Following a number of CEOs pulling out of President Trump's American Manufacturing Council and Strategic and Policy Forum, President Trump tweeted that the initiatives have been ended:
Rather than putting pressure on the businesspeople of the Manufacturing Council & Strategy & Policy Forum, I am ending both. Thank you all!
The CEOs of Merck, Intel, 3M, and other companies had already left:
3M Co. Chief Executive Officer Inge Thulin stepped down from the White House's manufacturing council, adding to the corporate exodus as the backlash grows to President Donald Trump's ambivalent response to racially-charged violence in Virginia over the weekend.
Thulin joined the White House panel in January "to advocate for policies that align with our values and encourage even stronger investment and job growth -- in order to make the United States stronger, healthier and more prosperous," the CEO said Wednesday in a statement tweeted by 3M. "After careful consideration, I believe the initiative is no longer an effective vehicle for 3M to advance these goals."
Update: The members of the Strategic and Policy Forum reportedly disbanded the group before President Trump's tweet:
The quick sequence began late Wednesday morning when Stephen A. Schwarzman, the chief executive of the Blackstone Group and one of Mr. Trump's closest confidants in the business community, organized a conference call for members of the president's Strategic and Policy Forum. On the call, the chief executives of some of the largest companies in the country debated how to proceed. After a discussion among a dozen prominent C.E.O.s, the decision was made to abandon the group altogether, said people with knowledge of the details of the call.
Also at Bloomberg:
Trump made the announcement on Twitter, less than an hour after one of the groups was said to be planning to inform the White House that it would break up. [...] Trump appeared to be making an effort to get ahead of the news as the councils began to disintegrate. The strategy forum, which is led by Blackstone Group LP's Stephen Schwarzman, planned to inform the White House Wednesday before making the announcement public, according to another person familiar with the matter, who wasn't authorized to discuss the news publicly.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday August 16 2017, @05:39PM (12 children)
Are people algorithmically gaming Twitter somehow to get their replies to Trump near the top? I notice some of the same users, such as @jules_su [twitter.com], near the top of the list very often. Having a large number of followers or replying very quickly are probably factors, but it shouldn't be so easy given that some fraction of Trump's 36 million followers (as well as non-followers) are scrambling to get attention.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 16 2017, @05:49PM (2 children)
That kind of flooding is a well-known technique for systematically disrupting otherwise organic interaction in order to establish some non-organic signal.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 16 2017, @06:22PM (1 child)
Do you have any fact to back that up?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 16 2017, @06:43PM
It's hidden under his tin foil hat.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 16 2017, @06:02PM (7 children)
Pretty sure you don't want to see a system where the first reply gets to stay at the top.
Personally I would like for social media systems to be 100% transparent about their algorithms. Decentralized and encrypted fully open source systems are the only way forward!
(Score: 3, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 16 2017, @06:47PM (5 children)
You're aware you just posted that on a site that arranges comments and replies oldest-first by default, yes?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday August 16 2017, @06:54PM (2 children)
Oldest-first works here, but not in EgoLand, and especially not for high-profile people who have lots of rabid haters and fans.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 16 2017, @06:56PM (1 child)
Maybe they should try it then.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 16 2017, @08:31PM
No, they shouldn't. It only works with a manageable number of comments, when you pass the thousands mark it becomes unwieldy
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 16 2017, @09:47PM
I'm not the GP, but the problem is different because here I expect to read all of the comments. Oldest first order makes it easier to follow the discussion. And, importantly, it's just the default, I know exactly what algorithm is being used to order the comments and can choose a different one. On a Twitter post with 10s of thousands of replies, it's not feasible to read all of them, so some prioritization has to be made, and how exactly that is done may greatly change what the conversation looks like.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday August 16 2017, @10:20PM
Doesn't that depend on how you have your options specified. It's true, I have mine set at both threaded and oldest first...but I don't believe those are the only choices.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday August 17 2017, @09:36AM
Like this site?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 16 2017, @07:25PM
A couple conservative reporters did it a few times. But lost interest because they're not automated bots.
And no i won't tell you how. Too much spam already.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 16 2017, @05:53PM (28 children)
"Fine, quit, I don't care. There are plenty more waiting to take your place . . . Wait, what? More might consider quitting too? Shit, shut it down then!"
Much easier than denouncing David Duke . . .
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 16 2017, @06:00PM (23 children)
These CEOs couldn't give too shits about David Duke; it's become clear that they're not going to be making significant money from being part of Trump's government.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 16 2017, @06:06PM (18 children)
Meanwhile back in reality, the stock market is at a record high and unemployment is at a 10 year low.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 16 2017, @06:22PM (13 children)
And all to the credit of the guy whose been running government for a couple of weeks as opposed to the guy that been doing it the previous 8 years.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 16 2017, @06:52PM (10 children)
Yeah, funny how absolutely none of his policies did shit but hemorrhage well paying jobs that then got replaced by not nearly as many minimum wage jobs while he was in office but less than a year after he's unemployed everyone else gets back to work. Nobody's going to be able to prove causation but it's got correlation out the ass.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by n1 on Wednesday August 16 2017, @07:16PM (4 children)
Sources for 'everyone else getting back to work' in recent months?
