Workism - a New Socioeconomic System

Phransisku said:

You continue to refuse to provide any source that supports what you're claiming. Therefore, and don't take this personally, your claim has little to no value.

Regarding the other cases you've mentioned:
- SBA loans are loans from the State. You can disregard that, since it would also be allowed in workism.
- Pooled investments are VC investments. They are within those 0.61% of the cases.
- Personal lines of credit and credit extensions are about the same thing. You are just dividing them so that your enumeration of cases seems larger. These cases are most probably like VC investments - less than 1%.

So now we have less than 2% of the businesses being funded with outside investment...."

Click to expand...

No, we do not. What we have is a case of denial from someone who has obviously never started a business and doesn't know anybody who has.

Think of the capital requirement to do something like open a restaurant or even a small coffee shop. How about a manufacturing center? A car dealership... that inventory isn't cheap, you know. All of these things, ALL of them cost a great deal of money which MOST people do not have. Investment in the form of credit is an absolute must. If you had even a hint of exposure to how these things work you wouldn't even try to argue the point.

This is only one aspect of your plan that raises a flag, though. The most troubling that I have uncovered so far is the fact that the state literally owns everything. You tried to camouflage that by phrasing it as "no inheritance" but that is really just a decoy to the fact that whatever you accumulate throughout the course of your life's work will be seized by the state upon your death. Now it belongs to the state and they control it. In essence, the state is the sole beneficiary of all of the wealth on Earth, forever. It would be an authoritarian nightmare similar to the one George Orwell wrote about in '1984'.

Jack Fabulous said:

No, we do not. What we have is a case of denial from someone who has obviously never started a business and doesn't know anybody who has.

Click to expand...

That must be you. You make false accusations about workism, I correct you, and you ignore it. There's no doubt you're in denial.

Look, I have no problem with you criticizing workism. That's why I created this topic in the first place. It was not to be praised. It was to have workism challanged by people with different views.
What bothers me is to see you making false claims about the system so that you can criticize it. Aren't you able to criticize workism for what it is? It seems you're not.

False claims like these (which are in the very same post):

Jack Fabulous said:

the state literally owns everything. You tried to camouflage that by phrasing it as "no inheritance" but that is really just a decoy to the fact that whatever you accumulate throughout the course of your life's work will be seized by the state upon your death.

Click to expand...

The State does not own everything. That's simply not true. Whatever you accumulate throughout the course of your life's work will NOT necessarily be seized by the State upon your death. If you spent 5 minutes reading the chapter about no bequests, you would read this: "Wealth that nobody deserves should go to everybody. It does not matter if it would go to the State (which represents everybody) or directly to each individual. That decision has to do with how societies are organized.". So, any money or property could go directly to each individual of the country. And companies, as you very well know would go to the other founders that are yet alive. And, if there are none, they would go to the workers. Again, not the State.

This is what bothers me. You lie, I correct you, and now I know for sure this correction will be ignored. Because you can't argue against facts.

I don't need you to say that workism is the best system ever invented. I don't need you to say one single good thing about it. You can criticize it all you want. I just need you to stop making false claims. Is that much to ask?

Phransisku said:

I don't think it would be problematic. Please read post #68.

There are shovels for as low as $6:
Shovels - Digging Tools - The Home Depot
Who hasn't that kind of money?

Financing is allowed in workism. Please read the chapter "Corollary 3: No Financial Gains" of the article (https://workismblog.wordpress.com/).

Click to expand...

But you start off with nothing. How do you make that initial $6?

And further, this was but an example. A farmer is also far more productive with an ox, or a tractor. Are you saying he has to work for years to afford that equipment instead of being able to produce more food now? How is that beneficial?

Phransisku said:

That must be you. You make false accusations about workism, I correct you, and you ignore it. There's no doubt you're in denial.

Look, I have no problem with you criticizing workism. That's why I created this topic in the first place. It was not to be praised. It was to have workism challanged by people with different views.
What bothers me is to see you making false claims about the system so that you can criticize it. Aren't you able to criticize workism for what it is? It seems you're not.

Click to expand...

Nothing I stated was false including the observation that you have no experience with and no knowledge of business finance or investment. Starting, growing, and expanding a business requires capital investment in the form of loans, credit, or infusion of capital in the vast majority of cases. The fact that you even tried to suggest otherwise is laughable to the point that I'm not even going to waste my time debating it any further. When you can't even bring yourself to acknowledge something that obvious, what's the point?

