Could the Government or Workers Produce Consumer Goods as Well as the Private Sector?

[BrentWil]

I really like my Mac. I find I get more work done and I enjoy using it more. But, when I think about it Windows has actually come a long ways also. Even that is a very good product, if you need certain capabilities. On consumer goods, the private sectors does seem to put out things people want to buy.

Lets create a world in which our society is actually socialist. I am not talking about Tea Party socialist, I am talking about real socialist meaning there is common ownership (Government Ownership) of the means of production and allocation of resources. In that sort of system, is there anyway that consumer goods could be of the same quality as the private sector currently provides? If that is possible, how would it work?

BTW, I thought this was a cool way to phrase the question... not that I wanted the thread to only focus on Macs. The basic question is, could the government produce consumer goods that people wanted and do it as well as the private sector?

[Canuckistanian]

1. That's a big undertaking

-The cost of all new machines.

-The cost of training people on Macs. (not trivial)

-Costs of conversion of already-existing software to Mac.

-Risks of changing ALL your software AND hardware to ONE company. What if Apple goes under?

You'd have to have one HELL of a business case to justify a major change like that.

[KamaAina]

2. No, but they could run Microsoft and produce as good a product

or better. :P

[emulatorloo]

3. If the same management team and user interface people were in charge, why not?

Medicare is very responsive, so is the VA. There are plenty of govt programs that run well and provide lots of value.

[pipoman]

86. Most of the admin of medicare is

outsourced to private companies...here it is WPS... http://www.wpsmedicare.com/about_wps.shtml . Why? Because private business does the work cheaper and more efficiently than .gov can.

[Fumesucker]

4. The internet you put that Apple computer on was developed by government..

You might recall that Al Gore invented it. :evilgrin:

[JackRiddler]

91. The code platform on which the Apple runs was developed by the University of California.

Next time you boot your Apple, go into the text shell by hitting Cmd+S (Cmd is the "apple sign" key) right after the tone sounds and before the apple sign screen appears.

First thing you will see top of the screen are the multiple copyright notices for the UC Board of Regents dating back to the 1980s.

The Internet example is obvious enough. Also: GPS. Pretty much anything to do with telephony and electronics originated in government technological development programs initiated by NASA, NSA, DARPA, etc.

Most of our wonderful technologies and industries were developed as government programs that were privatized after they became commercially viable.

Even the postwar boom was based a) on an industrial capacity created for the war and then re-converted for consumer production and b) government highway building and subsidies that encouraged urban flight, sprawl and development of the suburbs. Not to mention c) the permanent taxpayer subsidy of the military-intel industries, labeled a "defense" budget.

Modern capitalism works by having the public sector bear the development costs prior to commercial viability, the public sector bearing the bailout costs at the end of commercial viability, and throughout a product cycle allowing the private ownership to externalize health, social and environmental costs to the public sector, the people, or the rest of the world. Private profit, public loss.

[Dreamer Tatum]

5. Remove the profit motive and you destroy everything

Anyone who thinks Apple isn't in it for the money is a moon-eyed fool.

[leftstreet]

6. Which is why so many people die because they're on Medicare n/t

[ingac70]

9. ?

All those people over 65?

[leftstreet]

10. .

Sorry, guess I should have used the :sarcasm: thingy

[laughingliberal]

55. AND why the quality of health care is SO much better since the system went for profit...

:sarcasm:

[Fumesucker]

11. That's why the life expectancy in the UK is so abysmally low...

Oh, wait, it's better than in the USA..

Never mind.

[Dreamer Tatum]

13. How cute...you think there's no private enterprise in the UK!

Adorable!

[Fumesucker]

18. I guess you are not aware that the government runs health care in the UK..

There is some private health care but that's strictly boutique stuff, the nuts and bolts of the average Briton's health care comes directly from a government funded and operated health care system.

A system that gets better results than our own strictly private system.

You could ask Stephen Hawking, the NHS has kept him alive far longer than the average person who has the misfortune to be afflicted with his condition.

[Dreamer Tatum]

26. I thought this OP was about iPods. Not healthcare. nt

[Fumesucker]

28. It was about consumer goods..

Health care is a consumer good.

You made a flat statement that government could not do as good a job as private industry, I provided a counterexample to show how government can do a better job than private industry in some cases.

[BrentWil]

34. Is it really the quality that the American Health Care System lacks?

Or is it the access? I firmly believe that everyone should have access to Health Care. However, on the quality side, if you can pay for it, there is none better in the World.

