[Eran]

Using taxes is better than having detailed prescriptive regulations, but is still sub-optimum.

But this goes beyond the question of encouraging worker-owned companies.

[mikema63]

Yes, but it does run into my bigger theme of a temporary alliance among the greens, libertarians, libertarian socialists, etc.

[Deutschmania]

Worker owned companies are generally less efficient and would be driven out of the market eventually, unless you require companies to be worker owned, at which point, that's not very libertarian. So what's the point on trying to "sell" them on it? If it works in the market then it works.

There are actually numerous examples of successful worker owned companies. Namely this, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/24/alternative-capitalism-mondragon, and this http://www.triplepundit.com/2011/08/legacoop-cooperative-bologna-italy-empowers-worker-owners/. I contend that because of unstable business cycles, and the reality of a practical lack of economic equalibrium, and perfect competion, it is right-libertarianism which can not function, independent of public patronage, and favours. Which is why I advocate in favour of left-libertarian alternatives.

[Baff]

I think libertarians can be sold on worker owned companies.

It's invariably the workers themselves who are the hardest to sell this to.

A lot of companies provide stock options for their staff, an option to buy into the company at a reduced rate, most people I know have never taken up these options.

The only examples of it actually ocouring I can give here are Doctors/Dentists/Vets/Lawyers who buy into a practise. A single manager at one of my favorite bars and the employee's at the national chain of stores called Robert Sayle.

At Robert Sayle the employee's did not agree to own their company, the owner had to give it to them in his will before they were interested in owning it.


So some jobs have a culture of workers owning their own company and most do not.
Certainly in every publicly traded company every single worker is quite able to own their company if they so wish. There is nothing stopping these people from doing so.
How many MacDonalds employee's have bothered to buy into their company? Nothing is stopping them. The only conclusion I am thus able to make is that they don't do so because they do not wish to.

They wouldn't mind owning it, but not if they have to pay for it.
I feel the same about Ferrari's.

[Figlio di Moros]

They also make shit- how many stocks do you think the guy working the register at McD's tends to buy in a year?

[nucklepunche]

I think we need to reform tax laws in order to give worker owned companies advantages over traditional corporations. A key point is granting them limited liability enjoyed by private corporations. A legal structure ought to be set up, for instance in order to get the advantages for example (a basic workup of a law, not a formal proposal) a worker owned enterprise would have to have two or more partners in which no individual can own more than double the share of anyone else, in exchange for a 10% discount in taxes.

In response to the comments at McDonald's, I had "stock options" as a high schooler working 20-30 hours a week in a supermarket. I always bought the bare minimum of my company's stock for 401k matching funds minimum because I prefer the index fund approach to investing, I am my own financial advisor but free money and discounted stocks are just that. Interesting my pay was low but a lot of great benefits were there even for part time workers, like full medical and dental. The problem is it would eat too much into your income but we had a lot of semi-retired people working there as well, in other words people who are quitting full time work before 65 and full medicare eligibility. The reason a lot of major retail stores offer benefits in spite of dismal pay is because they would lose part of their core workforce since the old-timers tend to be more reliable employees than the kids. When people complain that Wal-Mart and other national chains are offering benefits their employees "can't afford" and how they should rise up against them they forget most of the young college or high school aged employees who will never take them or older semi retired people who only work for the benefits and a little pocket money.

[Baff]

They also make shit- how many stocks do you think the guy working the register at McD's tends to buy in a year?

They make more than I do and yet I still manage to save for my retirement.
I think the cashier at Macdonalds doesn't spend any of his wages on shares not because he can't afford them but because he can't afford them and beers in the pub after work every night. Or he can't buy shares and cable TV. He can't buy shares and go on that weekend away. He can't buy shares and buy an Iphone.

It's just a question of priorities. You can afford to buy Macdoanlds shares if you work at MacDonalds. No two ways about it. It doesn't pay less than minimum wage.
How come truely poor people living in India and China can save for their retirements... but MacDonalds employee earning multiple pounds an hour cannot?

No reason at all.

How many shares can he buy? It doesn't matter how many. What matters is the return he gets for the investment he makes.
If he gets 3.1% on his money from the dividend it's all gravey but ultimately he'd be able to get twice that if he bought into someone elses company instead of his own.
So myself if I worked at MacDonalds I would still have to consider buying into HSBC than my own place of employment.


Low paid workers all have to retire one day too.

