Ayn Rand and Objectivism

[sasguru]

There are many things you can do to force people to go to work but not in an environment where doing so will be breaching their 'human' rights.

You talk about forcing people to go to work.
Have you considered that there might not be the work for them to do because the natonal cake is now too small to support the population.?
Not everyone has the ability, education or brainpower to start a business and there are place up North where there is really no employment.

[sasguru]

didn't the planned economy of the soviet union prevent its economic collapse in the great depression of the 20's/30's? I'm not arguing and I'm no expert

Well the economy of the Soviet Union was large an autarky while it lasted (until it got dragged into the arms race) so was not affected by economic events in the US and Europe.
But that is irrelevant to the discussion.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

You talk about forcing people to go to work.
Have you considered that there might not be the work for them to do because the natonal cake is now too small to support the population.?
Not everyone has the ability, education or brainpower to start a business and there are place up North where there is really no employment.

No, you talked about forcing people to work.

The national cake is not too small, the population is too large.

Actually a great deal of the country is not actually creating or making anything and therefore making no contribution to the economy - it is collectively know as the public sector.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Here's one:

Works Council - Working-in-Germany

In large part because the active participation of the workers is enshrined in law, managers have to use compromise and discussion when making decisions. Both workers and managers tend towards consensus as opposed to in the raw Anglo-Saxon capitalism with its "them and us" approach. Additionally the demands of the stock market are not taken as the bellweather of a firm's performance as it is here and in the US - rather a long term approach is taken.

Now consider that Germany is the 2nd largest exporter of goods, beating the USA, an immense accomplishment given the disparity in populations (80 million versus 250 million).

When you consider that Germany lost the war in large part because at the time the US was far and away the "workshop of the world", and compare it with now, where the Anglo-Saxon economies are suffering far more than the German and are much less productive, it becomes clear that the the more aggressive Anglo-Saxon capitalism is not successful as the more socialist Rhineland form of capitalism.

You see the difference between me and you? I don't start with any ideology and try to make the facts fit it. I start with the evidence and look for why economies are succesful based on the real world.

How on earth does forcing someone to pay for something that they have no involvement in and no control over be contributory to the success of a business

"In private businesses, and in companies of a size of 5 or more permanently voting-entitled employees of which 3 are entitled to stand for election, the employees are entitled to elect a works council, according to Industrial Constitution Act (BetrVG). The employer is in no way active in that process. The employer must not hinder or forbid the election but still bears the expenses related to the election as well as all costs that arise through the works council"

[sasguru]

.

Actually a great deal of the country is not actually creating or making anything and therefore making no contribution to the economy - it is collectively know as the public sector.

So you think rubbish collection, road maintenance, schools, universities, looking after old people, hospitals and GPs make no contribution to the economy?
Do you actually live on planet Earth?

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

So you think rubbish collection, road maintenance, schools, universities, looking after old people, hospitals and GPs make no contribution to the economy?
Do you actually live on planet Earth?

How does the NHS make money then?

[GreenLabel]

So you think rubbish collection, road maintenance, schools, universities, looking after old people, hospitals and GPs make no contribution to the economy?

I would argue that there are vast tracts of the public sector that are doing none of those things, nor anything else of any value.

[sasguru]

How on earth does forcing someone to pay for something that they have no involvement in and no control over be contributory to the success of a business

"In private businesses, and in companies of a size of 5 or more permanently voting-entitled employees of which 3 are entitled to stand for election, the employees are entitled to elect a works council, according to Industrial Constitution Act (BetrVG). The employer is in no way active in that process. The employer must not hinder or forbid the election but still bears the expenses related to the election as well as all costs that arise through the works council"

Its a good question that deserves investigation.
The success of German companies speaks for itself, howoever and is not in dispute.

Here's a clue from that same link:

"Studies, however, have shown that normally both employers and employees benefit from a works council. In works council companies, both productivity and wage level are above average, and their personnel turnover is lower"

Perhaps giving a stake to employees makes them commit more.
It works, and thats good enough for me, since I don't have to fit the facts into any pre-held ideology

[sasguru]

How does the NHS make money then?

Does it have to? By supporting the nation's health, perhaps its supporting all the private businesses to make money?
Perhaps because of the NHS, small businesses don't have to give their employees BUPA?
Do you give your employees paid-for private health care, Lisa?

[sasguru]

I would argue that there are vast tracts of the public sector that are doing none of those things, nor anything else of any value.

The efficiency of the public sector is a another issue.