Phransisku said:

The State does not own everything. That's simply not true. Whatever you accumulate throughout the course of your life's work will NOT necessarily be seized by the State upon your death. If you spent 5 minutes reading the chapter about no bequests, you would read this: "Wealth that nobody deserves should go to everybody. It does not matter if it would go to the State (which represents everybody) or directly to each individual. That decision has to do with how societies are organized.". So, any money or property could go directly to each individual of the country. And companies, as you very well know would go to the other founders that are yet alive. And, if there are none, they would go to the workers. Again, not the State.

This is what bothers me. You lie, I correct you, and now I know for sure this correction will be ignored. Because you can't argue against facts.

I don't need you to say that workism is the best system ever invented. I don't need you to say one single good thing about it. You can criticize it all you want. I just need you to stop making false claims. Is that much to ask?

Click to expand...

The state does too own everything. When you die the state assumes total control over your estate and everybody dies at some point. This means that everything on earth is controlled by the state. You can try to make that sound all nice and good by saying "it goes to everybody" but how many times in the past have we heard similar such lines of BS by people like Lennin, Mao, Castro, Chavez, etc...? But THIS time it will be different, right?

phattonez said:

But you start off with nothing. How do you make that initial $6?

And further, this was but an example. A farmer is also far more productive with an ox, or a tractor. Are you saying he has to work for years to afford that equipment instead of being able to produce more food now? How is that beneficial?

Click to expand...

How do I make the initial $6? Working. Being an employee and earning a salary. If I am a farmer and don't go to college, I will start working at 18 years old. I cannot expect to have my own farm right away at 18.

I think I understand your point. If I were able to receive something from my family, I would start far ahead. But you are missing the point. It's just not me who doesn't receive bequests from my parents, it's everybody. And that wealth will not disappear. I will receive, like anybody else, a considerable amount of money from all the departed of my country. Everybody will get the same. And I will receive much more than I would under capitalism, once my parents (poor farmers) are clearly below the average in terms of wealth. This means also that some people will receive less. Yes. The Rothschilds for example, the Kochs, the Goldmans, etc. Workism would end all those empires and balance the society and the economy through a meritocracy. Anyway, with the money I will receive from all those fortunes, I will definitely be better off than with my parents bequest, once I'm just a simple farmer. As you can see, this is extremely beneficial for me as a farmer.

Jack Fabulous said:

The state does too own everything. When you die the state assumes total control over your estate and everybody dies at some point. This means that everything on earth is controlled by the state. You can try to make that sound all nice and good by saying "it goes to everybody" but how many times in the past have we heard similar such lines of BS by people like Lennin, Mao, Castro, Chavez, etc...? But THIS time it will be different, right?

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. In more individualistic societies, the State assumes control over my belongings, sells them, gathers the money and distributes to everybody equally. The State gets nothing. Can't you admit that it's what is written in the article?

Phransisku said:

Wow, I just asked you to tell me what were the rules of that system and why did it fail.

Click to expand...

Phransisku:

Social Credit ideology in a nutshell is:

1) The economy exists so that consumers can acquire goods and services which they need to survive and prosper from producers. As long as the value of production equals the costs of production then the system is reasonably balanced and has some long-term stability. The role of producers is to satisfy the demands of consumers at a fair and sustainable price level rather than to make excessive profits from consumers. The role of the state is to safeguard this balance. Profit-taking inflates the cost of production requiring consumers to augment their incomes with debt in order to get out of the economy what they put into it by working and being remunerated for that work. Taxation like profit-taking throws the balance out of wack. The profit-taking, taxation, interest charges and all other extraneous expenses create an imbalance in the economy which hurts consumers and concentrates wealth in fewer and fewer hands.

2) The Achilles heel of any economy is that the point above results in a deficiency in consumer purchasing power since workers can never buy everything that is produced due to profit-taking, taxation, etc. Which is inflating prices above the cost of production. This creates an economic shortfall or gap in consumer consumption which slows and stalls the economy. Thus prices will always grow faster than incomes and this will lead to periodic stalls in economic growth as workers are forced to adjust their lifestyle downwards or are financially wiped out by accumulated debt and must start rebuilding their lives cyclically.