I get your point, but the issue with Health Care is access.

[Fumesucker]

40. And the lack of access is exactly a symptom of the private nature of our health care system..

(for lack of a better term)

Not to mention that while the quality may be high the price is even higher by a factor of about two or even more.

[BrentWil]

49. While I think you are pulling the two times out of your ass..

I do believe in reform to allow access to everyone. However, on the other side, a competitive market is also important to establish. That will ensure to lead the world in Health Care innovation while taking care of those who cannot afford Health Care.

Education and Health Care are the civil rights issues of our age, IMHO.

[Fumesucker]

59. If you aren't aware of the difference in health care costs between the US and other nations..

Then perhaps this chart will enlighten you.

Keep in mind that the UK at least covers everyone in the country, not true in the USA so our costs for those who actually get healthcare are even higher than are indicated on this chart.

[BrentWil]

61. I understand that the total cost of the system is more

Your point is that the rich are paying high prices, but not getting what they pay for. My argument is that they are getting very good health care an it is "double"

[Fumesucker]

62. We've had a couple of health care professionals on this thread already..

Who say that the care was better before the US system became totally "for profit"..

Do you have any idea how many iatrogenic deaths there are in the USA every year? More than from cancer or heart disease.

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2003/10/29/medical_system_is_leading_cause_of_death_and_injury_in_us.htm

The total number of iatrogenic deaths shown in the following table is 783,936. It is evident that the American medical system is the leading cause of death and injury in the United States. The 2001 heart disease annual death rate is 699,697; the annual cancer death rate, 553,251.

[BrentWil]

69. Again, not my argument...

The total death rate is a product of lack of access.

[Fumesucker]

84. No, iatrogenic means caused by the physician or medical system..

Not due to lack of access but due to screwups on the part of the medical care providers.

This is a different and completely separate issue than lack of access, this is patients who have medical care who are killed by improper delivery of that medical care.

[laughingliberal]

56. It's both. Access and Quality suck, now.

I've been a nurse since before it was a for profit system. Quality and access both were better before.

[BrentWil]

70. ummm...

When was that?

[laughingliberal]

88. ummm

I worked as a nursing intern while in school from 1979 and graduated in 1982. I well recall the talking points from the Republicans in the early 80's about how competition would lower the costs and improve quality. By the late 80's the hospital system had, largely, converted to a privatized, for-profit system.

Access was getting harder, nurse-patient ratios were skyrocketing and many nurses were looking for any way out of nursing. HMO's and insurance company contracts with physicians were (and are) forcing doctors to run patients through their offices like cattle in order to make a living.

There is no doubt costs have risen obscenely since those days and medical errors have gone way up. It was and is a disaster. I don't really care how often it's repeated, we do not have the 'best health care in the world.' Not in terms of access OR quality. We did at one time but privatization and the profit motive took care of that.

As I've said before, I've yet to see any formerly public service that did not get more expensive and less responsive after privatization. Health care is one of the more egregious examples.

[Scruffy1]

31. Sure, just ask Jonas Salk

I remember when I was young and I had friends with lifetime disability from Polio. Salk not only spent his own meager resources to develop the vaccine, but refused any payment. I am so sick and tired of this bullshit about the profit motive which is just an excuse to cover the rape of the earths resources, including human labor, to enrich a few. In the early pre windows days we had developers working on PCs in their spare time, but because Bill Gates was in the right place at the right time he got to buy someone elses work and establish a near monopoly with the help of IBM. I don't even think apple founders were primarily interested in money when they set out, only in the act of creation. the real problem we have is often unequal access to capital to implement good ideas.

[BrentWil]

36. There are certainly other motivation for people..

however, the profit motive is a powerful one also and this counter example does not disprove that.

[Fumesucker]

44. I don't think Steve Wozniak was primarily motivated by money when he developed the Apple line..

Jobs on the other hand seems like the type who was seriously interested in megabucks.

[arcane1]

7. NASA could do it n/t

[Sonoman]

15. After they fix the Space Station.

35,000+ people have worked on that thing and it still doesn't work.

Sonoman

[EmilyKent]

21. The space station is working just fine.

Has been since 1998, and is growing by leaps and bounds.

[Confusious]

8. How about they just use Linux and save us money?

better security, better uptime, better stability, you don't need the latest and greatest for it to run fast and it's free.

http://news.techworld.com/security/1798/mac-os-x-security-myth-exposed/

I don't want my private info on a botique operating system that has not been through the trials.

