Model and crumbling in the real economy (notes on Wolfgang Streek II)
According to the description and the observations made by the author (and if my neurons have correctly captured):
Wolfgang Streek (translated by Obamot) wrote:- "Companies are social institutions, not just networks of private contracts or the property of their shareholders [in the German compromise model].
Their internal order would be a matter of public interest and would be subject to extensive social regulation, by law and industrial agreements.
In addition, the managers of large German companies manage capital management and a “labor market” which are very well organized, allowing both capital owners and “labor forces” to participate directly in the daily decision-making process. of the business, demanding that decisions be continually [re?] negotiated.
Decisions thus take more time, but are also easier to implement once taken. ”
So, always if we believe the author [and the translation] and since companies are in the money-debt paradigm, let's take a look at it from a “gallette” perspective.
"Capital market"Still according to the author:
Wolfgang Streek wrote: "[...] The German capital market is not based on a paradigm of" [total] market control ". Many companies continue to be in private hands, and only a small part of the productive capital is listed on the stock exchange, the banks can hold shares, but the shareholders are very concentrated, and the shares and companies do not change often of hands.
[However], companies finance themselves with less equity than through long-term bank credit.
Since banks can vote by proxy on behalf of shares they hold on deposit, they can effectively control performance management, which allows them to “grant” businesses long-term loans and creates an incentive to them not to [speculate] [directly] with capital.
[We can also infer from this below] that union forces are similarly present in companies, exercising legal rights [enforceable] through the Councils representing the workers, functioning as supervisory bodies. Together, these regulatory systems applied collectively and in accordance with legal regulations, would make this co-determination of the employment regime making it difficult for employers to fire workers [arbitrarily] ... ”
PS: text in [square brackets]: implicit and cropped from German.
At this stage, we are indeed faced with a sort of enforceable right. But it is all the same a sophisticated and evolved arrangement of the three ['CON'] of Mc Grégor => CONduire, CONtraindre, CONTrôler, only they added in a CONcertée and CONsentante way (I have good?)
Some comments (On this system and without taking a personal position)
The arbitration of banks on the productivity of companies (associating workers and unions ... and therefore also managers up to senior managers who are also "workers"), should suggest to us that companies would not be able to take on alone the productivity challenge which is intrinsically their responsibility and above all that it would allow control through “monitoring of management performance” (what I call elsewhere “
new management").
It's very clever! And possibly a reflection of society, but also a major admission: the capitalist system, presented as so virtuous, would therefore have failed in "the motivation of men to work"!
Thus the banks would subtly monitor / conduct / control the system nonetheless, basing benchmarking on a sort of fallacy which would in fact be a pure alibi for "installing power". Based on arguments from the 'holy scriptures':
- the natural propensity of man to idleness (which must be combated absolutely, from childhood and until the end ...!)
- of the a priori biblical guilt syndrome! (We feel guilty first, we see then).
While in principle "the market economy" would seek by virtue to make individuals responsible, we discover that a priori "we could not trust them!". Which is totally wrong of course, but it is even more effective than the sinews of war: money.
The Germans would seem however to have understood the advantage to be drawn from their model, by limiting a contrario the influence of the banks ... To pretend that the companies would be immunized from the aims of the banks not to take advantage of their position to speculate on the markets via the yield management is amha a sheer sight of the mind in the very long run! Since, according to changes and adaptations, financial speculators would advance their pawns, the time working for them (1 ... 2 ... 3 ... generations or more, they are in no hurry), they would thus end up controlling over time all the companies and picking up the jackpot (see Goldman Sachs etc) only it would take time: what does it matter when the betrayal is discovered, all the old ones are already ... dead! Obviously, this is done insidiously and above all in silence .... death bank.
This is the result of observing long-term facts, examples of which abound in recent as well as older history. In this context, the exercise of legal rights is quite illusory - consolation: it is at least temporary - since the legal form FOLLOWs the evolution of successive transmutations. Co-determination by the Works Councils - even if it surely works very well as a safeguard - casts doubt that it can be generalized under the high protection of "Supervisory Boards".
But I recognize that I am not qualified enough to know the conformity with the current legal regulations (discipline which is relative to “Comparative Law” ...)
However Wolfgang Streek himself admits that such a system is only applicable in Germany, for reasons that I invite you to discover by reading this very interesting text of 28 pages.
The positive point that can possibly be drawn from this is that this co-determination system supports a collaboration regime, which must be remembered: makes it difficult for employers to dismiss workers (except, of course, in cases extremes of bankruptcy, etc.). It is a bit of a paradox, but it works as long as we are dealing with a population of workers who are not reluctant to do the job. And our first cousins are known for that culturally. It may be a hard model, but one that is possibly antagonistic to the type of model that produces repetitive crumbling.
The negative point is obviously that it does not combine - among other things - some advantages of "
Universal dividend»!
We get tired of everything, except to learn ... (Virgil)
It must be remembered that all of this is very theoretical.
I leave to those who want, the care of making a better synthesis, because mine is undoubtedly very incomplete.