3) This gap has many causes [profit-taking (including profits from interest charges), deflationary banking policies, and taxation to name but a few]. However the main cause is the way in which real capital (machines and equipment) are financed and the way in which their costs are then accounted under existing conventions (depreciation). Whenever real capital is manufactured or replaced, the capital costs that are generated exceed the consumer incomes that are simultaneously distributed.

4) The political-economy tries to accomodate this gap with institutional measures like positive foreign trade and capital account balances, commercial bankruptcy, government subsidies, tax cuts and tax-holidays but none of these really work over the long-term. Thus debt accumulation by consumers, producers and the state is the only mechanism to re-establish this balance in the economy for an extended period of time. The borrowing allows consumers and businesses to consume beyond their means and thus closes the economic gap between the value of production remuneration and the value of consumption. The debt accumulates until all are in thrall to the creditors.

5) The Social Credit solution to the vexing problem of the production/consumption gap is to have a politically independent organ of the state, a National Credit Office, issue a sufficient volume of credit on a regular basis so that consumers can purchase the ‘surplus’ of goods and services that are being produced by them as workers. This credit is to be issued free of debt and in lieu of all of the conventional palliatives that are presently employed in attempting to manage the gap. The credit comes from nowhere and is a legal construct. It is cheaper than allowing banks which charge interest to create money(credit) by fractional reserve banking and is no less artificial than what the banking industry does.

That in a nutshell is the Social Credit ideology.

Why didn't it work? Two reasons. One, you can't create credit out of thin air unless you're a very skilled trickster with legions of accountants to obscure what you're doing and financial privacy laws which allow you to hide the trick legally. Governments can't do that. The second reason is that bankers didn't like the competition in financial sleight of hand from the state and did everything they could to first discredit and then co-opt the Social Credit movement, depite it giving the same power to the state that banks do routinely to make their profits. Alas, bankers are better liars.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Phransisku said:

No, it doesn't. In more individualistic societies, the State assumes control over my belongings, sells them, gathers the money and distributes to everybody equally. The State gets nothing. Can't you admit that it's what is written in the article?

Click to expand...

In THIS society, there is something called a will and trust. Belongings are distributed according to the wishes of the deceased. In your hypothetical society there is no such thing. You die, the state gets everything. Your heirs get no more than anyone else.

In reading through your blog it really jumps off the page that the whole idea of "workism" is designed to prevent inheritance and by using the power of the state, "distribute" wealth earned by an individual to people who did nothing at all to earn it.

Phransisku:

I did reread your article and then your responses. In the balance I think Workism is not going to successfully replace either capitalism or socialism, as it ignores the two main drivers of human nature - greed and altruism. Capitalism and its more pernicious cousin 'corporatism' have utilized greed to drive human behaviour in what is usually seen to be constructive societal behaviour (albeit the definition of "constructive" includes war, exploitation, genocide and colonialism). Socialism, notions of democracy and Judeo-Christian-Islamic religious traditions have used altruism to move people to constuctive societal behaviour (albeit the definition of "constructive" includes pogroms, inquisitions, religious wars, ideological wars, liquidations of non-cooperative populations (some on the scale of genocide) and gulags) to name but a few.

I don't see people buying into an mono-polar, altruistic economic system when greed is so deeply rooted in the Western psyche. Unfortunately, we all are conditioned to exploit each other and to try and get the best deal for ourselves. We then turn around and assuage our guilt by acting altruistically through raising children, helping family members, volunteer work, charity, public service and/or participating in religious community. We are all caught in an eternal tug-of-war between greed (the self) and altruism (the many) and only systems which pit these two polar drivers against each other in an opposed, dynamic equilibrium will likely succeed. Unless you can figure out how to socially re-engineer much of the Western population with great speed and intensity, I fear Workism is a non-starter as it ignores human nature as it exists at this moment. Workism like the Chartists of the 19th Century and the Diggers and Levellers of 17th Century England is noble but incompatible with the majority of people today.

Sorry to sound so negative but you asked for honest feed-back.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Phransisku said:

You haven't answered my question: "If workism is stealing, so is communism and capitalism. Would you admit that?". I'm still waiting for your answer.

As for your questions, it varies from company to company. In some cases, workers perform their duties completely restricted to what their formal responsibilities are. In other cases, workers dedicate their lives to the enterprise. In some hierarchies, workers only do what they're told. In others, they actively contribute to the company's direction and prosperity.
Overall, there's no doubt that employees (from their various hierarchical levels) did far more for the firm's continuation and growth than the State or the founders' families. Don't you agree?



