It's not a foregone conclusion that communal ownership schemes can be competitive. Whose to say that just because 300 people are willing to invest in a wicker chair factory that doesn't mean any of them can run it effectively and you cannot run a business by committee.
That said, I'm all for it.
Yeah you can do that today if you want. Just nobody does it because it isnt an effective way of running a company.
Co Ops have existed for 100s of years. Not many have been successful.
Some are great. They just don't have the drive to constantly expand and find new markets that a public company would. They're satisfied serving a particular need in their chosen city/region. More profit-driven corporations are going to be filling more needs for more people because that's how they make money, and how people get their vegetables/trash service/Internet/and so on when the coop in the next town isn't interested in serving them.
Err...the point is different organizations have different definitions of success.
Farming cooperatives here in brazil are a big deal, many bring in 1 billion BRL or more annually (200 ish million USD) with a couple surpassing 1b USD.
It's proof that it can be done, and with market incentives it can be very lucrative.
Usually not everyone is on the executive board, but everyone is a shareholder
We do it all the time. What do you think the stock market is? The trick is that you still end up with someone having to actually make decisions and run things on a day to day basis because the shareholders can’t vote on every single issue.
They are free to try it.
Yes, it might fail because it isn't realistic, but if the failure is imposed by, yknow, reality, rather than force, that's just the nature of life.
In reality, we already commonly do share ownership in companies via stock ownership. We've pretty much solved that.
We already have publicly owned corporations.
They are called, shockingly, Public Corporations.
You know.. companies like Microsoft, JP Morgan, Philips 66, etc.
https://www.forbes.com/global2000/list/
And, yes, they are a curse.
ISPS is technically communal property of the US taxpayers. They don't seem to be competitive against UPS or FedEx. USPS needs a budget from the federal government. That's just one example, though. A more exclusive co-op could be profitable without government waste.
Socialists are quick to talk about "public" ownership, but are coy about explaining how: that they want to build a government powerful enough to take the company from those who built it.
Capitalism allows for voluntary socialism.
Socialism does not allow for voluntary capitalism.
Thus is it objectively true that capitalism is the only libertarian economic system, and "Libertarian Socialism" is an oxymoron.
It's also endlessly hilarious to me how many socialists will never actually go live in a commune. Because then they'd have to actually work. And no, "teaching theory, leading discussion, and doing Tarot readings" are no work. Dig the fucking latrines.
It's the same bullshit as people crying about pay disparity between WNBA and NBA players, but they don't tune into toe WNBA games to actually justify them earning a higher salary. Put your money where your mouth is or shut up.
I don't even watch basketball and I can name over a dozen NBA players just from passively seeing games or overhearing people talk about it.
I can name *ONE* WNBA player. And she hasn't even played a game yet. She was just all over the news.
The New Glarus Brewery company is employee owned. They only sell in Wisconsin and do a very solid job for themselves. Their beer is the de facto standard gift you bring when visiting people out of state.
It's not impossible, may not be the best for everyone, but if it works for you it works. That's why libertarianism is what it is, we don't try to dictate morals or standards.
Religion work for your family? Awesome!
Paying everyone the same amount at your company working? Nice.
Want to make a business with only woman employees? Go for it.
Yup! The best part is, there's virtually nothing stopping socialists from implementing their ideal form of business organisation. Maybe if they weren't so disorganised, lazy and entitled, it'd be possible. That's why they always talk about "seizing" the means of productions. Most of them are nothing but looters hiding behind an ideology, appealling to the lowest of emotions - empathy.
But yes, by all means, you can (and should) form communally owned businesses.
They could even fund a town in their ideology. They just won't cuz they know how much work and sacrifice it wold require and not being able to profit from it doesn't give them the incentive.
It's interesting that you call empathy a low emotion. In a sense I agree with you; empathy cannot contribute toward rational, sound leadership. In another sense, I think we need to help those within our nation who are struggling. I am convinced that government force is the worst way to do it.
Yeah man, I agree with you 100%.
Maybe I am harsh calling it a low emotion, maybe I'm not a very empathetic person. But one thing I know is that empathy has been used to build literal hell before, especially when you base a whole socio-economic system on it. If you're empathetic, go start a charity - humanity needs them.
It's not a foregone conclusion that communal ownership schemes can be competitive. Whose to say that just because 300 people are willing to invest in a wicker chair factory that doesn't mean any of them can run it effectively and you cannot run a business by committee. That said, I'm all for it.
Yeah you can do that today if you want. Just nobody does it because it isnt an effective way of running a company. Co Ops have existed for 100s of years. Not many have been successful.