BLS data from earlier this month indicate things are roughly in-line with the last 12 months of growth.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm [bls.gov]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 16 2017, @07:28PM (3 children)
Reread that last paragraph. That is not something to be scoffed at. It was rapidly going the other direction or sitting pat for most of Obama's two terms.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by n1 on Wednesday August 16 2017, @09:23PM (1 child)
https://d3fy651gv2fhd3.cloudfront.net/charts/united-states-wages.png?s=unitedstawag&v=201708081602v&d1=20120101&d2=20171231 [cloudfront.net]
https://d3fy651gv2fhd3.cloudfront.net/charts/united-states-wages.png?s=unitedstawag&v=201708081602v&d1=20070101&d2=20171231 [cloudfront.net]
I agree with your original point about the lack of good jobs during the Obama administration, but even if there is a positive change with this new administration, it is too early to say. There are many less jobs in construction now than this time last year, but there are more jobs in other areas.
These charts from BLS data indicate there's been little change in direction or momentum, even if you go back to the 70's... That's not to say I put a lot of weight into the validity of BLS data, but the same applies now as before.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday August 17 2017, @11:19AM
Mostly the BLS stats are painting an extremely small portion of the picture. Yes, they can tell you some of the jobs that were created but they're by no means comprehensive and say nothing at all about unemployment, which is a critical part of any discussion on jobs. Under the tail end of Bush and most of Obama we lost so many jobs that a large percent of the work force just gave up even trying to find work at all and still haven't returned to work to date. Obama could have done many things to fix this problem by incentivizing job creation in different ways; instead he stuck to the traditional progressive playbook. Which is to say he had little to zero effect on the jobs market throughout his entire presidency. He basically let it freewheel when he wasn't putting minor speed bumps in the road.
Now Trump is a cheeto-headed dipshit but the fiscal ideas he's trying to get implemented will create jobs if he can ever get his own party to quit stabbing him in the back. Mind you he'll also be screwing the little guy in numerous ways to the favor of big business but at least he'll be screwing employed people.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 16 2017, @09:45PM
As history has shown, people often attribute positive outcomes to the puppet of the day without doing any further digging. Most economic trends are dictated years in advance, but people like yourself are stuck in correlation == causation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 16 2017, @08:16PM (2 children)
well-[paid] jobs [...] replaced by not nearly as many minimum wage jobs while [O'Bummer] was in office
Yeah. Any Dumbocrat who had the top gig any time in the last 3 decades has been a Neoliberal.
Slick Willie's Five Major Achievements Were Longstanding GOP Objectives [googleusercontent.com] (orig)[1] [truth-out.org]
Additionally, Slick Willie queered the way "unemployment" is counted.
Since before the start of O'Bummer's (undeserved) 2nd term, The Labor Non-Participation Rate[2] has remained above 22 percent. [shadowstats.com]
[1] Can any site coder tell me why the content on that site appears twice on each page in an HTML-only presentation?
Does it look less dumb with stylesheets?
[2] ...which was called The Unemployment Rate before Slick Willie.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday August 17 2017, @11:22AM (1 child)
1) Dunno. I don't feel like source diving before I've finished my first cup of coffee.
2) Looks fine with style sheets. You really should come into the 21st century with us.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @07:49PM
I pretty much always find that styling added to web pages makes them LESS readable.
I especially appreciate (NOT) those nitwits who put styling in their HTML -and- do more styling via CSS--and don't check the HTML by itself, often yielding stupid shit like black text on a dark background.
The sites where the entire page looks like a WAR IS OVER headline with a giant font are especially trippy.
Note to self: Bookmark the next one of those you come upon to save as an example of how NOT to do things.
There are 2 radio stations that I listen to which did their schedule grid pages with CSS instead of a table.
I access those pages via archive.li, which interprets the CSS for me.
Elsewhere, I simply block all CSS.
If site devs would put CSS into nice packages with essential-stuff/nice-to-have/only-chintz separated from each other and with descriptive names on the CSS files, that would be nice.
I pretty much never find anything like that, so I just block it all by default.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday August 16 2017, @09:15PM
Yeah, funny how absolutely none of his policies did shit but hemorrhage well paying jobs that then got replaced by not nearly as many minimum wage jobs while he was in office but less than a year after he's unemployed everyone else gets back to work. Nobody's going to be able to prove causation but it's got correlation out the ass.