Did you really read the article?? I don't think so. Please read it. You'll see that in workism no business is taken from anybody and everyone is allowed to own his/her own business.



1 - You said: "the founder put in a TON of effort and work, and risk to get Wal-Mart up and going. He did this to make his life and his families lives better. YOU and your idea would ROB them of that."
2 - Workism would not rob anybody's property, only the possibility to give it to someone else. That's what socioeconomic systems do. They impose rules that restrict the game, that rob people of some possibilities (if you want to put it that way). Capitalism, for example, impose bequests to the family. It robs the workers of their company's dead founder. That's why I replied: "Do you know who also put in a ton of effort and work to make Walmart what it is today? Its workers. And each worker did that to make his/her life and his/her families lives better. Would you rob them of that?".
3 - This goes beyond socioeconomic systems. There are rules in societies that do not live in anarchy. That's why I replied: "In any civilized society, murder is illegal. People are robbed of that possibility. Is that stealing?".



The right of the workers over the company. Like workism robs the right of the family over the company. But you only seem to see that robbery in workism. Somehow, you don't see a very similar robbery in capitalism. I wonder why...

Click to expand...

The workers dont have a right to the company. They have a right to the wages and benefits they agreed to when they were hired. Nothing more nothing less. You don't get to just make things up and call them rights.

Evilroddy said:

Social Credit ideology in a nutshell is:

...

That in a nutshell is the Social Credit ideology.

Why didn't it work? Two reasons. One, you can't create credit out of thin air unless you're a very skilled trickster with legions of accountants to obscure what you're doing and financial privacy laws which allow you to hide the trick legally. Governments can't do that. The second reason is that bankers didn't like the competition in financial sleight of hand from the state and did everything they could to first discredit and then co-opt the Social Credit movement, depite it giving the same power to the state that banks do routinely to make their profits. Alas, bankers are better liars.

Click to expand...

Thank you, Evilroddy.

From what I could understand, the social credit ideology in a nutshell is:
- The State controlling prices in order to force zero profits.
- But, since workers can never buy everything that is produced, this leads to a gap in consumer consumption which slows and stalls the economy.
- Thus debt accumulation by consumers, producers and the State is the only mechanism to re-establish the balance.
- The State issues a sufficient volume of credit on a regular basis so that consumers can purchase the ‘surplus’ of goods and services that are being produced by them as workers.

Now I understand why you said that workism sounds a lot like an employee-oriented version of the social credit movement.

However, I disagree. The social credit ideology is already employee-oriented, like communism is. Actually, there is a branch of communism that is called workerism, which stands for the workers' rights and needs. In my view, the social credit ideology has its focus on the society, communism on the community and workerism on the workers. Those, in my opinion, are all serveral forms of communism.

Workism is different, once its focus in on work. And work is not just about the workers. It's also about the economy. This means that workism's concerns are not just about the workers' rights and needs. They are also about an economy oriented to the maximization of wealth creation, even more than in capitalism.

Jack Fabulous said:

In THIS society, there is something called a will and trust. Belongings are distributed according to the wishes of the deceased. In your hypothetical society there is no such thing. You die, the state gets everything. Your heirs get no more than anyone else.

In reading through your blog it really jumps off the page that the whole idea of "workism" is designed to prevent inheritance and by using the power of the state, "distribute" wealth earned by an individual to people who did nothing at all to earn it.

Click to expand...

Let me thank you for your honest answer, as it is very revealing of what your true ideas are. I'm being serious, I'm not joking. Part of today's capitalists think like you. And I always wondered what their opinion (as well as the opinion of communists) would be about workism. The other part may think differently and prefer workism once they know about it. I just don't know how significant is each of those parts.

You equate "your descedents get no more than anyone else" to "the State gets everything". This is very revealing. I always thought that the capitalists' problem with a big State was that it tends to be dysfunctional. Then, I was used to see the dysfunctional State in our society as a sick leg that communists wanted to cure while capitalists wanted to cut it right away. As a patient, I have always liked more the first option (after all, I value my leg) but I wasn't sure of what's the best decision (the "doctors" are the specialists, not me).
But now I see (with your equation) that, even in the most straightforward performance (impossible to be dysfunctional), the State isn't well seen either. In this very simple example, the State would only be the intermediary between the belongings of a dead person and the receivers of that wealth. Not only that, your equation assumes a State that is for the people, that works, that is functional. So much so that you consider "anyone else" to be "the State".

