[mikema63]

I think libertarians can be sold on worker owned companies.

There has been some suggestion that instead of bailing out the banks and auto-industries a better idea would be to nationalize them to prevent moral hazard (an idea test driven by reason magazine). Certainly giving control of the company to the workers would be less radical to them and an easier sell. Certainly reason has also been pushing worker self management as well, and libertarians can be appealed to by the idea of worker autonomy being better.

They also pay lip service to anti-corporate privilege as well. There are several things the LP could likely be convinced to do to support and incentivize worker ownership, such as amending bankruptcy laws to allow workers to buy out companies. (there is another country that does this though the name escapes me)

I think it would certainly make the LP more likable if they made a concentrated effort to support worker run companies in the US.

[Rei Murasame]

I think libertarians can be sold on worker owned companies.

Oh you. I've tried this and I've seen other people try it, and the libertarians never buy it. Libertarians won't tolerate it in practice, because they view the seizure of a company as a form of coercion.

I'd be interested to see the Reason magazine article where they play with the idea though. But I think they play with a lot of ideas while actually not adopting them as an option in their ideology at all.

[mikema63]

Well they did have some positive press for morning star tomatoes which is a worker managed company.

I'll try to find the video where they invite the guy to talk about nationalizing banks.

I wonder if an effort to infiltrate the LP could work. On their own US socialists don't have lots of political clout but they would probably fit in the LP as long as they were careful about how they suggested things.

[Rainbow Crow]

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.

[mikema63]

The market is defined by government, you don't have to require it to make it economically efficient.

Hell, you could kill wallmart now and convert it into a worker owned company just by removing their direct subsidies and allowing the workers to get the company when it goes bankrupt.

All they need to do is amend bankruptcy and corporate laws to be worker cooperative friendly and remove the subsidies that keep most big businesses running and we can watch a large share of the economy turn into workers coops.

Instead of bailing out bank investors we could have just taken the losses out of them and given the company to its workers and BAM, the world banking system would be run by workers.

[quetzalcoatl]

Mike does have a good point. An abiding weakness of capitalism is the division of the population into workers and owners. If workers are the owners, then that particular weakness is sidestepped. And he is correct that US law is heavily weighted towards a particular style of corporate governance - it is not simply a matter of competition.

[lucky]

I think libertarians can be sold on worker owned companies.

I have no problem with workers owning companies. What are you trying to sell me really - that only workers should own companies? That would be a bummer, so that's going to be a very hard sell. These are two different roles in a company - I don't have a problem with people doing both, but I also don't have a problem with people doing one or the other. The whole point of libertarianism is that you get to do either way.

amending bankruptcy laws to allow workers to buy out companies. (there is another country that does this though the name escapes me)

There is no law against workers buying out companies.

[TropicalK]

Traditionally, when a company goes into bankruptcy, the people who receive the company's assets are the bondholders and other claimants. Giving the company to owners is running right over legitimate owners, and a pure gift. It sickens me to think of the government gifting to workers or anyone really.

All they need to do is amend bankruptcy and corporate laws to be worker cooperative friendly and remove the subsidies that keep most big businesses running and we can watch a large share of the economy turn into workers coops.

I'd agree to remove these subsidies where possible, but that's a far stretch to bankruptcy and an even mile-long stretch to making coops more efficient than Wal-Mart.

[Lagrange]

An abiding weakness of capitalism is the division of the population into workers and owners.

Why is this a "weakness" of capitalism? Without entrepreneurs, many of the technological advances of the past few centuries would not have been possible. If you have distributional concerns (inequality between workers and entrepreneurs), then income redistribution is the proper avenue of redress.

Coops fall prey to all sorts of collective action problems; without broad homogeneity of member interests, it is almost always a less efficient form of organization.

[mikema63]

The economic illiteracy here is so egregious that it almost hurts reading this.

Care to actually add something to the discussion or will you stick with the snide worthless comment?

that only workers should own companies?

That's what I believe but not what I'm trying to sell. What I'm trying to sell is that the cards are artificially stacked against them and that the playing field should be leveled.

Traditionally, when a company goes into bankruptcy, the people who receive the company's assets are the bondholders and other claimants. Giving the company to owners is running right over legitimate owners, and a pure gift. It sickens me to think of the government gifting to workers or anyone really.

Then who are the legitimate owners if not the bond holders or the workers? If anything the laborers have been mixing their labor into the business so they at least have some claim. The government has to decide who gets what assets, why shouldn't workers get the business in the bankruptcy?

I'd agree to remove these subsidies where possible, but that's a far stretch to bankruptcy and an even mile-long stretch to making coops more efficient than Wal-Mart.

I disagree, but since I'm trying to convince you to level the playing field to allow workers coops to exist not force all companies to be workers coops the point is moot.