[FormerDittoHead]

20. ++++1000.

What I don't get is why the gov't doesn't make a tiny grant of a billion dollars (a small fraction of what it pays Microsoft) hire programmers, fork a distro of Linux and release it to the public for free.

20 years ago, I said the same for tax software - why can't we use the same software the IRS uses to calculate our returns? The reason is that the gov't, while PAYING FOR IT, doesn't OWN it.

It's crazy.

[ScarletFyre]

27. I haven't paid for software since 1998...

Which is when I started using Linux. Free, fast, and made by the people, for the people.

Socialism ftw!

[Scruffy1]

33. Damn straight. Screw the capitalists. We don't need them.

[readmoreoften]

12. The "socialist" question isn't whether a government could run it. It's whether the workers can.

Your definition of socialism isn't the worker's society that Marx/Lenin/Trotsky/Russell/Einstein/Orwell/etc. imagined; its the top-down Stalinist work camp revision that some call "state capitalism" and others call "Bonapartism" and others call "new feudalism." No one is interested in that except for neoliberal ideologues who want to make workers afraid of their own power.

Can the workers who build and design Macs do so without stockholders, repression at Foxcomm in China? Of course. They're the ones doing it now.

[BrentWil]

17. Changed the question to reflect this...

But I would disagree with your major point. It would be the same, in that you would have high inefficiencies and on a mass scale, you would create a great deal of unneeded suffering.

[Hannah Bell]

71. +100.

[BrentWil]

79. Nothing currently stops companies from being employee owned. NT

[Hannah Bell]

83. um, yes, something does. the fact that they're owned by capital.

[BrentWil]

87. You can create capital... you can start your own business

THe model is actually in place now.

[Hannah Bell]

94. yes, i'll be gearing up my new electric car company soon.

[qnr]

14. Not all of us think that Apple makes particularly great products. I've owned

computers since 1979, and neither Microsoft nor Apple really impress me much.

[Curmudgeoness]

16. Could Apple run the government and produce as good a product?

There is a time and place for government, as well as capitalist companies. I believe that anything that is vital to keeping society going or are natural resources of a country should be run by the government, and all else can be run by companies. I am opposed to privatization of things like prisons, schools, utilities, etc. I think that natural resources are owned by the whole country and should be controlled by the government. But I do not want to take Apple's freedom to be a capitalistic company away. But I don't think that a capitalistic company can run the government any more than I think that the government can do as well as Apple.

[LiberalArkie]

19. I think the management (gov owned) would have to be different

than most gov operated systems. Gov businesses do not upgrade as often as needed. It is about impossable to get rid of bad employees and Being goc run, naturally you have senators and reps telling you how to operate the business. That has always been the problem. But I think that socialist businesses should be able to do the job cheaper and better,

But like most things gov run stuff tends to get bloated. And I consider myself a socialist.

[denbot]

22. The Government can sponsor some pretty impressive technology

The Mujhideen dodging predator drones will attest to our ability to field cutting edge technology, but getting cutting edge technologies that are nimble enough to respond to market pressures is beyond ANY form of government's ability. By nature the bureaucracy, competing interests, and necessary checks and balances make government a slow to respond behemoth.

This might make the lurking freeper's heads explode, but the technologies that make up our space, military, and intelligence programs, are socialist in nature. The products are produced by private industries, but the government determine the specification, and "own" the means (public money), of production.

[leveymg]

23. It's not either-or. Most hi-tech is the result of gov't-funded research that was developed into

consumer goods by private companies that received significant gov't subsidies, of one sort or another.

The answer is, the private sector could not produce advanced consumer goods without the government or workers.

[laughingliberal]

65. +1000 nt

[billlll]

24. "WAGECRUSH" - quality contest not matter because Private Sector goal is

dollar a day wage for us all.

When we all live at Mexico level it won't matter if our job output was superb or just OK.

BTW... A shabby product for hi price ups private profit.

[BrentWil]

25. Well the stats don't really back that up

For example, China and India have both seen millions out of poverty, not in poverty, since they started market reforms.

[Fumesucker]

29. Somalia would be a counterexample..

It has the freest markets of all and yet has astoundingly high poverty.

Finland on the other hand is quite socialistic and has a higher standard of living than the USA or China, India or Somalia for that matter.

