Richest 2% hold half of world's assets

[neverforgetlol]

so total profit is what you use to decide what the best firm is? I use efficiency. A profit like that indicates to me the workers are being paid too little, something I don't value in a firm. Nike is worth billions but it has sweatshops that treat workers about as badly as slaves.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
so total profit is what you use to decide what the best firm is?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet another strawman on this forum. That's not what he stated. It's too bad that in the process of making a possibly legitimate point you choose to resort to this tactic.

[neverforgetlol]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
so total profit is what you use to decide what the best firm is?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet another strawman on this forum. That's not what he stated. It's too bad that in the process of making a possibly legitimate point you choose to resort to this tactic.

[/ QUOTE ]

then what was he saying? sure seems like he was saying like more profit means a better firm to me.

i said worker firms were more efficient, then he said "but the billion dollar firms are all capitalist." how else do i interpret that?

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
so total profit is what you use to decide what the best firm is? I use efficiency. A profit like that indicates to me the workers are being paid too little, something I don't value in a firm. Nike is worth billions but it has sweatshops that treat workers about as badly as slaves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Define efficiency then.

[neverforgetlol]

it sure isn't total profit.

where can i upload the pdf?

[adios]

How could anything be clearer than this question?

How many billion dollar worker-controlled companies are there?

Does the effeciency you claim scale up? If so provide some examples. Billion dollar worker-controlled companies would be good examples.

Edit: If you don't know whether or not the effeciency scales up, fine but that's IMO what he's trying to ascertain. BTW employing people isn't a bad thing in my mind but could be convinced otherwise.

[neverforgetlol]

how can anything be clearer than this: most efficient doesn't necesarily mean mega-billion dollar profits!

[neverforgetlol]

here's the pdf

http://files.filefront.com//;6351837;;/

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
how can anything be clearer than this: most efficient doesn't necesarily mean mega-billion dollar profits!

[/ QUOTE ]

companies exist not to create jobs but to satisfy consumer demand. Companies become multi billion dollar giants by satisfing consumer demand with better products at lower prices. The get these better products by investing wisely in innovation (efficient distribution of R&D) and by using fewer resources to create the product. If you define a companies efficiency by how well the workers are compensated then you ignore the actual reason the company exists in the first place.

[adios]

I'm fairly certain that I understand what TomCollins is referring to when he writes about the effeciency of a business. What is your definition? I'm fairly certain that yours wouldn't be inline with mine but that's ok. I'm just trying to understand. Thanks in advance.