Now if only Trump had actually implemented a policy you might have a point.
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Thursday August 17 2017, @03:27AM
Only because the rabid right kept saying those employment numbers were wrong! Unemployment was REALLY 20+%, until the Creamsicle Charlton got elected, then they were miraculous, bigly correct!
Trumps still running under the Obama administrations fiscal budget and policies coattails. When they actually pass and incorporate a budget, (or hell, ANYTHING) then we will see the real results of the Republican control. I think it will resemble the Dubya years.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 16 2017, @09:02PM
I'd credit the stock market rise to Obama because he left.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Thursday August 17 2017, @08:18PM
You put my name on your hotel in big, gold letters and I guarantee business will be tremendous for you. And you give me a cut. Now my name is on the U.S. government and economy. In big, gold letters. Because I'm the President. And business is doing tremendously because of it. And you give me a cut. 🇺🇸
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 16 2017, @07:57PM (2 children)
The stock market? That mostly benefits the wealthy. Unemployment? Whether that is an impressive accomplishment or not depends on the quality of the jobs. And of course, wealth inequality continues to increase, just as it did under Obama. Anyone who likes any of these cretins is a fool.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday August 16 2017, @10:25PM (1 child)
Even more, it depends on exactly how you measure unemployment. Usually if someone can't find a job for awhile they stop counting him as unemployed. And occasionally they change how they measure it. I haven't heard of any recent changes, but I also haven't (believably) heard of any surges in employment. Are you counting that plant in Wisconsin? The one where the state is paying to have the plant locate there more than the worth of the jobs?
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by fliptop on Thursday August 17 2017, @02:46AM
Why should we count people who are unemployable?
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
(Score: 4, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday August 16 2017, @09:11PM
Meanwhile back in reality, the stock market is at a record high and unemployment is at a 10 year low.
Thanks Obama!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 16 2017, @06:07PM (3 children)
While I'm all for making fun of CEOs and comparing them to robots, your comment is a bit far out there. This is 100% about PR and not lack of profits as you say.
PR and profit are connected however, so a truly sociopathic CEO would make a "morality call" for purely selfish reasons. Again, not the case here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 16 2017, @06:41PM (2 children)
If remaining in Trump's government were to gain them greater profits than leaving, they'd stay with Trump; in fact, it would be their legal obligation to stick with Trump.
It has nothing to do with David Duke.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mechanicjay on Wednesday August 16 2017, @06:51PM (1 child)
PIease cite your source for that, because as far I can tell, it's crap.
To quote the Supreme Court from 2015:
This NYT article [nytimes.com] has a decent rundown to dispel this myth.
My VMS box beat up your Windows box.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday August 16 2017, @07:01PM
While there is no legal obligation per se, activist shareholders are always looking for an excuse to sue if the stock price doesn't go up by N% by their deadline to sell.
Something this high profile is an easy target for "negative publicity" claims.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 16 2017, @06:01PM
Duke wouldn't join the councils either?
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 16 2017, @07:28PM (2 children)
Here's a photo of KKK grand dragon robert byrd meeting with trump.
http://i.imgur.com/SBB6fDA.jpg
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 16 2017, @08:41PM
No it isn't.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 16 2017, @11:15PM
He got better. David Duke has only gotten uglier. We'll see with Sessions.
(Score: 4, Funny) by jimtheowl on Wednesday August 16 2017, @05:58PM
(Score: 2) by Bobs on Wednesday August 16 2017, @06:04PM
"And there was much rejoicing."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enSYlCEz5VI [youtube.com]
(Score: 5, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday August 16 2017, @06:18PM (3 children)
"For every CEO that drops out of the Manufacturing Council, I have many to take their place. Grandstanders should not have gone on. JOBS!"
Donald J Trump from two days ago
Or not...
(Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 16 2017, @06:27PM (1 child)
Get a bunch of his aryan brothers to stack the manufacturing council in his favor. After all, it is mostly white male americans who are being oppressed and losing their manufacturing jobs right?
#MAGA - Get to work making your Aryan Councils great again Donald! :)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 17 2017, @12:23AM
Careful what you wish for.
Also, that's just crazy enough to work.
Hint: If whites are so damn evil and oppressive then why does everyone want to live in the countries they build?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 16 2017, @08:31PM
This council has never had a meeting together--not even once.
It exist only to stroke Donnie Tiny Hands' ego.
He likes to be associated with successful people who (unlike The Orange Clown) haven't declared bankruptcy SIX times.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday August 16 2017, @06:33PM (9 children)
Trump has never before in his life been surrounded by people who are not professionally obligated to pretend to like him or obey him. He doesn't really know how to respond to that, unlike everyone who has had bosses and annoying coworkers and such.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 16 2017, @06:48PM (7 children)
Trump's whole life has been surrounding himself with drama, and exploiting it to his advantage; it's clear that a large proportion of the people who have been around him end up not liking him, and aren't afraid to voice that opinion—he was certainly never treated very nicely by the elites.
