No dividends, at least as far as I know. As for the worth, that really depends on the stock market, and of course, the offers. There are several companies who buy them, and they all compete with those prices.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Sunday, May 03, 2009 10:21:10 AM)| |  | Head banger wrote: | | if they held onto them, would they get dividends? could it be worth more now?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | An individual did what was best for him/her.
Now, I did oversimplify the issue a bit, but the way it went was that you got a certain worth of "certificates". You had a piece of paper that said you own a tiny little piece of something. In practice, there were only two things you could do with it: sell it or wipe your ass with it. Naturaly, people sold it.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | so then the people decided right? it could be the wrong decision, but their call.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Some were privatised, some are yet to be, some hopefully never will be.
Basicly, those that were privatised, were in a sense "given away", although that is not correct. The state gave each citizen a certain amount of shares (of the companies that were technicaly in ownership of the citizens), which were then in term bought by private hands.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | did the state sell them? give them away? still own them?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | And if the workers werent there to produce, the people with ideas would only have... Well, ideas.
And, of course, there is a difference between our economies here - with most of our companies, no one took that risk, and no one invested money. Companies were created and developed under state planning.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | what if the minimum wage was indexed to the cost of living or average wage, so if the average wage goes up 5% the min wage goes up 5%?
do the workers create the wealth? without the person who came up with the idea for the product, invested their money in it, took the risk, there would be nothing for the workers.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Lol... Yeah, I know about that... We had a similar thing in mid-80s. A country where everyone was a millionare.
Now, it would be a great thing if the real wages would be increased in line with inflation, unfortunately they are not, unless the unions go out, block the streets for a day or two and strike for a week.
Now, gaining or losing. As I said, it would be good if it was true that we wouldnt be losing. But, there is another thing. As I said, workers work, and they lose all the time, no matter the inflation or deflation. Workers create wealth that is then expropriated, and distributed by others. That is why I say that they los all the time.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | inflation occurs when more money is placed into circulation, thats true. but the more times the money circulates the more peoples earnings go up vs the inflationary index. I was speaking of earnings power not dollars. look at zimbabwe, last year their inflation went up so fast that you could earn 10 million dollars one day (their dollars) and the next day that wouldnt get you a cup of water. people regularily earned that much and got nothing for it. would be cool to say you earned that, but...
so if the workers real (indexed to inflation) doesnt change, how is he losing. he gets the same thing. can buy the same stuff. not gaining does not equate to losing
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Wrong and wrong. More money in circulation is fine, but if the basic guaranteed incomes arent increased, how can those at the bottom get to it? That, and more money in circulation means inflation, which in term means that you need to pay more.
How are they not losing anything? The people at the bottom are the people doing the dirtiest, hardest and most underpaid jobs. They are losing all the time. If the get a bit more, that just means that they are not losing as much.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | but, more money in circulation means everyone has more oportunity. and if those at the botom stay the same, they havent lost anything right
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | LOL... No. Not when you calculate everything in averages. If those at the top move a great distance higher, that alone raises the average. The people at the bottom dont need to get anything more to raise the average standard.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | but if the average standard is higher, surely that moves the people at the botom up a bit. it might move those at the top up a great distance, but most people get something.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | It would be, yes. But... We are an economy of some 2 million people. Germany is of 100 million. Germany has been a capitalist country for a century and more, we for 20 years. Their middle sized companies dwarf our big businesses. And most importantly, we already depend on them. And even if we were at their standard, we would still encounter the same problems that any capitalist society does. The pyramidal structure of society, corporate greed, lack of social security... All problems that we already have, to be sure. The point is that just an overall higher standard wouldnt solve them.
For better or for worse, we will never be like Germany. Infact, leaving socialism and attempting to compete in caplitalism with the old capitalist countries, was probably the single most stupid decision in our history.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | well, if you were on an equal footing with say germany, wouldnt the standard of living be higher?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Hardly. And, why would we want to compete in an open economy?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | didnt knwo they had a different name for the economic and military aliance. good to know. do you think your country could grow its economy in a closed setting to be able to compete on equal footing one day as an open economy
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, first of all, the word youre looking for is COMECON. That was the economic union, Warsaw pact was a military alliance. But, since fmr. Yugoslavia wasnt a member of either, there isnt much that I can say about them.
Now, a closed vs. open economy... You see, I dont necesarily favour closed economies. I think that it would be better for us at this point to have a closed economy, since we are a small economy, that has a hard time standing up to the big ones. Like I said before, if the paricipants were more or less equal in strenght, than it would be different.
Now, to your question. Yes, you can have all four, at least thats what I think. A capitalist country can, potentialy, close its market, and remain capitalist on the inside. A socialist country can engage in trade with other countries, as COMECON countries did, and as we did, even though on a very small scale.
And thats another thing, too. Its not a black and white issue, open vs. closed, and nothing in between. Like I said, our economy was very closed, with a lot of protectionism. Did it mean that we did not trade with other countries? No. There were still excesses in our economy that were sold, and there were materials and products that we imported. We had to import oil, for example, as well as certain consumer goods (like coffee), simply because there was no other way we could get them.
But, trade is only a part of the story... The reason why I advocate a closed economy is primarily because of the ownership of businesses. You see, in a socialist economy, no matter how open, businesses are state owned. No one can come from abroad and buy the business, and bag the profits. In an open capitalist economy, that is not a problem.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | | so strat, since we agreed in another thread, perhaps we can in this one. you favor a closed economy vs an open one. the warsaw pact was a group of socialist or comunist countries that had open trade with eachother. would you agree that you can have a closed socialist economy an open socialist economy, a closed capitalist or open capitalist. not which is beter, just their existance |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
