Politics 2017 part II

[Hurlshort]

Why are headlines so misleading? I keep seeing all these articles acting like Sean Spicer is upset about his SNL depiction, but then you read the quotes and he seemed to handle it pretty well. Stupid clickbait era.

Edited February 6, 2017 by Hurlshot

[Elerond]

 

There are many type of corporations.

 

Some corporations just seek funding by selling their shares to people and rewards people by giving them part of their profit. This kind of corporations can't be said to be collectively owned. Apple is one example of this kind of corporation.

 

But that is not only way to go. There is also corporations where all share holders are seen as equals and all their customers become share holders. This kind corporations are very collectively owned and they work very similarly as public administration. In Finland we have quite lot of such companies that have been founded by worker unions and other left wing communistic organisations. Like for example one of our biggest department store chains is such, one of the largest insurance companies is such. In past we had lots of phone companies that were such and so on.

 

Now that would be an example. Any names so we could google them?

 

 

SOK (Suomen Osuuskauppa), Lähitapiola (now become part of SOK), TPO (Tampereen Puhelin Osuuskunta, now become part of Elisa), VVO

[Elerond]

 

There are many type of corporations.

 

Some corporations just seek funding by selling their shares to people and rewards people by giving them part of their profit. This kind of corporations can't be said to be collectively owned. Apple is one example of this kind of corporation.

 

But that is not only way to go. There is also corporations where all share holders are seen as equals and all their customers become share holders. This kind corporations are very collectively owned and they work very similarly as public administration. In Finland we have quite lot of such companies that have been founded by worker unions and other left wing communistic organisations. Like for example one of our biggest department store chains is such, one of the largest insurance companies is such. In past we had lots of phone companies that were such and so on.

ehmm, how that company earn money if all customers of that company are share holders at the same time?

 

 

By customers paying their services like any other company and then they return some of the money back to customers and then use some of the money to expand their operations.

[Chilloutman]

 

 

There are many type of corporations.

 

Some corporations just seek funding by selling their shares to people and rewards people by giving them part of their profit. This kind of corporations can't be said to be collectively owned. Apple is one example of this kind of corporation.

 

But that is not only way to go. There is also corporations where all share holders are seen as equals and all their customers become share holders. This kind corporations are very collectively owned and they work very similarly as public administration. In Finland we have quite lot of such companies that have been founded by worker unions and other left wing communistic organisations. Like for example one of our biggest department store chains is such, one of the largest insurance companies is such. In past we had lots of phone companies that were such and so on.

ehmm, how that company earn money if all customers of that company are share holders at the same time?

 

 

By customers paying their services like any other company and then they return some of the money back to customers and then use some of the money to expand their operations.

 

it doesn't make any sense, do these 'customers' have unlimited amount of money or is it like 'buy this for 10, we will give you 1 back and you can consider yourself a holder of 0,000001% of our company'?

[Elerond]

 

There are many type of corporations.

 

Some corporations just seek funding by selling their shares to people and rewards people by giving them part of their profit. This kind of corporations can't be said to be collectively owned. Apple is one example of this kind of corporation.

 

But that is not only way to go. There is also corporations where all share holders are seen as equals and all their customers become share holders. This kind corporations are very collectively owned and they work very similarly as public administration. In Finland we have quite lot of such companies that have been founded by worker unions and other left wing communistic organisations. Like for example one of our biggest department store chains is such, one of the largest insurance companies is such. In past we had lots of phone companies that were such and so on.

I have to say that example in Finland about companies sounds odd. I must be misunderstanding you, in your example you not saying these shareholders make company decisions ? The decision making process and daily running of every single company I have seen and worked in is the same, shareholders have  no say in daily operations 

 

Also, and this is probably over complicating the question, but what type of securities do these companies offer.... bonds, common stocks or preferred stocks?

 

 

Shareholders select board of the company in periodical meetings, board selects CEO for company, then CEO together with board runs the company.

[Elerond]

 

 

 

There are many type of corporations.

 

Some corporations just seek funding by selling their shares to people and rewards people by giving them part of their profit. This kind of corporations can't be said to be collectively owned. Apple is one example of this kind of corporation.

 

But that is not only way to go. There is also corporations where all share holders are seen as equals and all their customers become share holders. This kind corporations are very collectively owned and they work very similarly as public administration. In Finland we have quite lot of such companies that have been founded by worker unions and other left wing communistic organisations. Like for example one of our biggest department store chains is such, one of the largest insurance companies is such. In past we had lots of phone companies that were such and so on.

ehmm, how that company earn money if all customers of that company are share holders at the same time?