You don't know what you're talking about.
(Score: 2) by jimtheowl on Wednesday August 16 2017, @07:41PM
You.. have.. to be .. kidding...
(Score: 4, Informative) by Thexalon on Wednesday August 16 2017, @09:04PM (5 children)
"Hey, can I have $500 million to build a casino? I promise I won't rip you off."
"Sure, go right ahead."
* goes bankrupt *
"Hey, can I have another $1 billion to build a casino. I promise I won't rip you off like last time."
"Sure, go right ahead."
* goes bankrupt again *
Yeah, those "elites" were such meanies, they let him borrow staggeringly large sums, repeatedly.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday August 16 2017, @10:28PM (2 children)
Wasn't that his father subsidizing him? That's different from "elites" in general.
OTOH, who would want to be nice to someone who's loud, abusive, and obnoxious?
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 16 2017, @10:49PM
From what I recall his dad only bankrolled his first two fuckups, but I guess the 2nd got Trump successful enough to dupe some VCs into taking a gamble on him. Still can't believe he was able to run his campaign as "a successful businessman". God damn, all the people he screwed over must have been so fucking pissed at that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 17 2017, @04:02PM
I don't think you need to get the courts involved to get out of "Dad debt".
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday August 17 2017, @09:20AM (1 child)
That didn't *always* work: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/investigations/trumps-bid-for-sydney-casino-killed-off-by-mob-connections/news-story/65a0e5289cc924722f988bdca4b01e9b [theaustralian.com.au]
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday August 17 2017, @09:22AM
Oops, paywall. Sorry. Try this one: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/16/trumps-bid-for-sydney-casino-30-years-ago-rejected-due-to-mafia-connections [theguardian.com]
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Wednesday August 16 2017, @06:49PM
Hold on now... Are you suggesting coming from riches and privilege and experiencing the craft of governance from the managing of one's inheritance is no guarantee of becoming a magnificent king, a great president or all around a fine captain of industry?! Pish posh!
Pish posh I say!
compiling...
(Score: 5, Interesting) by RedBear on Wednesday August 16 2017, @06:51PM (3 children)
I love the update to this soooo much. Just like when he tried to claim (after Nieto's announcement) that he and the President of Mexico had "mutually" decided to postpone his visit to the White House, which was a lie, he is once again attempting to claim this huge embarrassing loss as a win, as if it was his choice. But this wasn't what he wanted. He was bragging just yesterday that there were plenty of other great CEOs and business leaders who would jump at the chance to join his committees in place of those who were resigning. But clearly every member of those committees was about to finally resign in protest of his support of neo-Nazis and white supremacy, and this was the only way he could save face. Sad.
Anybody that's left in any other Trump administration committees now realizes that they have to take their chance to make a stand sooner rather than later. The rest of the CEOs who failed to resign before Trump's announcement have now lost the opportunity to appear to have backbones. They'll still make the announcement that they were going to quit, but it will have little impact. This was a PR coup for the CEOs of Merck, Intel, 3M and Under Armor for being the first to abandon a sinking ship. They certainly won't be the last.
In a very dark-humor sort of way I am really loving this administration. Baltimore just removed all of their Confederate statues in the dead of night last night after they've been up for 70 years. They've been up since Jim Crow times, put up by Jim Crow racists who engaged in revisionist history to pretend that the Civil War wasn't about the right to enslave non-white human beings. Now thanks to Donald J. Trump, they are going to be coming down all around the country. Not even Ronald Reagan or the Bushes were able to unite the country like this against racism. It's beautiful.
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday August 16 2017, @10:31PM (1 child)
I think quitting over the neo-nazi business was basically an excuse. It made good PR, which let them get *some* mileage out of that council. I believe the real reason they quit was that it was a waste of time. He didn't listen to their proposals, but only wanted them to do what he said.
OTOH, I don't have any inside information. I could easily be wrong. But that's what makes most sense to me.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 16 2017, @10:51PM
I appreciate your intellectual honesty.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 17 2017, @04:04AM
Hah, yeah. My feelings exactly.
I see Trump as an unintentional version of (excuse the anime reference) Lelouch from Code Geass [wikipedia.org], who (spoiler alert) overthrew his father, declared himself Emperor of the World, and raised the oppression dial up to eleven specifically to force everyone else to unite against him and bring him down.
