support?

 

[Braznor]

Best for whom? Will the company be allowed to take the same tax deductions that any other business would be taking, or are they required to pay more because they can?

What if they want to lobby the same government who is providing their financial support?

The best practices I'm referring to are similar to ISO standard certification for current companies. The best practices phrase I mentioned are not geared towards anyone in their personal personal capacity, but instead are focused upon the company itself and how it conducts its operations under efficient and safe documented standards already set for established organizations operating today.

Again the concept of tax is irrelevant as the company is still a private concern, just with its employees as the shareholders alongwith other partners like the bank and maybe the government. TThe company could be taxed as a normal company would be done so and maybe be spared of taxation for the first few operational years of existence. This itself could be a bonus when it comes to attracting funding from banks.

Again the government need not fund the such companies directly, instead they could simply make the banks fund the capital for the company in its initial years after proper due market and business plan analysis done by external agencies with the right competency to do so. It cannot get any worse than what is already wrong with traditional funding model of existing companies anyway.

When it comes to lobbying, such employee pooled companies will more or less be the same as compared to the current shareholder held ones.

 

[Braznor]

I wish I understood the OPs question.

I do not understand what that run on sentence means. Can anyone explain?

Let me explain it again:

What if people could pool their talents, skills and ideas together? What if the plan is found to be reasonably viable and such companies could arrange to get loans from the banks with the help of the government to begin their initial startup operations?

Note: This idea is being proposed chiefly for manufacturing companies.

 

[Kroze]

You mean like proposing a business plan to the SBA? shocking i know.

Anyway, there's so much fail I don't have the time to argue. I summed it all up on post #5.

Judging from the voting, OP should at least vote one for himself because the rest of the population think his idea is stupid.

 

[Braznor]

You mean like proposing a business plan to the SBA? shocking i know.

Anyway, there's so much fail I don't have the time to argue. I summed it all up on post #5.

Judging from the voting, OP should at least vote one for himself because the rest of the population think his idea is stupid.

Thank you for the encouragement. :biggrin:

 

[Braznor]

Communism is nothing more than separating the have and have not, there's no middle class.

The 'have not' will suffer tremendously for a long time because it's "longest road towards capitalism."

You obviously have no idea what it is like to live under communist rule, it's not a utopia.

Again this idea is not about separating the have and have not. Instead it is all about the have nots associating themselves in such a way that they in turn have something aka the own economic empowerment in a civil, peaceful and capitalist manner.

The government won't be directly funding the company. Instead it will get funded by the banks after the proper evaluation of the business model and market in terms already existing for companies operating today.

Again, the government will not own such a company. The company will owned largely by the employees and other stakeholders like the bank or the VC funding the company initial capital.

Again, the profits of such a company will be more equitably distributed across the employees of the company and the banks/VC funding them. I repeat the government will have no share in the profits unless it fronts the initial capital by itself in which it will simply be a business partner and not the communist state.