[BrentWil]

32. The rule of law is very important for any free market to work

I would say that contract law is really the foundation of a free market. One has to know that one can make an agreement with another person and that can be enforced. Somalia is an example of a traditionalist society and lacks a rule of law.

Interesting choice of Finland, as they have been engaging in market reforms since the early part of this decade. ( http://www.vm.fi/vm/en/04_publications_and_documents/01_publications/02_economic_surveys/46381/46384_en.pdf ) However, it is true that they have a much more efficient public sector then the United States. Many of the Scandinavian country have the characteristic of a small country with a homogenous population. That produces state with a better ability to have a well managed public sector. With that being said, the countries saw slower economic growth in the 1990s and many started market reforms.

[leftstreet]

35. Oh you did NOT just go there

Many of the Scandinavian country have the characteristic of a small country with a homogenous population.

:eyes:

[BrentWil]

37. They have the same culture...

It is easier for administration. Our culture is heterogeneous and it is wonderful, creative, and dynamic. That is why we have things like Apple, great books, food, and books.

[leftstreet]

38. what does that mean?

"They have the same culture. It is easier for administration"

:popcorn:

[BrentWil]

41. It means that when...

You have a small country with a population that is of the same culture, it is more likely that you will have an efficient public sector. When you have a huge country with many different cultures it is less likely that you have an efficient public sector. There are many more problems and challenges to actually running the thing. The same system will not work for everyone and culture does matter.

[leftstreet]

42. But we have one culture here. American culture

Right?

[BrentWil]

46. You can define it as one...

But we have many subsets. It is a very diverse country. That has HUGE advantages. It creates dynamic, innovative, culturally aware people. However, it is also harder to administer a public program to a diverse crowd.

There is a reason that the United States is a leader in innovation and Sweden has a well run public sector. That is all I am saying. Culture does matter.

[leftstreet]

50. Are Hispanic or First Nations people excluded from Medicare?

Has Social Security failed because of 'culture?'

How does someone's 'culture' prevent them from attaining meaningful jobs, livable wages, an end to war, healthcare, equality, human rights?

:shrug:

[BrentWil]

52. Did some one say they were excluded or it failed?

I am not against having a public sector that provides a certain standard of living because that is what is moral. However, medicare, social security are simply not ran as efficient as Scandinavian programs. All I am suggesting is that size and the culture of a country matter.

[leftstreet]

53. I didn't realize Medicare and Social Security had failed

But then I hardly ever watch tv so I'm not always up on things

:crazy:

[BrentWil]

57. No one said they failed NT

[Fumesucker]

43. So, how's that contract law working here in the land of the free?

Particularly with respect to the real estate industry?

The USA has more laws than any other nation and yet our banking and real estate sectors have damn near brought down the entire economy of the world due to their being run almost entirely by amoral greedheads.

I was reading here earlier today that a foreclosure mill actually had fake courtrooms and was using fake sheriffs to deliver fake summons to the fake courtrooms. My gast will be utterly flabbered if any significant punishments are ever meted out to the people who have all but destroyed our economy, just like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and so forth, these people will retire to lives of ease after ruining millions of other lives.

[BrentWil]

47. Well I am confident that any dispute will be worked out in a court

And that would be my point.

[Fumesucker]

54. Err.. The banks are foreclosing on properties that were bought for *cash*, no mortgage at all..

And the courts have been letting them get away with it.

There are third world nations that have better access to the courts for the non-wealthy and the non-connected than the USA has.

Just because a case is taken to court is no indication that real justice will be done.

[Motown_Johnny]

30. would we even have Apple Computers in the system you propose?

I think not

If we did only the Military would have them, clearly far to powerful for the average citizen.

[TheKentuckian]

39. Competing worker owned companies would actually improve quality of goods and services

Certainly could compete with the predator, vulture, and the leech classes in charge now.

[moondust]

45. +1

Without the constant pressure to cut corners to boost profits, it's possible that quality would generally remain higher.

[BrentWil]

51. Nothing stops that from happening now

That business model could be set up and one could see if it would out perform other such business. In fact, in many cases employee run companies are out there. Here is a list of them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_employee-owned_companies

[Doctor_J]

66. Yes it does. non-existent anti-trust laws

and monopolism keep that from happening.

[BrentWil]

68. Monopolism?

What companies? From what I have seen, companies rise and fall in America very quickly.

[TheKentuckian]

90. The dynamic is stiffled by capital.

[laughingliberal]

58. +2 nt

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

48. Is gasoline a consumer good?

If so, yes.