(Score: -1, Insightful) by jmorris on Wednesday August 16 2017, @07:06PM (46 children)
And again we see it. The Fortune 500 was lost a long time ago, Conservatives still believed "Big Business" was on their side despite ample evidence to the contrary. Every big corporation eventually drives off the capitalists who founded it and brings in fully trained Communists from Harvard and Yale to run it. This is why almost all new job creations happens outside the Fortune 500. All they do is use their Wall Street / FED created fame money to gobble up smaller companies and destroy their most of their value.
President Trump will hopefully draw the correct lesson from this affair and realize that helping big business is aiding his enemies. Help small and medium business grow.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Wednesday August 16 2017, @07:13PM (26 children)
What the hell?
I think you're confusing "socialists" and "sociopaths".
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 16 2017, @07:31PM (18 children)
Privatized profits. Socialized losses.
just like all socialisim that has ever been tried.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 16 2017, @08:57PM (17 children)
Here's Socialism:
The collective ownership of the means of production by The Workers.
If what you are talking about does not include that as a central organizing principle, what you are talking about is NOT Socialism.
Whatever label was applied to Stalinism, that regime was NOT Socialist nor Communist.
It was a top-down consolidation of power.
That is the OPPOSITE of Socialism.
Repeat for all other top-down regimes and their propaganda-based labels.
N.B. The fundamental unit of Socialism is the worker-owned cooperative (or perhaps the individual worker-owner).
...meanwhile, the Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea is not democratic nor is it about the people.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 16 2017, @09:54PM (6 children)
OP was saying the jmorris is not confused, he is just using an incorrect definition which is "just like all socialisim that has ever been tried."
Meaning that real socialism has never been tried, the ownership has always been the government (not the people) owning the means of production with some elites / dictators taking all the wealth.
That's how I read the comment anyway.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 16 2017, @11:25PM (5 children)
You're still stuck on Cold War propaganda that Socialism is a governmental system.
You need to get over that.
To repeat:
Socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production by The Workers.
Socialism is an ECONOMIC system.
It is defined by the ownership model in use.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 16 2017, @11:42PM (4 children)
Mondragon: Originally in the Basque country of Spain.
Started by 6 worker-owners in 1956.
Currently has over 100,000 worker-owners.
Now in 40 countries spanning 5 continents.
100 percent worker-owned.
Doing just fine, thank you very much.
Italy's government allows workers who have been laid off by boom-and-bust Capitalists to use their unemployment insurance payouts to start worker-owned cooperatives.
Ongoing since 1985.
That program change is called the Marcora Law. [google.com]
There are thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of such workplaces in Italy now.
They make up a significant portion of the economy there.
Where actual Socialism has been tried, it works just fine.
Yes, it would be nice if this Democracy in the workplace model would expand to government (1 person==1 vote rather than 1 dollar==1 vote).
More people have to realize that they hold the power and they can displace The Oligarchs.
I hold that this can only come with more worker-owned workplaces.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by quietus on Thursday August 17 2017, @03:37PM (3 children)
Mondragon is a cooperative. With cooperatives it's not so much a one worker, one vote organisation as rather a one investor, one vote organisation (independent of the number of shares you buy). A typical cooperative has grown out of some kind of social movement or urge.
In the case of the cooperative I belong to, the inability to buy renewable energy from local electricity companies was the driver. We broke that market open, and are to this day one of the largest operators of wind energy installations in Belgium. The interesting part is that the traditional energy companies are copying this cooperative model -- for example, electrabel, the biggest energy producer in Belgium, part of the Engie multinational, has put its renewable energy business into a cooperative too.
About 4.7 million jobs in the EU are organized in cooperatives [coopseurope.coop], with a total annual turnover of a little more than a trillion euro.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 17 2017, @07:43PM (2 children)
Yes, credit unions, food co-ops, housing co-ops, and electricity co-ops are all examples of other types of cooperatives.
Mondragon manufacturers consumer goods and provides services to its customers, competing with Capitalist companies.
It is a worker-owned cooperative.
It is a different way of organizing the ownership of a workplace.
The word "investor" has no place in describing Mondragon; that is a Capitalist term and Mondragon is a Socialist operation.
In continuous operation since 1956 and having never laid off a worker-owner, Mondragon has become the classic example of how to do a worker-owned cooperative.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by quietus on Friday August 18 2017, @03:46PM (1 child)
You react quite emotional with regards to the meaning of the word 'investor'. This might be something cultural -- Mondragon itself is open [mondragon-corporation.com] about it:
This is normal -- apart from the negative dividends principle -- for cooperatives: you pay a certain amount (i.e. you invest) in exchange for shares; you can only exchange these shares for their initial value after a set period of time (6 years e.g.), but as long as you keep those shares, you may receive a dividend on them. Whether or not a dividend is returned to members is decided on a general meeting; all members of the cooperative have an equal vote. The dividend is limited by law (6 percent, in Belgium); another difference with traditional companies.