[Eran]

There are actually numerous examples of successful worker owned companies.
...
I contend that because of unstable business cycles, and the reality of a practical lack of economic equalibrium, and perfect competition, it is right-libertarianism which can not function, independent of public patronage, and favours. Which is why I advocate in favour of left-libertarian alternatives.

The question of whether worker-owned or capitalist-owned corporations are better isn't one that belongs in a political discussion, any more than whether MacOS or Windows is the better OS.

These are questions best left to the free market to resolve. If Rainbow Crow is correct, a free society would see few if any worker-owned companies. If Deutschmania is correct, we'll see them predominate. Let the chips fall where they may.


As for left-libertarianism, that seems to me to be a confused, if not contradictory ideology.

Care to explain and defend it?

[Figlio di Moros]

That's an incredibly simplistic view, Eran. What if co-ops are more efficient and provide a superior management system, yet bourgeoisie-owned businesses allow for a greater amount of start up capital? Lacking IPOs, co-ops are at an initial disadvantage even if they'd perform better as an established business. Perhaps a better option would be the use of vacant factories for homesteading co-ops, allowing for some circumvention of the initial-credit issue? Tmk, homesteading doesn't violate the NAP or any of your insane libertarian dogma, does it?

[Eran]

Homesteading only works for unowned resources.

If a factory has been abandoned, its premises are available for homesteading. This isn't common. In virtually all cases, the previous owners (or their creditors) retain an ongoing interest in the property.

Further, vacant factories aren't really a solution to initial capital problems. New enterprises typically require capital to pay for workers, buy new machinery, engage in a PR campaign, etc.

At the end of the day, different businesses will differ on a wide range of characteristics. The market sorts that out. If a co-op is more efficient and has superior management, it may well attract alternative methods for raising initial capital, say from co-op banks.

I am supportive of any such alternative, with the notable exception of having co-ops funded (in full or in part, directly or indirectly) by taxpayers.

[Figlio di Moros]

Homesteading only works for unowned resources. If a factory has been abandoned, its premises are available for homesteading. This isn't common. In virtually all cases, the previous owners (or their creditors) retain an ongoing interest in the property.

"An ongoing interest" is not the same as ownership, as you put it. I'm sure you're aware of my position on LVT, but even from your position you certainly agree that if left unused and unmaintained, as a great number of former factories back home, they lose ownership of it. Simply intending to sell if a buyer should ever come along is not the same as maintaining ownership.

Further, vacant factories aren't really a solution to initial capital problems. New enterprises typically require capital to pay for workers, buy new machinery, engage in a PR campaign, etc.

There are other costs, certainly, but vacant factories are a large start. You can't produce anything w/ out the factory.

At the end of the day, different businesses will differ on a wide range of characteristics. The market sorts that out. If a co-op is more efficient and has superior management, it may well attract alternative methods for raising initial capital, say from co-op banks. I am supportive of any such alternative, with the notable exception of having co-ops funded (in full or in part, directly or indirectly) by taxpayers.

Perhaps, but there would be a lower profit threshold for investments into co-ops rather than private industry since it would be owned by workers. That's the point of this exercise, though- pointing out the discrepancies between market behavior. A co-op may, and likely does, function better; however, they have a disadvantage in gaining start-up capital because they can't sell shares. Further, because they can't sell shares they're at a disadvantage in gaining loans, being able to sell shares later for loan repayment or down payments.

An alternative would be a not-for-profit investment source, which surprises me that wealthy anarchist and leftists haven't started. A entity funded from investments, similar to how insurance works, could provide 0% loans for co-ops. Or, alternatively, such homesteading programs as previously discussed, financing further investments by government-issued low-interest loans (i.e., not funded by taxpayers).

[Eran]

"An ongoing interest" is not the same as ownership, as you put it. I'm sure you're aware of my position on LVT, but even from your position you certainly agree that if left unused and unmaintained, as a great number of former factories back home, they lose ownership of it. Simply intending to sell if a buyer should ever come along is not the same as maintaining ownership.

I don't see the issue. Some properties are abandoned, and we can have reasonable differences of opinion as to what constitutes "abandonment".

Abandonment, however, consists of losing interest in maintaining ownership, rather than neglecting to maintain a property to a standard others consider acceptable.

There are other costs, certainly, but vacant factories are a large start. You can't produce anything w/ out the factory.

I am not aware that (1) cost of premises is a significant component of many startups, or that (2) neglected premises are economically significant.

IT seems like an environment in which there are many neglected premises is also one in which real-estate prices are very low.