Once again, thank you for your honesty. I never saw a capitalist being so free from hypocrisy.

Evilroddy said:

I did reread your article and then your responses. In the balance I think Workism is not going to successfully replace either capitalism or socialism, as it ignores the two main drivers of human nature - greed and altruism. Capitalism and its more pernicious cousin 'corporatism' have utilized greed to drive human behaviour in what is usually seen to be constructive societal behaviour (albeit the definition of "constructive" includes war, exploitation, genocide and colonialism). Socialism, notions of democracy and Judeo-Christian-Islamic religious traditions have used altruism to move people to constuctive societal behaviour (albeit the definition of "constructive" includes pogroms, inquisitions, religious wars, ideological wars, liquidations of non-cooperative populations (some on the scale of genocide) and gulags) to name but a few.

I don't see people buying into an mono-polar, altruistic economic system when greed is so deeply rooted in the Western psyche. Unfortunately, we all are conditioned to exploit each other and to try and get the best deal for ourselves. We then turn around and assuage our guilt by acting altruistically through raising children, helping family members, volunteer work, charity, public service and/or participating in religious community. We are all caught in an eternal tug-of-war between greed (the self) and altruism (the many) and only systems which pit these two polar drivers against each other in an opposed, dynamic equilibrium will likely succeed. Unless you can figure out how to socially re-engineer much of the Western population with great speed and intensity, I fear Workism is a non-starter as it ignores human nature as it exists at this moment. Workism like the Chartists of the 19th Century and the Diggers and Levellers of 17th Century England is noble but incompatible with the majority of people today.

Sorry to sound so negative but you asked for honest feed-back.

Click to expand...

Thank you very much for your feedback. And don't be sorry if it sounds negative, it's your honest feedback and that's what is important. And, actually, I find it very interesting. Never had thought that way before. Your view is trully insightful (as a side note, please continue to give honest feedbacks as they are helping me a lot).

After reflecting on it, I challenge 2 points:

1 - I believe human nature evolves along the time. Today it is driven by greed and altruism, tomorrow might be different. In the past, I'm sure it was not about greed and altruism. Hundreds or thousands of years ago, we definitely had much more basic concerns. Even in regards to religion (to pick an example you have mentioned), before we had much more the need for it. Nowadays atheism is getting larger and larger. In the past, each couple had many more childreen than what they have today. That's human nature... changing. We change. So don't believe our driving forces will always remain the same.

2 - Greed, to some extent, does produce constructive societal behaviour. But, it some cases, it doesn't and we all know it. That's why many of us see the word "greed" in a negative way. And, when we want to refer to it in a positive way, we use the word "ambition". To perceive this difference, take a look at Google's definition of these 2 terms:
Greed = intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food
Ambition = a strong desire to do or to achieve something, typically requiring determination and hard work

In light of these definitions, I would say that capitalism appeals to greed while workism appeals to ambition. And I can tell you there are already a lot of people in this world that are not greedy but do have ambition. In workism, there's always incentive to start and run businesses. After all, unlike the social credit ideology, workism allows for profits and does not limit them. In workism, Mark Zuckerberg would be filthy rich (as he is in capitalism). And no, I don't think (as many do) he would be disincentivized to creating Facebook if he knew from the start that his children would not inherit anything of it. On the other hand, in workism, the Rothchilds would stop being the wealthiest family in the world. Their money, or at least the part that does not come from the work of their living family members (which must account for more than 99% of it), would go to everybody and perhaps everybody would have a little more chance to start their own businesses and be successful. I think this positive wave would more than offset all those who would not start anything because their kids would get nothing from it.

braindrain said:

The workers dont have a right to the company. They have a right to the wages and benefits they agreed to when they were hired. Nothing more nothing less. You don't get to just make things up and call them rights.

Click to expand...

When there was slavery, the slaves didn't have the right to be free. Then, some people made things up (ended slavery) and called them rights.

You can either be a conservative (believe that things should remain forever as they are) or a progressive (believe that things can evolve along the time).

Evilroddy said:

In the balance I think Workism is not going to successfully replace either capitalism or socialism, as it ignores the two main drivers of human nature - greed and altruism.

Click to expand...