 

 

By customers paying their services like any other company and then they return some of the money back to customers and then use some of the money to expand their operations.

 

it doesn't make any sense, do these 'customers' have unlimited amount of money or is it like 'buy this for 10, we will give you 1 back and you can consider yourself a holder of 0,000001% of our company'?

 

 

Usually it is case you get certain percent back that you have used to buy company's services. 

 

It is something between 0,00005%-0,0001% ownership as there is only 5 million people in Finland, so even our biggest companies usually have only 1-2 million of them as their customers.

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

 

 sorry WOD but educate me. What am I missing about being a shareholder. I always like learning new things

A common shareholder owns the percentage of the corporation corresponding to the percentage of shares he holds.

 

Okay, but he doesnt own  the company.....but wait. What is your definition of " owning "

 

Like you get owned every time you post. Let's say you start a company with 2 other guys. You each own 1/3 of the company. If you issue shares, you would each have 1/3 of the shares. Same with a publicly held company, except there might be millions of shareholders. If a shareholder has over 50%, or a block of shareholders get together with over 50%, they're said to have a "controlling interest".

[BruceVC]

 

 

There are many type of corporations.

 

Some corporations just seek funding by selling their shares to people and rewards people by giving them part of their profit. This kind of corporations can't be said to be collectively owned. Apple is one example of this kind of corporation.

 

But that is not only way to go. There is also corporations where all share holders are seen as equals and all their customers become share holders. This kind corporations are very collectively owned and they work very similarly as public administration. In Finland we have quite lot of such companies that have been founded by worker unions and other left wing communistic organisations. Like for example one of our biggest department store chains is such, one of the largest insurance companies is such. In past we had lots of phone companies that were such and so on.

I have to say that example in Finland about companies sounds odd. I must be misunderstanding you, in your example you not saying these shareholders make company decisions ? The decision making process and daily running of every single company I have seen and worked in is the same, shareholders have  no say in daily operations 

 

Also, and this is probably over complicating the question, but what type of securities do these companies offer.... bonds, common stocks or preferred stocks?

 

 

Shareholders select board of the company in periodical meetings, board selects CEO for company, then CEO together with board runs the company.

 

Yes but this has been my point the whole time, some shareholders may have certain rights like right to vote on corporate issues such as board elections and corporate policy, along with the right to any common   dividend  payments but they dont own the company in the sense they have no daily authority 

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 sorry WOD but educate me. What am I missing about being a shareholder. I always like learning new things

A common shareholder owns the percentage of the corporation corresponding to the percentage of shares he holds.

 

Okay, but he doesnt own  the company.....but wait. What is your definition of " owning "

 

Like you get owned every time you post. Let's say you start a company with 2 other guys. You each own 1/3 of the company. If you issue shares, you would each have 1/3 of the shares. Same with a publicly held company, except there might be millions of shareholders. If a shareholder has over 50%, or a block of shareholders get together with over 50%, they're said to have a "controlling interest".

 

Define  " controlling interest  "  ?

[Elerond]

Here is English wikipedia article about SOK

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S_Group

 

Here is wikipedia article about its corporate type

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative

 

For those who are interested

[ShadySands]

 

Check out New Belgium Brewing Company

 

It's employee owned

do you know details, how many employees we are talking about? what is allocation of shares? what are rules when someone left company, what happen if someone new come into the company?

 

Sorry, I don't know the details but to answer your first question they are a private company

Edited February 6, 2017 by ShadySands

[Meshugger]

Welp, i thought that cooperative ownership was quite common in the world. I guess i was wrong based on the responses.

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

 

 

 

 sorry WOD but educate me. What am I missing about being a shareholder. I always like learning new things

A common shareholder owns the percentage of the corporation corresponding to the percentage of shares he holds.

 

Okay, but he doesnt own  the company.....but wait. What is your definition of " owning "

 

Like you get owned every time you post. Let's say you start a company with 2 other guys. You each own 1/3 of the company. If you issue shares, you would each have 1/3 of the shares. Same with a publicly held company, except there might be millions of shareholders. If a shareholder has over 50%, or a block of shareholders get together with over 50%, they're said to have a "controlling interest".

 

Define  " controlling interest  "  ?

 

Means they can make any decision about the company since they have the majority of votes. Could you start googling stuff instead of continuing to ask dumb questions?

[BruceVC]

 

 

Check out New Belgium Brewing Company

 

It's employee owned

do you know details, how many employees we are talking about? what is allocation of shares? what are rules when someone left company, what happen if someone new come into the company?

