Join the new world

Est. 2010





Sixth Edition: Tuesday, October 12, 2010



Yesterday I posted an article by the name "IUP Member Companies: Fine Wine Or Poison?". Today I'm prepared to apologize for it, and attempt to clear up some of the misconceptions that I now find floating around. There have been several responses to that article; and I can't blame anyone for being less than impressed with some of what I had to say. I want to bury this issue, because I think that there are more important focusses for the country, and I don't want to be responsible for any more distractions from the more important points that need to be made. I really need to stop focussing on this, and try and help this country, instead of dividing it like I unfortunately have.

The article on trial stands here:

http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/iup-member-companies-fine-wine-or-poison--1541091/1/20

THIS IS MY ONE ARTICLE TO EXPLAIN MYSELF AND PUT THIS TO SLEEP

For those who do not know, the article I wrote was about the IUP creating two member companies which provided party members with jobs, and was reported to be non-profit. This means that the companies would operate with the intention of setting wages so that the company profit would be entirely to the benefit of the companies employees.

Some important points:

1. I was never under the specific impression that such companies were a new phenomena.

2. I didn't write this article because of my political affiliations, or in an attempt to undermine the IUP.

3. I wrote this article at 2 am the night before I posted it, and should have checked the article for tone and severity before posting it. Much of what I wrote conveyed something entirely different from what I intended. For these mistakes I am most sorry.

4. I know that there were a few statistics in the article that weren't accurate. From the start I actually flagged them as being unreliable, and only to be used as rough estimates. Yes a number in the 50s for active users severely inflates my estimates for the amount of employment companies suck up. I'm really sorry that I didn't make this clearer... there isn't actually an entirely accurate estimation of "active" eIrish available.

5. I don't believe that these companies are "wrong" or imoral/unethical (even though that's more or less what I wrote). I simply believe that these companies aren't in the best interest of our economy, government, and society.

What I stand by:

Party companies are not libertarian in nature because the party is motivated by government ends. Even if the company is owned by a private citizen, by naming the company after a party and by dedicating it to the needs of one party, it has a function which is different from a regular private company. This is not to say that such companies should not exist, but only that they are not really libertarian in principle.

These companies are not needed and at least could be detrimental to the economy in the following ways: (rehash of previous article)

1. We have more companies than can keep active already.

2. Basic employment is not an issue for the majority of eIrish.

3. Wages should be determined by the market, not artificially created by special companies when such measures are not quite necessary. That isn't to say that these companies aren't a benefit to their employees, customers or even the government; but for the small margin of good these companies do, we should strive for what I believe is a more healthy economy. If we leave the economy to private companies, we wont have to worry about the balance of production employment.

4. (somewhat 3 continued) By having such an attractive employment option in just one sector, we dry the human resource well for other sectors. We just don't have the citizens to play around with anymore, and I suspect (correct me if I'm wrong) that our economy is already very inefficient. Fewer companies in more sectors with more employees will give us the synergy (yes that's right synergy) to produce more faster and possibly for cheaper.


My Mistakes (I've made a few..... I've had my share of sand kicked in my face - But I've come through):

Calling these companies a gauge of moral or ethical party value was stupid. It's not something I believe to be true, and I can only chalk it up to the fact that this article was written late at night, when the common sense portion of my brain was working at well.... less than perfect levels.

I misrepresented the general perception of the eIrish by often saying that people weren't comfortable or weren't impressed by these companies (things along those lines). I know now that a lot of you either support or don't care about these companies. Sorry for that.

I accidentally implied the label of communism onto these companies. They aren't communist... not even close. I don't want to revitalize any kind of red scare among you. In fact my own views are generous to socialism (which I consider separate entirely from communism), and I can see the attractiveness in the concept of non-profit companies working for their employees. All very heart warming.

http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/in-defence-of-the-iup-a-kalashnikov-special-1541686/1/20

About Boru's Response:

I've never really heard of this Brian Boru, but I gather atleast (without much effort) that his views are to the left and that he is experienced and respected as a former influence here in eIreland. Now in his article, he accuses me of slander; which in itself seems a bit extreme, poorly informed, and not quite fair (a lot like my own article... so I'm willing to take it on the chin). I wont go over every point, but I think looking at his two points of conclusion should do.

1.Criticising the IUP for taking care of their membership is foolish.

IC: I wasn't criticizing them for taking care of their members. This is a straw man. I don't agree with bribe campaigning, but I never saw these companies in that light.

2. Criticising the IUP for attempting to bring down the economy unwittingly is the act of an ideologue.

IC: You can't attempt something unwittingly. A sly attempt at making it look like I was accusing them of being traitors or something (I never was), while downplaying the fact that.... i never was! I know that the people behind these corporations only had the best interests of the country in mind, and that further, they are were intelligible (much more than myself) on the economy's history and workings.

Humble Pie Humble Pie Humble Pie.......

http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/a-reply-to-colemans-article-1541452/1/20#comments

About e-kane's Response:

Firstly, I appreciate the civil tone that he responded to me with. I wouldn't have blamed him if he called me names and accused me of slander etc etc (IUP members love their party and can be defensive when faced with what appears to them as rude criticism.) I like e-kane, he's a fine citizen and it's an honour to share an eCountry with him. There's a few points he made so let's take some of them and have a look:

eK: "You are affiliated with Eire Aontaithe, so I assume this is more than a casual article."