Let me add just one more thing: I also don't think altruism would be necessary. When everybody has a change to earn a living, those that choose not to will not need help from anybody. In capitalism, there are people that can't get a job. That alone creates a serious problem in their lives and thus altruism is necessary. Workism distinguishes those that actually want to do something and contribute to society from those that never wanted to work and cry for help after a thousand false excuses.

In the end, greed and altruism are not trully necessary and disguise objectionable behaviours. Ambition and access to oportunities are the key to a fair and successful society. Once people understand that, I think workism has a real chance to be adopted.

Phransisku said:

How do I make the initial $6? Working. Being an employee and earning a salary. If I am a farmer and don't go to college, I will start working at 18 years old. I cannot expect to have my own farm right away at 18.

Click to expand...

The initial cost of training a new employee requires capital. How, for instance, can a building be built if you can't get the equipment, parts, and labor necessary to build it? Do you know how long it would take to save the money required for that? Likely a lifetime.

I think I understand your point. If I were able to receive something from my family, I would start far ahead. But you are missing the point. It's just not me who doesn't receive bequests from my parents, it's everybody. And that wealth will not disappear. I will receive, like anybody else, a considerable amount of money from all the departed of my country. Everybody will get the same. And I will receive much more than I would under capitalism, once my parents (poor farmers) are clearly below the average in terms of wealth. This means also that some people will receive less. Yes. The Rothschilds for example, the Kochs, the Goldmans, etc. Workism would end all those empires and balance the society and the economy through a meritocracy. Anyway, with the money I will receive from all those fortunes, I will definitely be better off than with my parents bequest, once I'm just a simple farmer. As you can see, this is extremely beneficial for me as a farmer.

Click to expand...

I understand the appeal of sticking it to the Rothschilds. I truly do. However, I don't think an outright ban on finance is a good solution. You would cripple output, and we likely would not be able to sustain our population.

phattonez said:

The initial cost of training a new employee requires capital. How, for instance, can a building be built if you can't get the equipment, parts, and labor necessary to build it? Do you know how long it would take to save the money required for that? Likely a lifetime.

Click to expand...

You are not addressing what you're quoting. You asked me a question ("How do you make that initial $6?"). I have provided the answer ("Working. Being an employee and earning a salary."). I have also added that the farmer's bequest in capitalism would not be greater than what he would receive in workism from those that have departed this world. So far, I wasn't even able to understand your point. Please explain.

Regarding your questions, I don't know about the USA but in my country the construction industry was used to have phenomenal margins (between 200% and 500%). This means that, if I was a real-estate contractor, every building would get me financed for another 5 buildings. And each of those 5 buildings would get me financed for another 5, and so on. This means that, if I'm wise, there's only one moment in my life where I could need to get finance: for the very first building. And, if all players in the industry were wise, virtually all buildings to be constructed would be totally financed from the start. No projects would stop at the middle of construction. No financial crises would affect them. No real-estate crashes would threat the finishing of such buildings. Etc. But, unfortunately, that's not the case. The ease of credit makes people unwise and provokes bubbles, crashes, crises and deep wounds in an industry (which is one of the most important of every country) that ends up being miserable for their workers, investors and clients. Investors and burnt. Thousands of workers are unemployed and can't find a job. And a considerable amount of the population can't have a house to buy or rent.

So now, answering your questions:
- Collectively, through enterprises or cooperatives. You don't expect the greatest projects of a country to be owned by a single individual, do you? Even in today's capitalism you don't have that.
- No, not a lifetime, as I explained in the previous paragraph. The construction of a single building would finance several others. One year, not a lifetime.

phattonez said:

I don't think an outright ban on finance is a good solution. You would cripple output, and we likely would not be able to sustain our population.

Click to expand...

How so?

Phransisku said:

You are not addressing what you're quoting. You asked me a question ("How do you make that initial $6?"). I have provided the answer ("Working. Being an employee and earning a salary."). I have also added that the farmer's bequest in capitalism would not be greater than what he would receive in workism from those that have departed this world. So far, I wasn't even able to understand your point. Please explain.

Click to expand...

The shovel was just an analogy. In reality, farmers today rely on heavy machinery such as tractors. How many years would have farmer have to work to afford that? What if his work isn't even profitable without that tractor? How would he ever afford it?