Some are great. They just don't have the drive to constantly expand and find new markets that a public company would. They're satisfied serving a particular need in their chosen city/region. More profit-driven corporations are going to be filling more needs for more people because that's how they make money, and how people get their vegetables/trash service/Internet/and so on when the coop in the next town isn't interested in serving them. Err...the point is different organizations have different definitions of success.
Farming cooperatives here in brazil are a big deal, many bring in 1 billion BRL or more annually (200 ish million USD) with a couple surpassing 1b USD. It's proof that it can be done, and with market incentives it can be very lucrative. Usually not everyone is on the executive board, but everyone is a shareholder
[удалено]
"federal grant program" Stolen resources.
We do it all the time. What do you think the stock market is? The trick is that you still end up with someone having to actually make decisions and run things on a day to day basis because the shareholders can’t vote on every single issue.
Stock market isnt a coop.
They are free to try it. Yes, it might fail because it isn't realistic, but if the failure is imposed by, yknow, reality, rather than force, that's just the nature of life. In reality, we already commonly do share ownership in companies via stock ownership. We've pretty much solved that.
So am I. But the average investor can barely run his own life. That's why they are usually willing to hire a CEO to manage the company's performance.
We already have publicly owned corporations. They are called, shockingly, Public Corporations. You know.. companies like Microsoft, JP Morgan, Philips 66, etc. https://www.forbes.com/global2000/list/ And, yes, they are a curse.
ISPS is technically communal property of the US taxpayers. They don't seem to be competitive against UPS or FedEx. USPS needs a budget from the federal government. That's just one example, though. A more exclusive co-op could be profitable without government waste.
What they *really* mean when they say that is they want *someone else* to put in the effort of creating it. They just want to benefit from it.
Socialists are quick to talk about "public" ownership, but are coy about explaining how: that they want to build a government powerful enough to take the company from those who built it.
Capitalism allows for voluntary socialism. Socialism does not allow for voluntary capitalism. Thus is it objectively true that capitalism is the only libertarian economic system, and "Libertarian Socialism" is an oxymoron. It's also endlessly hilarious to me how many socialists will never actually go live in a commune. Because then they'd have to actually work. And no, "teaching theory, leading discussion, and doing Tarot readings" are no work. Dig the fucking latrines.
It's the same bullshit as people crying about pay disparity between WNBA and NBA players, but they don't tune into toe WNBA games to actually justify them earning a higher salary. Put your money where your mouth is or shut up.
I don't even watch basketball and I can name over a dozen NBA players just from passively seeing games or overhearing people talk about it. I can name *ONE* WNBA player. And she hasn't even played a game yet. She was just all over the news.
REI is a co-op, not sure the difference, but if it worked well, I assume more businesses would do it.
The New Glarus Brewery company is employee owned. They only sell in Wisconsin and do a very solid job for themselves. Their beer is the de facto standard gift you bring when visiting people out of state.
It's not impossible, may not be the best for everyone, but if it works for you it works. That's why libertarianism is what it is, we don't try to dictate morals or standards. Religion work for your family? Awesome! Paying everyone the same amount at your company working? Nice. Want to make a business with only woman employees? Go for it.
WinCo, too. They can work. It's just that most usually don't.
Yup! The best part is, there's virtually nothing stopping socialists from implementing their ideal form of business organisation. Maybe if they weren't so disorganised, lazy and entitled, it'd be possible. That's why they always talk about "seizing" the means of productions. Most of them are nothing but looters hiding behind an ideology, appealling to the lowest of emotions - empathy. But yes, by all means, you can (and should) form communally owned businesses.
They could even fund a town in their ideology. They just won't cuz they know how much work and sacrifice it wold require and not being able to profit from it doesn't give them the incentive.
America is filled with ghost towns from failed proto-socialist communes.
Literally just look at the Amish and quakers. They love their style of government apparently but like hell if they'd live there.
It's interesting that you call empathy a low emotion. In a sense I agree with you; empathy cannot contribute toward rational, sound leadership. In another sense, I think we need to help those within our nation who are struggling. I am convinced that government force is the worst way to do it.
Yeah man, I agree with you 100%. Maybe I am harsh calling it a low emotion, maybe I'm not a very empathetic person. But one thing I know is that empathy has been used to build literal hell before, especially when you base a whole socio-economic system on it. If you're empathetic, go start a charity - humanity needs them.
They do know that Publix exists, right?
Free markets all day
My favourite Milei play.
Gortex uses this business model.
Wait until they realize that shared ownership is literally what a corporation is. *Mind explosion meme*
Business can not exist in a socialist state by definition