 

Sorry, I don't know the details but to answer your first question they are a private company

 

No worries, this is actually a very interesting business model. I have heard of other similar concepts but I always questioned there financial business feasibility

 

Firstly it does offer an excellent way to achieve financial equity, the concept is simple. All shares that get created are made available to employees only so therefore the workers really are part of the profit and success

 

The negative I use to believe is not so negative, they potentially have limited funds for growth due to the limited number of shares but they are very profitable and it seems great 

 

I need to share this with people I know, its a very good point you made 

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

 

 sorry WOD but educate me. What am I missing about being a shareholder. I always like learning new things

A common shareholder owns the percentage of the corporation corresponding to the percentage of shares he holds.

 

Okay, but he doesnt own  the company.....but wait. What is your definition of " owning "

 

Like you get owned every time you post. Let's say you start a company with 2 other guys. You each own 1/3 of the company. If you issue shares, you would each have 1/3 of the shares. Same with a publicly held company, except there might be millions of shareholders. If a shareholder has over 50%, or a block of shareholders get together with over 50%, they're said to have a "controlling interest".

 

Define  " controlling interest  "  ?

 

Means they can make any decision about the company since they have the majority of votes. Could you start googling stuff instead of continuing to ask dumb questions?

 

WOD I am not sure if you trolling  but I will repeat this point one more time, owning shares even majority shares does not mean you own the company....you could not for example walk in and 

 

• fire someone, steal something, expect even a cleaner to listen to you
• You only have shareholder rights 

 

This is not owning the company 

[Chilloutman]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 sorry WOD but educate me. What am I missing about being a shareholder. I always like learning new things

A common shareholder owns the percentage of the corporation corresponding to the percentage of shares he holds.

 

Okay, but he doesnt own  the company.....but wait. What is your definition of " owning "

 

Like you get owned every time you post. Let's say you start a company with 2 other guys. You each own 1/3 of the company. If you issue shares, you would each have 1/3 of the shares. Same with a publicly held company, except there might be millions of shareholders. If a shareholder has over 50%, or a block of shareholders get together with over 50%, they're said to have a "controlling interest".

 

Define  " controlling interest  "  ?

 

Means they can make any decision about the company since they have the majority of votes. Could you start googling stuff instead of continuing to ask dumb questions?

 

WOD I am not sure if you trolling  but I will repeat this point one more time, owning shares even majority shares does not mean you own the company....you could not for example walk in and

• fire someone, steal something, expect even a cleaner to listen to you
• You only have shareholder rights 

This is not owning the company

 

sorry but you are wrong, if you own majority you can appoint yourself as CEO and fire anyone you want

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 sorry WOD but educate me. What am I missing about being a shareholder. I always like learning new things

A common shareholder owns the percentage of the corporation corresponding to the percentage of shares he holds.

 

Okay, but he doesnt own  the company.....but wait. What is your definition of " owning "

 

Like you get owned every time you post. Let's say you start a company with 2 other guys. You each own 1/3 of the company. If you issue shares, you would each have 1/3 of the shares. Same with a publicly held company, except there might be millions of shareholders. If a shareholder has over 50%, or a block of shareholders get together with over 50%, they're said to have a "controlling interest".

 

Define  " controlling interest  "  ?

 

Means they can make any decision about the company since they have the majority of votes. Could you start googling stuff instead of continuing to ask dumb questions?

 

WOD I am not sure if you trolling  but I will repeat this point one more time, owning shares even majority shares does not mean you own the company....you could not for example walk in and

• fire someone, steal something, expect even a cleaner to listen to you
• You only have shareholder rights 

This is not owning the company

 

sorry but you are wrong, if you own majority you can appoint yourself as CEO and fire anyone you want

 

 The company would have measures to prevent this but you made me laugh with the concept 

[Wrath of Dagon]

No they don't, apparently you don't know anything about how corporations are run. Shareholders elect the management, they can also remove the management if enough of them agree. Ownership and management are two different things, as has already been explained.

[Zoraptor]

 

Blame it on the internet, now you can have people blame nazi = right wing on google and others will actually believe it because it fits their preconceived notions.

 

How do you collectively own something without the government owning it? Any historical examples? And why is "democratic" part of the definition?

 

Easily. Publicly Listed Cimpanies are collectively owned and are not owned by the government, they're also at least theoretically little d democratic. Otherwise, Co-Ops, syndicates, Apoism etc etc, they're even properly democratic.

 

Personally, I'd get rid of 'democratic' though, and go for the straight 2-axes political compass style set up of having left (socialist) and right (capitalist) with both of those being independent of the authoritarian (statist, undemocratic)/ anarchism (libertarianism, democratic) axis.