In my original post I was trying to point out that the "alternative economy" is a bit bigger, and really not that unusual, than your sole example. Finally, socialism -- in the European social-democratic version -- does not consider capital, shares or bonds evil: they're simply a means to an end, subordinate to labour (workers, the human environment). Or at least, that's the theory -- with human fallacy regularly throwing a spanner in the works.
(Score: 2) by quietus on Friday August 18 2017, @03:53PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 16 2017, @09:54PM (4 children)
Workers owning the means of production is not necessarily antagonistic to the ideals of Capitalism. Most of that is marketing by people who prefer feudal styles of capitalism, involving top down lordships of financing with the peasant at the bottom living off the crumbs at the behest of their masters, much like has been happening with people like Trump at the top, and the minimum wage crowd at the bottom in America.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 17 2017, @12:12AM (3 children)
Workers owning the means of production is not necessarily antagonistic to the ideals of Capitalism
You clearly don't understand what Capitalism is.
You've indicated that you believe it to be an ideology.
Capitalism is an ownership model.
It consists of people with excess wealth investing money into a business.
Those people expect to make money from money by exploiting the labor of others--while the investors avoid doing labor.
...and Capital is only a representation of labor performed by The Workers.
Without Workers, there is no Capital.
...and in Capitalism, 1 dollar==1 vote.
In Socialism, only labor has value.
There are no outside owners.
Only The Workers have ownership of the means of production.
In Socialism, 1 worker==1 vote.
There's a silly line that goes:
In Capitalism, man exploits man; in Socialism, it's the other way around.
This is repeated by ignorant people who don't understand what Socialism is.
Next time you hear it, ask the moron babbling this nonsense how he could exploit himself if he owned the means of production.
...and it sounds like you are trying to lump in Entrepreneurism with Capitalism.
If you are the only employee and you have no investors, your business is Socialist.
If you have a payroll with non-owner laborers on it, your business is Capitalist.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday August 17 2017, @01:35AM (2 children)
Is it that simple, though? Is it enough to look at a single point in time to decide?
Ok, answer me this: if I'm the owner of a business that's fully automated**, what am I?
---
** Think expensive robots, not the ones every person can afford.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 17 2017, @02:48AM (1 child)
Yes, it actually is.
(The 2nd thought was predicated on the 1st, BTW.)
If you have investors who produce nothing within the company, yours is a Capitalist operation.
If you have employees who have no ownership in the company, yours is a Capitalist operation.
If your employees have ownership in the company but it's not 1 worker-owner==1 vote but is instead 1 share==1 vote, yours is a Capitalist operation.
(Probably called an ESOP: Employee Stock Ownership Plan.
Publix grocery stores and Dunn-Edwards Paints are examples.)
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday August 17 2017, @04:29AM
Ok, so suppose the following cases:
1. I opened the fully automated enterprise with capital obtained from another business using seriously underpaid labor. When the current (automated) business got up and running well, I sold the previous one.
2. I took a loan form the bank to buy the robots and, lucky enough, I managed to pay the loan with the robots still good.
In both cases, I have no employees now.
In the two cases respectively, am I socialist or capitalist?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday August 16 2017, @10:36PM (4 children)
I believe that that's not socialism, but only one particular variety of socialism called syndicalism. Socialism covers many different things, including things like medicare and the Social Security System. Many flavors of socialism have severe problems...but please point me to a governmental system that doesn't. I suspect that there are even variants of socialism that would claim unemployment insurance to be socialist.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 17 2017, @12:22AM (3 children)
You're back to mistaking gov't-run insurance systems for an ownership model.
You are referring to Liberal Democracy.
Sometimes, this is called Social Democracy.
People who are easily confused then call that "socialism".
That's not what it is.
Again: Socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production by The Workers.
If you're not talking about -ownership-, you're not talking about Socialism.
You need to break free from the Cold War bullshit.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday August 17 2017, @11:34AM (2 children)
You seem to have a serious hardon for this rant lately. Hows about this: you get your socialist businesses going and I'll get my capitalist businesses going and we'll let the workers decide for themselves which company they'd rather work for. Cause, ya see, if your idea were so feasible and grand, it would be the predominate business ownership model out there. It's not though. Not anywhere on earth. Never has been. That you can point to one or two successful examples on the entire planet should impress nobody at all.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 17 2017, @04:19PM
I hear they are getting closer to stem cell research which might help brain damage, you should look into it.
I've given up trying to reason with you, you're an ideological zealot who ignores the obvious in favor of your personal worldview. I wish you'd get a clue about how often you are wrong.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 17 2017, @08:16PM
There was a time when slave economies were the big thing.
That gave way to Feudalism.
That gave way to Capitalism.
The next step on the way to the ultimate economic system is (non-exploitive) Socialism.