Perhaps, but there would be a lower profit threshold for investments into co-ops rather than private industry since it would be owned by workers. That's the point of this exercise, though- pointing out the discrepancies between market behavior. A co-op may, and likely does, function better; however, they have a disadvantage in gaining start-up capital because they can't sell shares. Further, because they can't sell shares they're at a disadvantage in gaining loans, being able to sell shares later for loan repayment or down payments.

It seems like being better run, their future profit prospects are better, and can allow them to more easily secure loans.

Regardless, however, where would you suggest they get their initial funding? I am happy with any voluntary system (co-op banks, associations for the promotion of co-ops, employee savings) and would object to any involuntary system (i.e. taxes), both on moral (forcing some people to pay for others is wrong) and on practical (with funding coming from involuntary contributions, there is no mechanism for ensuring that only viable, worthy enterprises, rather than politically-popular enterprises are funded) grounds.

[Baff]

What if co-ops are more efficient and provide a superior management system, yet bourgeoisie-owned businesses allow for a greater amount of start up capital?

Then that is how it is.

Each business has it's own strengths and which will do better is dependant on the individual market conditions it is operating under.

So this being the case, if you seek rapid investment to exploit a market shortfall/innovation don't bother with a co-op. And if you have plenty of capital between your workforce go for the co-op.


The only reason I would make a 0% loan to someone is because I loved them.
I'm not sure who you are planning to get your 0% loans from, I suggest to you that mum and dad are your best bet.
You being a member of a "co-op" doesn't inspire me to starvation. I don't feel that I can afford to give my life savings away to you for nothing in return. I doubt many others do either.

A 0% loan from fellow co-operaters on the otherhand... they will get wages as their "profit". That would work as long as you weren't competing with too many other employee's who offer them wages in return for their labours minus their life savings.




@Eran, in the UK property taxes are a real issue. Often the single greatest overhead of a shop for example.
Property prices are always a big issue for businesses. When I invest in a company their property assets is part of what I look for.

I concur however that in a market place with abandoned premises... the price will be getting lower.
In recessions we typically see a lot of overnight businesses who set up and go bust before paying their rents as part of their financial model.
We also see supermarkets setting up outside of town where the land is cheap. Business parks and warehouses doing the same and so on. It's a key cost consideration.

[Figlio di Moros]

Regardless, however, where would you suggest they get their initial funding? I am happy with any voluntary system (co-op banks, associations for the promotion of co-ops, employee savings) and would object to any involuntary system (i.e. taxes), both on moral (forcing some people to pay for others is wrong) and on practical (with funding coming from involuntary contributions, there is no mechanism for ensuring that only viable, worthy enterprises, rather than politically-popular enterprises are funded) grounds.

Two proposals would be either a GSE-financed loan, thereby avoiding "taxpayer dollars" (even though money is created by government spending, not financed by taxpayers), or from a not-for-profit investment company. I recall financing for my fire company went a bit like this- we did gun raffles every few months, putting the excess into CDs. I would suppose if you get Noam Chomsky and other wealthy leftists/anarchist together, they could raise the capital to invest in a similar system, perhaps using securities and stocks (irony, or bleeding the beast?), to ensure a steady income from investments to provide 0% loans for the establishment of co-ops.

Given that leftists, and particularly anarcho-leftists, are ideologically motivate, I'm surprised such a system does not exist.

[Baff]

WTF is a "non profit investment" company?

An investment you don't profit from isn't an "investment".
We use other words to describe that kind of financial relationship. For example.... Subsidy. Gift. Charity. Victim of crime.



Certainly systems like you describe do exist.
Here in the UK The Guardian newspaper operates on such a model.

A bunch of lefty capitalists make their money in standard capitalist methods and use the profits from these enterprises to fund their ideological platform. A loss making newspaper that is a proponent of their political ideology.
Comically, an ideology that rejects the very capitalism that sustains them.

In other words, they are a bunch of nihilists. They won't be happy until they have destroyed themselves and they won't be happy even then... unless they have managed to take the rest of us with them.

[Someone5]

Two proposals would be either a GSE-financed loan, thereby avoiding "taxpayer dollars" (even though money is created by government spending, not financed by taxpayers), or from a not-for-profit investment company. I recall financing for my fire company went a bit like this- we did gun raffles every few months, putting the excess into CDs. I would suppose if you get Noam Chomsky and other wealthy leftists/anarchist together, they could raise the capital to invest in a similar system, perhaps using securities and stocks (irony, or bleeding the beast?), to ensure a steady income from investments to provide 0% loans for the establishment of co-ops.

