Alright /biz/, i am an ex-commie and i'm looking to form

File: Miroljub-Labus.jpg (56KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 400x300px

>instead of paying a worker a fixed salary, give him a tiny percentage of the company's profit as payment, this way he'll have an active incentive to work better because if the company's profits increas then so does his paycheck

It works well when there's an agency problem. In the manager - owner relationship.
Giving every employee a part of the profits collapsed the Yugoslav economy (they had their own variant of socialism), which would eventually lead to the war(s).
Also there would be cuts in other areas, or layoffs (depending on the strength of the unions) and that raises concern.
>limit the size of companies to operate locally, as to stop foreign companies from siphoning resources from other regions by selling their product there while employing only people far away (not injecting money back into the local economy)
That's basically creating local monopolies.

>>1959649
>>instead of paying a worker a fixed salary, give him a tiny percentage of the company's profit as payment, this way he'll have an active incentive to work better because if the company's profits increas then so does his paycheck
That's called getting a raise.

>limit the size of companies to operate locally, as to stop foreign companies from siphoning resources from other regions by selling their product there while employing only people far away (not injecting money back into the local economy)
This is a forced inefficiency and it's what leads to monopolies in fields like cable and health insurance.

>do something about venture capitalism, should people be able to make money without actually producing anything/should companies have to answer to external entities who don't understand their inner workings
This is just straight communism dude. The venture capitalist has capital and the entrepreneur has a business idea; it is absolutely a mutually beneficial arrangement. The venture capitalist takes on the majority of financial risk and in return is entitled to a cut of the profits.
If the company doesn't need his capital to thrive, it won't even ask for it.

>>1959780
What about a base salary + a monthly bonus for high performance workers?

>local monopolies
As opposed to a nation-wide monopoly?
Sort of like the wal-mart problem that murdered local businesses.

>>1959796
>straight communism
Is it?
Maybe it's just the fact that i don't like the idea of having to answer to some higher up assholes if you're the /owner/ of the company, or the possibility of being fired if you're the /owner/ of the company

>>1959799
Wal-Mart isn't a monopoly.
It kills local stores due to economies of scale; Wal-Mart can offer a wider selection at lower prices, so customers consistently choose Wal-Mart over local stores.

>>1959812
And in what way does this benefit local economies and local business ownership?

>>1959807
You don't own the company. You co-own it with the person or people who funded it. If you don't want to answer to venture capitalists, you don't have to go to them for money; if you need their money, then you'd better be able to provide them something in return.

File: labus.png (448KB, 415x621px) Image search: [Google]

448KB, 415x621px

>>1959799
>base salary + a monthly bonus for high performance workers
That works well, yeah.
Much better than a straight up % (which has another problem in that a salary is not counted as profit, it's an expense).
>nation-wide monopoly?
>wal-mart
The problem there is with American zoning laws and urban planning.
If that legislation were to be relaxed small stores could pop up in new places and be serious competition for day to day groceries because of shorter commutes.
Also it's not a straight up monopoly, it does have a degree of market dominance, but it's efficient enough, it has economies of scale going for it, but economies of scale have their limits.

>>1959815
Yes i understand the principle

>>1959814
>local economies
Consumers pay less for the same goods, meaning they have more money in their pockets to spend elsewhere or save.
It also provides more jobs than a mom & pop shop could.

>local business ownership
It bends them over a barrel and fucks them raw, but that's just natural selection at work.

Wal-Mart isn't even a case of outsourcing because they still have to hire locals to stock, staff, and manage their stores. A better example is manufacturing being outsourced to China, where corporations can take advantage of the utter lack of workers' rights to cut costs to fuck-all. The way you solve this is with tax incentives, and maybe tariffs if you're desperate.

File: Labus Photo(10).jpg (9KB, 241x300px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 241x300px

Also, about venture capitalists.
It's very risky, now you could always go with alternate ways of getting money for your startup, which are stocks and banks. But risk is proportional to the interest/dividend you'd have to pay. It's your call.

>>1959838
I'm sure there has to be a downside to the wal-mart model but i'm not versed well enough in economics to say what it is.

>>1959856
The downside is local businesses get fucked.
But the truth is that they are providing an inferior service; that's why their customers are so quick to switch when Wal-Mart comes to town.

>>1959824
So what's your problem with it?

>>1959850
Yes, it'd have to be a personal choice instead of a governmental one, i see.

What about corporatism?
Is it communist to criticize it?
I genuinely believe corporations shouldn't be able to manipulate the economy to give themselves advantages, but idk, can you school me on that, too?

>>1959863
>so what's your problem with it
I have two cousins with a collective stake of 49% in my company and they don't do shit and contribute nothing but are still able to apply pressure and get their way with how we run shit

>>1959872
That's because they took on your financial risk to a degree that you (or whoever the owner might be) considered to be worth a 49% stake.

>>1959879
I understand why it is i'm only expressing my personal distaste with the situation

>>1959885
That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with venture capitalism or that it needs to be changed.
It's a mutually beneficial relationship entered willingly.

>>1959897
Idea dropped, then

File: Oppressor of the Germanic People.jpg (83KB, 683x735px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 683x735px

>>1959649

You can have a state protect the people without giving into to marxism.