 

OK, so corporations are actually socialist, I got it. Collective ownership generally means owned by society, not by a group of people.

 

Nope, you're just using an 'alternative definition' of what collective ownership means. Collective ownership = "ownership by many individuals, for the benefit of said individuals". That is, at least theoretically, a company just as much as it is socialism.

 

Collective ownership describes PLCs, it also describes full on communism, co-ops, trusts, governmental ownership, 'commons', syndicates and a whole bunch of other stuff that may or may not also be socialist. There's a specific term for when something is owned by society/ humanity as a whole- common ownership- or government owned when the government owns it. Collective just means owned by a collection of people, it's an umbrella term.

[Hurlshort]

 

 

I liked the Budweiser one better. Of course when Adolphus Busch actually came here there were no immigration laws.

That one was apparently a bunch of lies also.

 

Yeah, but it was a good story.

 

 

Never let the truth stand in the way of a good story.  

 

To be fair, it may not fit the story of Anheuser-Busch, but it certainly fits the story of many Germans that came over to America in the 19th Century. We had 4,000 breweries running by 1870.

[Agiel]

Other stories:

 

Trump Begins to Chip Away at Banking Regulations

 

 

“We expect to be cutting a lot out of Dodd-Frank,” Trump said. “I have so many people, friends of mine, with nice businesses, they can’t borrow money, because the banks just won’t let them borrow because of the rules and regulations and Dodd-Frank.”

 

If that doesn't sound like the kind of crony-capitalism Trump built his campaign on railing against, then goddammit, I don't know what does.

 

But in happier news in Europe...

 

Amid protests, Romania scraps proposed corruption bill

 

In light of this, I recommend reading Robert D Kaplan's In Europe's Shadow.

 

Edited February 6, 2017 by Agiel

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

 

Blame it on the internet, now you can have people blame nazi = right wing on google and others will actually believe it because it fits their preconceived notions.

 

How do you collectively own something without the government owning it? Any historical examples? And why is "democratic" part of the definition?

 

Easily. Publicly Listed Cimpanies are collectively owned and are not owned by the government, they're also at least theoretically little d democratic. Otherwise, Co-Ops, syndicates, Apoism etc etc, they're even properly democratic.

 

Personally, I'd get rid of 'democratic' though, and go for the straight 2-axes political compass style set up of having left (socialist) and right (capitalist) with both of those being independent of the authoritarian (statist, undemocratic)/ anarchism (libertarianism, democratic) axis.

 

OK, so corporations are actually socialist, I got it. Collective ownership generally means owned by society, not by a group of people.

 

Nope, you're just using an 'alternative definition' of what collective ownership means. Collective ownership = "ownership by many individuals, for the benefit of said individuals". That is, at least theoretically, a company just as much as it is socialism.

 

Collective ownership describes PLCs, it also describes full on communism, co-ops, trusts, governmental ownership, 'commons', syndicates and a whole bunch of other stuff that may or may not also be socialist. There's a specific term for when something is owned by society/ humanity as a whole- common ownership- or government owned when the government owns it. Collective just means owned by a collection of people, it's an umbrella term.

 

OK, but you have to look at the context of what we were discussing, i.e. collective ownership in the socialist sense. Is a collective farm just a corporate-owned farm? I don't think so. Language is always ambiguous, you have to consider the context.

[213374U]

In my opinion a vary good summarization of the socialistic nature of Nazi economy:

https://mises.org/library/nazi-economic-policy

 

It's... not very good.

 

It doesn't explain how the Reichswirtschaftsministerium actually coerced big businesses into "what and how to produce, at what prices and from whom to buy, at what prices and to whom to sell. It assigns every worker to his job and fixes his wages. It decrees to whom and on what terms the capitalists must entrust their funds". Göring had "absolute" power over the economy in a legal sense, but in practice, it's not explained how and to what extent this control was exercised. It offers no evidence of actually how the command economy was operated. Compare the results of Göring's Four Year Plan with the Soviet Five-Year Plans. I remember reading that this "mixed" system, not a true command economy but also not a truly laissez-faire arrangement led to inefficiencies and was a contributing factor to Germany's industrial output never being able to keep up with the Soviet Union's. From what we know, the German system was a hodgepodge of ad-hoc measures led by an economic illiterate (after they sacked Schacht) -- and the article even admits this.