Given that leftists, and particularly anarcho-leftists, are ideologically motivate, I'm surprised such a system does not exist.

There are some organizations that do provide such loans, but the amount of capital they have available is absurdly small compared to what would actually be required to do this on any large scale. You greatly overestimate the wealth of ideological leftists.

Really, you're talking about needing a significant fraction of the capital available to the capitalist financial system. It's a huge amount of money that would be required to do such a thing on a national level. It might be possible if there was a strong leftist movement, but that doesn't exist anymore.

[Someone5]

WTF is a "non profit investment" company?

An investment you don't profit from isn't an "investment".

An instrument of ideology. The loans would be provided by such an organization because they are trying to pursue an ideological goal. It's converting money into non-monetary goals.

We use other words to describe that kind of financial relationship. For example.... Subsidy. Gift. Charity. Victim of crime.

Investment is a correct word; you "invest" money with hopes that the result will grow to fulfill your ideological preferences. It's not charity, nor gifts. It is a subsidy, but investments in general are a sort of subsidy.

Certainly systems like you describe do exist.
Here in the UK The Guardian newspaper operates on such a model.

A bunch of lefty capitalists make their money in standard capitalist methods and use the profits from these enterprises to fund their ideological platform. A loss making newspaper that is a proponent of their political ideology.

Except The Guardian isn't particularly leftist. They seem to advocate a view along the lines of the social democrats than actual socialists.

Comically, an ideology that rejects the very capitalism that sustains them.

Sure, in essentially the same way that capitalism grew out of feudalism.

[Baff]

Investment is a correct word; you "invest" money with hopes that the result will grow to fulfill your ideological preferences. It's not charity, nor gifts. It is a subsidy, but investments in general are a sort of subsidy.

It's charity in that example. You give away money in the hope to do good and not in the expectation of a profitable return on your money.

Investments are not a subsidy.
A subsidy is when you give some financial help but not total financial help. You top up their wages with a charitable gift.

When you subsidise someone or something, you do not get your subsidy back with interest. So it's a lie to label that an "investment". (An error on your part I'm sure, but a lie when a politician does).


The Guardian is the UK's left wing broadsheet. It's not financially constrained by having to appeal to a wide/mianstream audience. It can say what it likes and does.


I have no idea if capitalism grew out of fuedalism.
I think you may be confusing capitalism, an economic method of mutual co-operation, with fuedalism, a historical political system.


In capitalist socialist countries, socialism is paid for by the capitalists.
Obviously, the government (the socialist bit) does not grow our food or make our clothing. That which we all require to live is provided by the capitalists amongst us.
Socialists redistribute the wealth, capitalists create it.

Take away the capitalists from a capitalist socialist economy and the socialists will die of hunger. Take away the socialists from a capitalist socialist economy and the capitalists will not. There is an economic dependancy.

In short if you produce nothing, you need someone who produces something to give it to you or you will die. You are a physical being. You need to eat.

All resources that the govt consumes are confiscated resources. It produces nothing.
Take away the producers, and the govt has nothing to confiscate. Which means it can't redistribute them to teachers, policemen, politicians, unemployed, nurses etc.
The entire socialist economy is 100% and absolutely financially dependant on the capitalist part of the economy.

If you are a socialist, capitalism pays for you. You are 100% a dependant on it. That is where your money comes from. Directly or indirectly it makes no difference.
You would need to adopt communism perhaps if you wish the state to take control of production.

Equally, when my teenage child sits at my dinner table and eats with me, I am paying for him. He might not wish to see it that way but it's still true.
It's fundamental to the nature of our economic relationship that I am paying for him. He is my dependant. I produce the money, he produces new and exciting ways to spend it.

[Rei Murasame]

a capitalist socialist economy

I believe I have now seen everything. I cannot believe what I am reading.

[Eran]

Two proposals would be either a GSE-financed loan, thereby avoiding "taxpayer dollars" (even though money is created by government spending, not financed by taxpayers), or from a not-for-profit investment company.

I have no problem with not-for-profit investment companies, broadly understood to mean companies making investments under a mandate that doesn't view returns on those investments as a primary criterion for success.

I don't see how GSE-financing is not taxpayer dollars in anything but accounting tricks.

If the GSE finances a loan, the loan is subsidised by taxpayers who effectively provide a free default insurance to the GSE.

The fact that this is a real cost has become all-too-apparent in the GSE bail-outs of recent years.