File: labus1.jpg (8KB, 250x244px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 250x244px

>>1959867
>corporatism?
>Is it communist to criticize it?
It is both communist and capitalist to criticize it.
Politicians often present the interests of some groups as common interests (and they get money for it, of course). A good, very apolitical (because no one gives a shit) example would be the peanut industry in America. The peanut farmers of Georgia basically created a legal cartel with the government's approval (import quotas, subsidies, tariffs). I won't speculate about other such (((groups))) that hurt both the competition and the consumer, feel free to point them out if you can think of any.
"Too big to fail", my ass.

File: 1478376048933.png (169KB, 683x686px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 683x686px

>>1959905
>yes, goy, give up your life for the state
>the state only wants what's best for you, and that means you must do everything it says
>what do you mean you don't want to freeze to death on the Eastern Front? are you some kind of bolshevik?

File: really forces you to ponder.jpg (121KB, 1024x692px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 1024x692px

>>1959911

Big difference between Germany before the war and during. Don't forget commie russia and "capitalist" america drafted as well. Fascist idealogy is generally pretty worker friendly, and it has evolved since then. Look at this guy, he was able to be against marxism without being a subhuman ancap memer.

File: 1478747374901.jpg (196KB, 687x900px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 687x900px

>>1959917
Germany before the war was all about buildup for the war.
Totalitarianism demands the total abolition of freedom and utter submission to the will of the state. A well-fed slave is still a slave.

>>1959931

Not really.

And an authoritarian dictator was necessary for the time. Just like it was in Rome. The real question is, would Hitler have lessened his control on the people and his power if he had taken back Germanic land peacefully?

Probably not.

This isn't related to economics at all either, you are just a butthurt ancap who can't discuss the topic at hand.

>>1959939
>If you disagree with me, you must be an ancap!
Really gets the neurons firing.

>authoritarian
No, totalitarian. That's even worse.

File: rickybobby.jpg (218KB, 700x467px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 700x467px

Correct me if I'm wrong but most people invest money in corporations in order to save for retirements or for extra income. So wouldn't corporate profits also benefit anyone who owns shares in those companies through either dividends or increase share prices? Most of the people that I know with money problems have them because they are either lazy or make poor choices like having kids at age 17.

File: WagesBenefitsProfits.png (116KB, 1300x800px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 1300x800px

>>1959649
You also have to take benefits into account.

>>1960309
What about CEO wages?
What about productivity vs wages?

>>1959931
>Germany was all about buildup for the war
You mean the one in which most countries declared on it?

ceo wages are parachuted i.e they are offered huge renumerance as a way to keep them in the job - leaving is outweighed by benefits of staying.

File: 1341816353834.png (87KB, 347x298px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 347x298px

>>1960602
>Germany declares war on Poland
>Germany effectively declares war on Britain and France as well due to public guarantees that these countries would defend Poland
>Germany declares war on the Low Countries
>Germany declares war on the USSR
>Germany declares war on the US
>Germany is the victim

>>1960615
Germany only went to war with Poland because of the land that was taken from them in WW1 and native Germans in Poland being treated like shit. If Poland had just given them back the land when Hitler asked what they wanted for it and then he met those demands it would have been avoided. Instead the eternal anglo paid Poland not to take the deal.

>>1960622
Tbh it was all the foreign minister's fault for convincing hitler england was bluffing and they secretly loved germany and wanted them to take back their clay.

>>1960636
Bit of column A bit of column B.

>>1959649
how about a graph showing median corporate profits. It would be close to $0

>>1959649
you can't compare the sum of one thing to the median of another thing. Also those totally different unlabeled y-axes. This is why you're poor, you're just stupid. There isn't a magic conspiracy against you, you're just stupid

>>1959863

>But the truth is that they are providing an inferior service; that's why their customers are so quick to switch when Wal-Mart comes to town.

No it's because Wal-Mart has lower prices. What a Wal-Mart typically does when they first open up in an area is cut their prices to be lower than their local competitors, the Wal-Mart can take the hit because it's connected to a larger infrastructure that can take the losses. Smaller businesses naturally can't compete and are forced to close down. Once competition is eliminated the Wal-Mart starts raising their prices because they can as there's little to no competition to worry about. Rinse and repeat.

File: 1492089283521.jpg (88KB, 500x577px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 500x577px

>>1960009
Most of the people with money problems i know smoke 3 packs a day or/and are unemployed or work a minimum wage job.

>>1959812
>Wal-Mart isn't a monopoly.
Yes, the retail business is actually an oligopoly, that's so much better, right ? Enjoy your price fixations, there's no real competition since they all know that if one company drops the price the rest of them will as well and all of them end up losing money so they don't.

>>1959838
>It also provides more jobs than a mom & pop shop could.
Except it doesn't kill only one small shop, it kills more of them and the jobs that they had created.

>>1960595
There are about 225,000 CEOs in the US, with an average yearly pay of 194,000. If you took ALL their earnings it would amount to about 16c per hour raise for employees.
Productivity per worker has gone way up, but that's because of automation, not because workers are any better (although they are more specialized).
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#00-0000

>>1961208

This.
I also believe that automation is the reason for the trend towards unfairness you see in the economy.

Apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook, Tesla, Microsoft don't employ all that much people. They make their money through computers and algorithms.

File: IMG_0020.jpg (122KB, 658x768px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 658x768px

>>1959649
Here's an idea that works in the real world

Tax corporate profits to impliment social welfare for citizens and public works

There it's called social democracy and makes much more sense than your 19th century meme economic system

>>1961314
Stop shitposting form your mansion on Lake Champlain, Bernie.