Regarding your questions, I don't know about the USA but in my country the construction industry was used to have phenomenal margins (between 200% and 500%). This means that, if I was a real-estate contractor, every building would get me financed for another 5 buildings. And each of those 5 buildings would get me financed for another 5, and so on. This means that, if I'm wise, there's only one moment in my life where I could need to get finance: for the very first building. And, if all players in the industry were wise, virtually all buildings to be constructed would be totally financed from the start. No projects would stop at the middle of construction. No financial crises would affect them. No real-estate crashes would threat the finishing of such buildings. Etc. But, unfortunately, that's not the case. The ease of credit makes people unwise and provokes bubbles, crashes, crises and deep wounds in an industry (which is one of the most important of every country) that ends up being miserable for their workers, investors and clients. Investors and burnt. Thousands of workers are unemployed and can't find a job. And a considerable amount of the population can't have a house to buy or rent.

Click to expand...

This sounds more like a function of manipulation of interest rates rather than a problem of interest qua interest.

So now, answering your questions:
- Collectively, through enterprises or cooperatives. You don't expect the greatest projects of a country to be owned by a single individual, do you? Even in today's capitalism you don't have that.
- No, not a lifetime, as I explained in the previous paragraph. The construction of a single building would finance several others. One year, not a lifetime.

Click to expand...

You would have an accumulation in the hands of a few who are able to secure capital the fastest and then hold onto it.

How so?

Click to expand...

Because we need capital in order to massively increase economic output. Without finance, what is the impetus to accumulate capital?

phattonez said:

The shovel was just an analogy. In reality, farmers today rely on heavy machinery such as tractors. How many years would have farmer have to work to afford that? What if his work isn't even profitable without that tractor? How would he ever afford it?

Click to expand...

I have already answered those questions. Maybe I wasn't clear enough.

First, the farmer would start his career by working for others (as most people do), others that have heavy machinery such as tractors and all the necessary equipment. He would be an employee, not an entrepreneur. So, your 2nd question makes no sense, as the farmer would earn a salary in a capitalized and profitable business. He would save part of his salary in order to accumulate the capital needed to start his own business. This could take years or even decades. But this is just like capitalism is today. I am no farmer and I have no wealth. Do you think the bank will lend me money to by a tractor? Of course not. They would laugh at me.

Second, the farmer would receive a considerable amount of money from the departed of this world. How large? Surely larger than what he would receive from his poor parents. With that money, he would be able to much faster start his own business. How many years? I don't know. Surely much less than in capitalism. How is this bad? How is this worse than capitalism? Why don't you make the same questions to capitalism, as it would definitely not be better than workism in this regard?

phattonez said:

This sounds more like a function of manipulation of interest rates rather than a problem of interest qua interest.

Click to expand...

Neither of them. You have asked me a question ("How, for instance, can a building be built if you can't get the equipment, parts, and labor necessary to build it? Do you know how long it would take to save the money required for that? Likely a lifetime."). I gave you the answer. Each building would be financed with the profits from previous buildings. This would only take 1 year or less, not a lifetime. You don't have that today not because of any manipulation of interest rates (since they have zero effect on buildings that are totally financed with equity) but because of the fact that the ease of credit makes people unwise and provokes bubbles, crashes, crises and deep wounds in a very important industry that ends up being miserable for their workers, investors and clients, as I have explained.

When you have the money to do something, you just do it. No financial markets will affect you, since you don't depend on them. You don't depend on anybody. But it seems building constructors are always dependent on credit, no matter how amazing their profits are. That's the problem I tried to illustrate. They are not wise and credit is the easy way they follow that prevents sustainability and ends up almost invariably messing up with the industry and sometimes the whole economy. Then they try to convince everybody that it was not their fault. It was some financial market or some interest manipulation. They did nothing wrong. Actually, they couldn't have done anything different. They needed the loans. They had no other way. Do you really believe in this BS?

phattonez said:

You would have an accumulation in the hands of a few who are able to secure capital the fastest and then hold onto it.

Click to expand...

No, we wouldn't. That problem is exclusively in capitalism. In workism, capital isn't that much important. Besides, it would not be progressively accumulated generation after generation in the same families. It would circulate much more. How do you see the other way around?

phattonez said:

Because we need capital in order to massively increase economic output. Without finance, what is the impetus to accumulate capital?

Click to expand...

Yes, we need capital. And it would not simply disappear. It would remain in this world. The only difference is that, in most cases, people would use their own money for their own projects, not other people's money. I think this would benefit the economy, not cripple it.