There are tens of thousands of (Socialist) worker-owned cooperatives across the globe.
With the contraction of employment in USA and ever-more-abusive Capitalist workplaces, Socialism/worker-owned co-ops have also become very popular memes.
(You and your ilk, stuck on exploitive employment paradigms, are dinosaurs/outliers.)
The Italian government realized the practicality of the worker-owned coop 3 decades ago and has been nurturing Socialism VERY successfully.
The worker-owners of the Suma corporation in Britain democratically decided that each worker-owner will receive the same pay rate. [google.com]
(They pulled everyone up to the highest pay rate.)
Mondragon has been showing the way forwards since 1956.
Socialism is definitely the wave of the future.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by quacking duck on Wednesday August 16 2017, @07:45PM (5 children)
As recently as a couple months ago, I had to firmly correct alt-right supporters here and elsewhere who claimed the Nazis of WWII were left-wing instead of far-right, solely because the name stemmed from "National Socialist" in German. Actual actions meant nothing, the name was all that mattered.
Considering actual Nazi fucking flags were paraded about by the "Unite the Right", I dare any of them to keep trying to spin that lie. Or to call one of these flag-carrying Nazis left-wing socialists to their face.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday August 16 2017, @10:42PM (4 children)
The problem with your view is the presumption that "left" and "right" are unitary and mean the same thing across time and space. The Nazis *did* have some characteristics that would allow them to be called socialist. They've got a much stronger affinity with the current US right-wing, but that's not all they believed. E.g. their belief in magic affiliates them more with the current left than the right. For that matter Hitler was a vegetarian and anti-tobacco. Both of those attitudes are more closely currently affiliated with the left in the US.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 17 2017, @03:06AM
The Nazis *did* have some characteristics that would allow them to be called socialist
You speak in generalities and give no specifics to back your arguments.
I've seen you do this before.
If you want to be taken seriously and not be called a fool repeatedly, you will stop this.
The Nazis were Capitalist, Nationalist, Authoritarian, and anti-organized labor.
They weren't anything like Socialists, who are explicitly Anti-Capitalist, Internationalist (Workers of the world, unite!), Anti-Authoritarian (distributive ownership; Democracy in the workplace), and very pro-organized labor.
You need to become educated and stop repeating garbage that you found in Lamestream Media.
...or junk that you simply made up, extrapolating from your extremely limited knowledge base.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Thursday August 17 2017, @03:40AM (2 children)
"E.g. their belief in magic affiliates them more with the current left than the right."
Uh, the right is the magic man in the sky promoters, far more so than the left. What 'magic' is it that the left promotes?
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 17 2017, @05:18AM
The day he links to a legit citation for one of his silly opinions will be a day of note.
He has a skull full of mush and has never had it formed in a proper fact storage/retrieval mechanism.
...and never mind actual analysis of that data.
I've seen 13 year olds with more cognizance.
Frankly, he seems very Trumpish.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday August 17 2017, @04:56PM
People normally distinguish between religion and magic. I'll agree that there are usually lots of underlying similarities, but there are also differences. E.g. a religious person usually attributes the rules to an invisible absolute monarch. Believers in magic are much less unanimous about that, often believing "that's just how things are", and sometimes believing in a multitude of underlying reasons why magic works (would work?). Some, e.g., are pantheists. The belief in authoritarianism isn't baked into a belief in magic, where with most religions it is. OTOH, most magical systems aren't exactly ethical systems, more ritual-taboo, where most successful religions have an ethical system.
There are lots of similarities between religion and magic, but they sure aren't the same. And then there are things like Confucianism and Buddhism which aren't really either, at least in their original forms. (Some forms of Buddhism get pretty religious. At least it appears so from the outside.) The original doctrine of Karma, e.g., was basically that when you do something you create ripples in reality which spread. This isn't quite F=MA, but it has certain similarities. The doctrine of reincarnation was also not a part of the original doctrine, but something that got added. The Tibetans added a whole pantheon of gods and demons, but those were additions. It's plausible, though I don't know, that they were originally intended as metaphors and got out of hand. Possibly "theologists" still think of them as metaphors.
The thing is, people have certain biases in the way they think, and some things are just difficult for them to wrap their minds around. One example is "There's nobody to blame.". This is often true, or at least so nearly true that it might as well be, but people keep insisting that somebody has to be blamed. Just consider how hard a time no-fault insurance had in being accepted.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 16 2017, @08:35PM
No, you're confusing jmorris with a rational human being. He is full to the brim with propagandist bullshit and white-man persecution complexes.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday August 16 2017, @07:35PM (3 children)
Does it ever hurt to be this completely whacked-out, or have your frontal lobes long since burned out?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Funny) by melikamp on Wednesday August 16 2017, @08:25PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 16 2017, @08:40PM (1 child)
I don't know.