 

In addition, it also doesn't explain how government intervention in the private sector actually led to socialism, it just states that it inevitably did, despite admitting that businesses were kept in private hands, in keeping with ancap dogma. That's another important flaw in the article: no government is completely hands-off with regards to the economy. And if, as the article says, one interventionist measure must necessarily be followed by another and then another, and that will inevitably lead to "socialism", that means that all governments, everywhere, are in fact socialists. An absurd conclusion to be sure, but thankfully, it's not my logic.

 

On the other hand, we know that the Nazis destroyed trade unionism in Germany and froze wages, as that was essential to stifle consumption at home and maintaining the margins needed for businesses to keep driving unemployment down.

 

But they were really socialists... because reasons.

 

http://www.academia.edu/9496976/How_was_Hitler_able_to_affect_such_an_economic_miracle_in_Germany_between_1933_and_1939

Edited February 6, 2017 by 213374U

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 sorry WOD but educate me. What am I missing about being a shareholder. I always like learning new things

A common shareholder owns the percentage of the corporation corresponding to the percentage of shares he holds.

 

Okay, but he doesnt own  the company.....but wait. What is your definition of " owning "

 

Like you get owned every time you post. Let's say you start a company with 2 other guys. You each own 1/3 of the company. If you issue shares, you would each have 1/3 of the shares. Same with a publicly held company, except there might be millions of shareholders. If a shareholder has over 50%, or a block of shareholders get together with over 50%, they're said to have a "controlling interest".

 

Define  " controlling interest  "  ?

 

Means they can make any decision about the company since they have the majority of votes. Could you start googling stuff instead of continuing to ask dumb questions?

 

WOD I am not sure if you trolling  but I will repeat this point one more time, owning shares even majority shares does not mean you own the company....you could not for example walk in and

• fire someone, steal something, expect even a cleaner to listen to you
• You only have shareholder rights 

This is not owning the company

 

sorry but you are wrong, if you own majority you can appoint yourself as CEO and fire anyone you want

 The company would have measures to prevent this but you made me laugh with the concept 

 

My company has two shareholders (51% and 49%) and one is CEO and the other is VP. Maybe in SA it's different, but that is how majority of companies work.

Okay Im unsure if you joking now? But I want to believe you being serious so I will respond in that way

 

Do you have a corporate code of conduct around what the directors and or board members can or cannot do and do you have  rules around what shareholding ?

 

I would assume its unlikely but I would rather ask you and just to be clear what does what your company do?

[Zoraptor]

 

OK, but you have to look at the context of what we were discussing, i.e. collective ownership in the socialist sense. Is a collective farm just a corporate-owned farm? I don't think so. Language is always ambiguous, you have to consider the context.

 

 

There is no hard and fast dividing line between a corporate and a collective- cooperatives are a hybrid model between the two, as are syndicates. The most prominent cooperative here is even traded on the sharemarket, despite its core shareholdings being protected and limited solely to the farmers that produce milk. So is that socialist collectivism or not? It's ownership of the means of production by the producers (broadly) which makes it socialist, but it's also a capitalist entity consisting of multiple other capitalist entities trading on the sharemarket and primarily interested in maximising profit for its shareholders/ members. They also have collectivised risk (aggregated returns, bridging loans and other financial services) and own things like a rural supplies outlet to supply their members.

 

I'd admit though that including all listed companies as being owned collectively is a bit facetious, it's correct but there's a more accurate term available- albeit, there are more accurate terms available for 'socialist' collectives as well.

 

 

 

Nope, you're just using an 'alternative definition' of what collective ownership means. Collective ownership = "ownership by many individuals, for the benefit of said individuals". That is, at least theoretically, a company just as much as it is socialism.

 

Collective ownership describes PLCs, it also describes full on communism, co-ops, trusts, governmental ownership, 'commons', syndicates and a whole bunch of other stuff that may or may not also be socialist. There's a specific term for when something is owned by society/ humanity as a whole- common ownership- or government owned when the government owns it. Collective just means owned by a collection of people, it's an umbrella term.

 

Wait, what?

Two or more capitalists start a factory by putting together their capitals and abracadabra we have socialism? Bonkers.

 

Nope, but you do have collective ownership. Collective ownership does not necessarily mean government ownership, socialism does not necessarily mean government ownership. You're just doctrinaire and using made up definitions that fit your world view.

 

As for your summary, yes, in a country where everything is owned by the government, everything including companies would be owned by the government. That's what is known as a truism, a circular argument and a logical fallacy since you're using the proposition itself to prove said proposition. It relies on socialism meaning everything is owned by the government which is incorrect, since socialism does not mean that everything is owned by the government. That is what has been pointed out.