[Crunchy Frog]

60. I have no problem with a private sector. There's lots of things that they do well.

What I have a problem with is the complete rejection of the public sector by the right, and the concentration of excessive power and wealth in the hands of a few corporate entities. There are some things that the public sector does more effectively than the private sector, and there are some things that the private sector won't do at all, like ensuring that sick people can get medical care.

But then, I guess I'm not actually a socialist, except in the fevered imaginations of the teabaggers.

[krispos42]

63. Well,considering the quality of some imported common goods...

...yeah, probably.

Of course, it depends on the attitude of the people you hire. If the Repubes are in charge of it, it will of course fail.


I think the issue in general is that as the free-market capitalist system steadily improves quality and/or lowers unit cost, the government-run system will lag behind as time proceeds until it finally is just totally inefficient.

Take the Post Office. It didn't pioneer things like internet letter or package tracking, overnight express, etc. FedEx and UPS did, and reaped the rewards. After all, FedEx is now a verb! But the Post Office is still significantly cheaper to mail just about anything, and they followed along behind UPS and FedEx once the technology became more mature and readily available. Also, the Post Office, which everybody in the country depends on, is a massive organization not well suited to experimentation due to the scale of their operation. FedEx and UPS are, and since they don't handle the routine mail, they can focus on being really fast and convenient for high-end customer needs.


Also, I think the more complex it is the less efficient the government would be able to mass-produce it. I.e., a government-run auto company would produce expensive cars of mediocre quality, reliability, ergonomics, and performance, but a government-run company that makes, say, paper clips or ball-point pens would probably do okay.


On the other hand, the government usually does pretty well at making one-off huge things like Hoover Dam or Apollo 11... if the private contractors aren't coddled and protected.

[BrentWil]

73. The point about the government producing simpler goods is a good one

The Soviets had some success early trying to ramp up basic industrial stuff. Their problem came as further development required more technical expertise.

[Doctor_J]

64. No, but they can fill out forms a 1 10th of the cost

I don't want them producing consumer goods. What they are good at is managing things at a low cost. Why? Because they don't build in a 20% profit.

[killbotfactory]

67. The profit motive creates mal-ware, viruses, shovelware, adware, proprietary whaterver

In the world of software the best products are often made by people trying to accomplish a goal or increase their experience for reasons not necessarily tied to the profit motive.

The most important aspect is who the workers are working for, and why. In other words, what person or group is in control of the productive potential of the workers.

[BrentWil]

75. viruses are a product of people wanting to fuck with other people

For whatever reason. There are less on a Linux system because programmers effect less people.

[jmowreader]

72. Yes they could

May I direct you to http://www.prisonblues.com. This company, which is part of the Oregon State Prison system, makes really good casual and work clothes, and sells them at a good price.

If you are buying for the government, a lot of their stuff comes from two agencies: the National Institutes for the Blind (aka "Skilcraft") and the Federal Prison Industries (aka "Unicor").

If the government went in and said, "we are going to set up a factory and make products people will want to buy," and they used a customer-focused approach to business, they could succeed. Easily.

[BrentWil]

74. Well, that isn't really a good example...

You are using prison labor.

[jmowreader]

77. Then how about Skilcraft?

A lot of the goods the government buys are made by the National Institutes for the Blind.

Seriously, though, if the government wanted to make consumer goods I think they'd make good ones at a reasonable price. Okay, maybe not iPods or cell phones (unless they bought the designs) but they could definitely make 90-95 percent of the Cheap Chinese Crap you see at Walmart, with better quality and lower price because the profit margin isn't as critical.

[BrentWil]

78. Well, on simple goods...

That didn't really work for the Soviets. There is some profit margin, but that is normally controlled by competition which undercuts you when they can figure out how to produce something more efficiently. It is hard for government to continue to up efficiently because there is no real drive from them to do that.

[jmowreader]

93. Perhaps there would be

There are two legal ways to get money: in an exchange where two parties transfer valuable goods to each other, and in an exchange where only one party transfers valuable goods to the other. The first is a "sale" transaction, the second is a "donation" transaction. Taxes work on a "donation" model.