IC: I can understand your thinking that, but actually my writing the article had nothing to do with Eire Aontaithe. You can criticize my words as being my opinion; but that article doesn't reflect the views Eire Aontaithe in any way. When I'm writing for my cabinet position I'll write (XPosition) under my name. Any other time, whatever I write I alone am responsible for (even when I'm writing as a cabinet co-minister I alone am responsible)

eK (quoting me): 1. “Supposing that 55 is the active population of Ireland, IUP unconditionally employs 32.73% of eIreland, and seeks to employ 63.64%; all without any company profit.”

We are more active players than that.

IC: Yes you're right. We have more players than that. I made an attempt in my article to steer people away from taking those stats too seriously, but I must admit it was painfully insufficient.

Here's what I wrote, for example:

"It’s hard to say how accurate this survey is, but...... ."

"If we are to use 55 as our base, we can say that we have at least 55 active users, maybe more (who knows how many more)."

Me deriving percentage statistics based off of that number (55) was the irresponsible thing. 32% and 63% are inflated percentages. I apologize for that.

eK: "As you can see from this link 181 persons voted in the election, and I personally know some that missed to vote, hence the figure of "active" players probably is a bit higher. Perhaps we can agree on talking about ca 200."

IC: EXCELLENT POINT TOTALLY OVERLOOKED THAT! Would have been a better stat to base the article off of.

http://www.erepublik.com/en/newspaper/drunken-lullabies-240066/1

About Sennan's Response:

This one might not get the attention it deserves. This article is getting too long, and I'm losing the will to write. I'll give it my best shot. Sennan Blake, I have a lot of respect for you now. In my first article you were the first to be critical in the comment section, the first to call me on my mistakes, and the first to let me know that I had crossed some lines. At that point I hadn't really read my own article, and I was of course sure that it was flawless, so I didn't give you the consideration you deserved. Anyway, here are some points that you brought up:

SB: "The IUP companies are like any other company on the market - competitive. They are not working to produce products to share out with its workers, its not isolating itself from the market system, its not doing anything unusual."

IC: I've written this before but I think there is a difference, just because of the intent and function of the party company. Party companies have some degree (how great I don't know) of competitive advantage as buyers in the human resource market, because they will offer 100% of their extra revenues over expenses, devisable to wages. Another regular company is selfish and wants a cut of that profit to save, so it wont be able to put the same wages up. The party company can't keep up its non-profitit(ism) either, because that profit may change, but the wages wont immediately. I find it's too much of a tight rope to walk on. My original article outlines some of the side effects of this kind of job vacuum effect (the point being that party companies aren't really fair competition.... not to say they aren't fair, its just the semantics of the accepted terms). Political correctness on three ONE TWO THREE POLITICAL CORRECTNESS! Granted there's a lot I don't understand about it, so I'll leave it there.

SB: "Socialism, some of that but only a bit. IUP holdings, only looks to employ IUP members - I think that's key. It employ only a select few, not the entire community. A good example of socialism would be Roisin Dubh's companies, where they offer jobs to everybody, not just IUP. Good on him, but you can see IUP holding's is different."

IC: I don't have any problem with socialism (though its a bit of a contradiction with libertarianism). The part about it only employing IUP members... well that's not true. Maybe if it were possible to only have IUP members it would be done; but it's hard to regulate, and kicking non-members can generate some hurt feeling etc etc... so it's kind of awkward.

SB: "In Ian E Coleman's article, he makes a point of saying the companies are a ploy to obtain more members, and will drive other companies out of business."

IC: I do come across that way, but no that isn't quite what i'm saying. I do think that the parties who are behind party companies know there are possible political benefits. I said something more to the effect that its easy to perceive the companies in that light. The thought did cross my mind, but as you said, you can't really blame them for wanting more members, and it's not wrong for those reasons.

SB: "...in fact he is new, perhaps doesn't know all the story, but he has only covered one part of industrial economics - the workers."

IC: You're exactly right. I admit that I'm still learning, and that this is an issue a bit over my head. No further comment on that part.

To all of you who read my article, talked about this subject, and especially those who criticized me and pointed out my mistakes o7


So I'm publishing one more poorly thought out, spur of the moment article. I know I've probably left something out, but there's a lot to cover, so that's just too bad for me.

I regret betraying the trust that some may have had in my neutrality. None of us are without bias, but I appreciate authorship which takes into account both sides, and that is what I want to offer all of you.

I'm sorry, also and most of all, that I may have, in anyway shape or form, created ill will or divided eIreland. I promise not to make the same mistake twice.

I don't want to waste any more time on this subject. Since posting that article, peoples critical responses have been a real education for me. Unless someone has a question for me, this is the last time that I will be commenting further on this topic for a while. Please don't use that as an excuse to publish more articles on this subject, which I will not be responding to. Let's all get together, and work on improving eIreland.



You're born, you die, and in between you make a lot of mistakes.


Ian E Coleman – The Coleman Global






***Other Stories in this Paper***
Introductions: "The Coleman Global Takes Off"



Report: “Northern Ireland Flops Again”



Facts And Figures: “Which Country Is Most Survivable For Beginners? (2 Part Special)”



Report: "New Changes Cause Wave of Dissent"

Report: “Ireland On The Ropes”
Report: “IUP Member Companies: Fine Wine Or Poison?”
Report: “Another Digest of Your New eIrish Parliament”
Follow Up: "IUP Member Companies: Fine Wine Or Poison?"
Report: "Ireland Hits Her Stride"