Which of your parents was the felcher?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 16 2017, @10:00PM
Armageddon!
But seriously, fuck off if you can't comprehend reality.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday August 16 2017, @07:45PM (8 children)
Yes, Big Business is not on the side of conservatives. It is not on the side of progressives, either. It is generally against everyone and everything except the naked, rigged profits of a tiny handful of people. If humanity doesn't do something to bring them down soon, it will be the end of our civilization.
You are also correct that helping small and medium businesses grow forms the basis for a much better economic policy. I don't think Trump would do that, because he was never one of them. He started life with a massive head start. But we're so far down the rabbit hole and careening through the forests of upside down world that anything could happen, right?
Describing the MBAs from Harvard and Yale who run the Fortune 500 as Communists sounds weird, though. It's entirely the wrong term. I know that in some circles "communist," "socialist," and "fascist" are interchangeable pejoratives, but they are actually specific terms that describe different things, in the same way that calling somebody a "Buddhist" is not the same thing as calling them a "Catholic." You can see that those are different, right? Same deal here.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Grishnakh on Wednesday August 16 2017, @09:09PM (7 children)
Yes, Big Business is not on the side of conservatives. It is not on the side of progressives, either. It is generally against everyone and everything except the naked, rigged profits of a tiny handful of people.
You're missing a very important point here, however: conservatives are on the side of Big Business. It's been this way clearly for decades. Of course, it's a bit of a one-sided relationship, but conservatives are plainly very happy to push policies which benefit the profits of Big Business at the expense of everyone else: deregulation, privatization, low taxes for rich people, special tax breaks for business, etc.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday August 16 2017, @10:46PM (6 children)
No, no, no. *Some* conservatives are on the side of big business. Many, however hate big business with a passion. This is odd, because all the candidates that they vote for support big business, but it's still true. You'd think they'd split off into a minor party, but they are conservative, and here what they are conserving is the name of the party they vote for the candidates of.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday August 17 2017, @01:41AM (5 children)
If they hate big business with a passion, they sure aren't showing it at the voting booth. "Voting is as voting does" as Forrest Gump might say... or "you get what you vote for".
(Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday August 17 2017, @11:39AM (4 children)
The problem there is they hate progressives more. If you want to know why... well that's another huge argument all in itself.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Grishnakh on Thursday August 17 2017, @01:45PM (3 children)
Yeah, basically it comes down to: they'll happily vote to fuck themselves over economically just so that they can hope to push their crappy social and religious values on everyone.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday August 17 2017, @03:37PM (2 children)
A) The religious right hasn't had significant political power or even a noteworthy lobbying lineup since Reagan, try again.
B) The definition of conservative precludes pushing *new* anything on anyone. They want the status quo socially.
C) No Democrat President in most voters' lifetimes has done anything to markedly help the economy. At least the conservatives can look back to Reagan.
See, I am not a conservative but I do at least understand them. You seem to lack that capability.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 17 2017, @04:23PM (1 child)
Holy sweet jesus!!!! You are 100% certifiable. Vast majority of Republicans are religious, and they've controlled significant amounts of power multiple times. You are a brain dead fucking idiot. How do you live with yourself?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 19 2017, @09:19PM
There is a huge difference between being religious and wanting to push your religion down someone else's throat. Learn it and you won't look like a fool as badly in the future.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by melikamp on Wednesday August 16 2017, @07:47PM (1 child)
HAHAHAHAHAHA....... Stop it, jm, you are killing me :) Jimmy Kimmel better watch out for his job...
(Score: 1) by redneckmother on Thursday August 17 2017, @02:41PM
Hmmm. I thought Donnie Jingles doesn't like to read history books, so why should he learn from mistakes?
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday August 16 2017, @09:18PM
Conservatives still believed "Big Business" was on their side despite ample evidence to the contrary.
When psychopathic corporations aren't even on your side anymore maybe you pause for a moment of self-reflection...
NAH!! Just double-down.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday August 16 2017, @10:19PM (1 child)
The only side that Big Business has ever been on is the side that makes them the most money. That's it. Everything else is negotiable.
Like Republicans because Republicans offer them big tax breaks and lax regulation. They also like Democrats because the Democrats offer them big subsidies. And they donate substantially to both major parties, specifically to ensure that no matter who is elected, they win.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 17 2017, @08:57AM
They love their profits and the two party system that guarantees them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 17 2017, @12:33AM
Nonsense! Are you saying that a company as big as Google or Facebook would be overrun by SJWs? Assinine! Someone would have written a memo about it, or at least started an anonymous forum to discuss it. [cnbc.com] We've seen nothing of the sort so take your vast right wing conspiracy back to your mother's tinfoil gilded basement!
t. talking-point regurgitator