Here's the thing: The biggest expense any manufacturing business has is facilities cost. Gotta have somewhere to make things, right? Because the government owns a LOT of military installations and every military installation has at least a few buildings that could be put to better use, they wouldn't have a facilities cost. Thinking locally, the Army Reserve recently vacated its Joe Mann Army Reserve Center in Spokane because putting the Reserve units out on Fairchild AFB would be better for security. I've been in that center; it would be perfect for a company who does something like converting trucks to ambulances. Now! If the government decided to start making ambulances all they'd have to do is buy the trucks and conversion parts and pay salaries and utilities. A private sector firm couldn't do this as cheap as the government could, because they'd have to either buy or lease a building big enough to park four or five ambulances in AND they'd have to pay taxes on it.

And trust me on something: I have worked for a TON of companies that didn't do things very efficiently, and they didn't go out of business.

[JoseGaspar]

76. Of course not...

That takes a magical incantation known only to the Chamber of Commerce.

(Ignore the fact that those who actually "innovate" or "produce" are 900 steps away from "profit"... if you want "quality", you simply give it priority).

(Also ignore the fact that even the "top management" of private enterprises have been simple paid employees for 50 to 100 years.)

[Cleobulus]

80. You framed the question wrong, its not that simple...

First off, you must define what is a consumer good, for example, is oil a consumer good? Many countries around the world have state owned companies that extract, refine, and ship the products to your local gas station every day. In addition, why leave out services, plenty of services are better produced through government than the private sector, the basics are utilities, natural gas, electricity, water delivery, sewer, etc. Also, it may surprise you that, in many places, other services are provided on a communal basis, or are partly government owned, this includes heavy manufacturing, electric companies, many agricultural companies, etc.

Even something such as a community owned and operated bank, which was the hallmark of small town life for many years in the United States could be interpreted as socialism.

In addition, there's a difference between Government owned and Government run, not to mention communally run sectors of the economy. Would a federally controlled plant that makes toys run more efficiently than one that is Corporate run, most likely not. However, that isn't the only option, is it? The plant could be Government owned and democratically run by the workers of the plant, and you probably wouldn't see that much of a difference in production than from a Corporate run plant. The benefits and wages will most likely be much higher for the workers though.

Of course, you could also have it run as an independent co-op, run and owned by the workers, and again, with the same advantages as listed above, with less of the abuses of traditional corporate structure, and it would also be part of the private sector. Would this be capitalistic or socialistic? I cannot say, but it would be better than top down private oligarchies that traditional corporate structures are operated as.

ON EDIT: The biggest problem is this, your question implies two things, first that greed leads to innovation, and this simply isn't true, while we do have the intrepid inventor who makes it rich occasionally, this is largely a myth. Most innovations occur due more to human curiosity and inventiveness, rather than just greed. Its a motivator for some people, true, but not nearly all. Most people want enough money to be able to feed themselves and their families, have a roof over their head, to be able to enjoy some free time, and to be able to stay healthy. Outside of this, the rest is gravy. Think of some of the most fantastic innovations of the past century, particularly in medicine and electronic and information technology. Think of Saulk and his vaccine, he was satisfied with his life at that point, on a University's wage, middle class, he saved probably more lives than anyone else in the past century, and you know what, he did it out of selflessness, not selfishness. Think of Tim Berners-Lee, if you never heard of him, that's ok, he helped make this communication between us possible, he helped develop HTML, the language of the Web, so to speak, and he's not rich, and he could have easily have restricted HTML to be only used by those who pay for it, but no, he gave it away essentially for free. Oddly enough, another college professor.

The second point is that the assumption is that the factory floor worker is completely without innovation, which is simply not true. Indeed, in a democratically run factory, it is more likely to be run much more effectively than a corporate run factory simply because it will rely on the input of the workers to run, and in addition those workers would have a vested interest, beyond merely a paycheck, to see the company succeed.

[mudplanet]

81. Workers already DO produce consumer goods. "The Private Sector" doesn't produce

anything except return on investment.

Who the hell did you think produced consumer goods?

[wickerwoman]

82. Yes (for workers). Google "co-op" + whatever industry you like.

There are thousands of very successful ones making competitive products and offering wages and benefits *way* above industry standards.

[pipoman]

85. Competition is what drives change and improvement

if government own the means of production, there is no competition so change and improvement don't happen..remember the former USSR? Remember the cars?



Didn't change but every 20 years or so, then there was no improvement.

No, I think I like our current system with it's inherent issues.

[BrentWil]

89. I would agree..

However, some reform is important.

[quaker bill]

92. They already do.

Where do you think much of the research comes from?

[Odin2005]

95. Business should be owned by the WORKERS THESELVES, not the government.

Command economies do not work.