cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

youngdan wrote:

The paycheque comes right out of the owners bank account. The owner had better have the cash in there as the worker always goes straight to the bank to cash. As far as the worker is concerned that is the end of it. Not so for the owner though. He must now write a cheque to the government for taxes, medicare, social security, and if he is in Massachusetts he keeps writing as the state wants 5.3% and a cheque for workman's compensation. By this time the worker if he is lucky is enjoyng a few brews and complaining about the taxes he paid. He is with friends so nobody points out that it is the owner who has written the cheques for the taxes and not him. That is why we have withholding taxes so as the worker never wises up.

As regards what is the paycheque for. Well it is for whatever the hell the worker want's it to be for. He can pay his bills or he can put it up his nose. That is his business but he had better have his ass at work again in 60 hours to keep this sorry cycle of slavery going for another week.

Sad, but very accurate, description of small business. You forgot to mention that the business owner works an average 70 hours a week, has to pay for his/her own pension and does not get any benefits or payout if things go sideways. Next week he may be much worse off than the employee, who is entitled to redundancy and benefits if the company closes.

Big business is a different kettle of fish altogether.

Most people work in small businesses, though.

How much of the profit is made by small businesses?

Depends what you consider as profit.

Profit is getting back more than you put in.

I would say most employees make a profit. It's not just the wodge of cash in the payslip.

It's also learning, experience, friends, travel, being productive and loads of other less tangible stuff.

Is 40-50 hours time spent at work a week a even a cost ? I'm not sure it is. This time finances the entire 168 hours in the week, and familiy time and holidays and houses cars etc.

I find working very profitable I must say. A pain in the ass at times certainly, but far better than sitting at home. That surely costs a soul.

Edit - What is profit for ? I think it's a prime mover. People will not do anything without profit. They will do nothing rather than do something unprofitable. But profit is calculated on many parameters other than hard cash, which is why most people work.

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Profit is getting back more than you put in.

I would say most employees make a profit. It's not just the wodge of cash in the payslip.

It's also learning, experience, friends, travel, being productive and loads of other less tangible stuff.

Is 40-50 hours time spent at work a week a even a cost ? I'm not sure it is. This time finances the entire 168 hours in the week, and familiy time and holidays and houses cars etc.

I find working very profitable I must say. A pain in the ass at times certainly, but far better than sitting at home. That surely costs a soul.

Edit - What is profit for ? I think it's a prime mover. People will not do anything without profit. They will do nothing rather than do something unprofitable. But profit is calculated on many parameters other than hard cash, which is why most people work.

Some people get a lot of non-cash rewards from their work, and for other people work is to be endured because it funds the weekend.

I agree that profit is a "mover", but I don't agree that people won't do anything without profit. I've just come away from a meeting with people who have been doing voluntary stuff for years, for the satisfaction it gives them and the usefulness to their community.

cactus flower wrote:

youngdan wrote:

Big business is indeed a different kittle of fish. It is thought by some that we have a free interprise capitalist system here in the US. That is not the case. What you have is massive regulation from everything from healthcare to hairdressing. This is to protect the monopolies of the big guys who can afford to pay hundreds of billions via lobbiests to the politicians. All these rules and regulations are designed to stomp the little guy. A lad running an operation of 10 people has to pay his accountant the exact same as the accountant in a company with 50 thousand workers.

In the very unlikely event that a new party might spring up in Ireland then Co Ops would be an excellent idea. Correct me if I am wrong on this point but does Labour ever promote them. That would be real socialism but only the young have any interest in socialism.

Labour in England used to promote them: they were a regular part of life. Respvblica says there are plenty in Spain.

Well my wife's grandfather used to have an olive grove and it worked through the co-op. I mean to ask up a bit more on this.

I strongly agree with Youngdan here. The real backbone of the economy are what the german's call the "mittelstand", or the small to medium sized businesses. They are the yeomanry of capitalism. For years I got the feeling that the philosphphy of ahren and FF, which in european terms would be classified as Gaulist was to pay attention to the big players, be they unions, farmer association or builders and big business corporations and to forget about the rest, the small guys.
That was what the social partnership was about. If you were part of a strong lobby group you were grand. Otherwise you pay taxes and shut up!

Republicanism for me is about equality and freedom. FF, like their French cousins (and also the Bush neocons) are a betrayal of republicanism at practically every level. I wanted FG to take up the mantle of sticking by the citizens and the small businessnesses. I think they are the party of private property but they are also a party, who through loss of power, have less links with the oligarch establishment. They would be the ideal vessel to bring about that real "capitalist/libertarian" equality, unlike labour which is tied to unions.

They would and could be. But will they?

Anything is possible but it is a race against time. This is a bit of good news. The big media, which is nothing less than brain washing for the masses, has sp;ent a huge amount of money buying up the small independent newspapers, radio and TV stations. Just when 5 groups had control over nearly everything the profitability has tanked as everyone is on line. Now one man can spout away on his website and he can draw a bid audience. If I were 20 I would broadcast myself on the web for an hour a day.

The news mags and NY Times, Boston Globe etc are on their last legs.

Ye will have heard of T Boone Pinkins. An interesting man who is close to 90. Anyway he has organised a group to focus on energy. I have not checked his page out myself but I heard on the radio that 1.5 million people have signed up with him.

Elections are all pretty much set ups. same faces get picked ad infinitum at the selections. An independent is at a disadvantage as the assumption is that he won't win so people don't vote for him. The secret looking ahead will be the ability to show that you have a sizeable number of people committed to you before the election.

So who is going to give it a go.

youngdan wrote:

Anything is possible but it is a race against time. This is a bit of good news. The big media, which is nothing less than brain washing for the masses, has sp;ent a huge amount of money buying up the small independent newspapers, radio and TV stations. Just when 5 groups had control over nearly everything the profitability has tanked as everyone is on line. Now one man can spout away on his website and he can draw a bid audience. If I were 20 I would broadcast myself on the web for an hour a day.

The news mags and NY Times, Boston Globe etc are on their last legs.

Ye will have heard of T Boone Pinkins. An interesting man who is close to 90. Anyway he has organised a group to focus on energy. I have not checked his page out myself but I heard on the radio that 1.5 million people have signed up with him.

Elections are all pretty much set ups. same faces get picked ad infinitum at the selections. An independent is at a disadvantage as the assumption is that he won't win so people don't vote for him. The secret looking ahead will be the ability to show that you have a sizeable number of people committed to you before the election.

So who is going to give it a go.

That is good news.