Why is this a "weakness" of capitalism? Without entrepreneurs, many of the technological advances of the past few centuries would not have been possible. If you have distributional concerns (inequality between workers and entrepreneurs), then income redistribution is the proper avenue of redress.

Not if your concern is one of power and not just plain income inequality. Workers coops generally reward any creative thinking from workers. We could also go into a whole conversation about what really motivates people and how monetary rewards actually make it harder for people to be creative.

Coops fall prey to all sorts of collective action problems; without broad homogeneity of member interests, it is almost always a less efficient form of organization.

and yet there are several successful coops and cooperatives have even had layoffs when needed. Everyone's interest in the company is the same and the goals are very clear, there is no reason to assume there would be mass disagreement.

[Lagrange]

Not if your concern is one of power and not just plain income inequality. Workers coops generally reward any creative thinking from workers. We could also go into a whole conversation about what really motivates people and how monetary rewards actually make it harder for people to be creative.

If you are worried about market power (specifically here, the ability of entrepreneurs to set the terms of employment with their workers), that is what we have labor unions for. Sufficiently powerful labor unions are able to bargain with entrepreneurial firms so that the balance of power in society is more even.

Everyone's interest in the company is the same and the goals are very clear, there is no reason to assume there would be mass disagreement.

Ha, this is idealized form of cooperative akin to an assumption of perfect competition. There is absolutely no reason to assume that everyone's interests are perfectly aligned -- politics arise in basically every grouping of people. Labor unions have their internal squabbles even if most members are similarly positioned. When you give workers even broader control of a company's direction, the negative consequences of politics are only exacerbated.

Pray tell, what specific parts of the tax code are keeping all firms from becoming like cooperatives?

[lucky]

Then who are the legitimate owners if not the bond holders or the workers? If anything the laborers have been mixing their labor into the business so they at least have some claim. The government has to decide who gets what assets, why shouldn't workers get the business in the bankruptcy?

Bondholders get company assets because the loans are explicitly backed by company assets. That's how corporate bonds work.

The whole "mixing of labor" terminology sounds like magic. The deal is that workers sell their time and labor to the company for money, or stock options, or whatever the deal is. What the company owes them is their unpaid wages, and they do get that in case of bankruptcy.

The idea that workers should also get the assets, for free, doesn't make economic sense. That's like saying that when you stop making mortgage payments to the bank, the bank shouldn't get the house, and instead it should go to your plumber, your cleaning lady, your gardener, your childrens' private tutor, and whoever else was lucky to work in your house at the time. Sounds more like wishful thinking on behalf of those people rather than an attempt at sound policy.

[mikema63]

Then any company run by a board of directors elected by shareholders should collapse, their interests and goals are just as aligned as the workers is.

Pray tell, what specific parts of the tax code are keeping all firms from becoming like cooperatives?

The tax code in particular? It hardly has the same level of effect as subsidies, labor laws, and corporate laws.

Corporate loopholes hop to the top of my head though, traditional companies gain extra profit and can lower their prices over smaller competition. These large companies are unlikely to experiment with different business structures unlike the smaller competition, thus preventing the development of other models.

The idea that workers should also get the assets in bankruptcy doesn't make economic sense. That's like saying that when you stop making mortgage payments to the bank, the bank shouldn't get the house, and instead it should go to your plumber, your cleaning lady, your gardener, your childrens' private tutor, and whoever else you happened to hire to work in your house. Sounds more like wishful thinking on behalf of those people rather than an attempt at sound policy.

A libertarian who believes homesteading is nonsense, interesting.

[lucky]

A libertarian who believes homesteading is nonsense, interesting.

Homesteading is building a homestead on unused land. Taking over somebody's house is not called homesteading... it's called foreclosing. They are hardly related.

[mikema63]

Then you don't think that labor never leaves the land? Say a man farms some land for a year and then never uses it again, does he then own the land forever?

[Lagrange]

Corporate loopholes hop to the top of my head though, traditional companies gain extra profit and can lower their prices over smaller competition. These large companies are unlikely to experiment with different business structures unlike the smaller competition, thus preventing the development of other models.

These are just buzzwords. What is a "traditional company"? Most Americans are employed by small businesses headed by entrepreneurs. The majority of these operate in an environment of monopolistic competition (though many markets are even more competitive). Thus most entrepreneurial firms do not have much of an advantage versus cooperatives, the size of the markup is similar.

The reason why we don't have more coops is because in most industries coops are less efficient. Take the tech industry, for example. What special advantages do the owners of hyper-competitive Bay Area startups have over tech coops?

[lucky]

Then you don't think that labor never leaves the land?

Sounds like magical thinking again. Labor is not an object, it doesn't stay anywhere, it doesn't move anywhere... it's an action. It's like asking where my movie-watching goes after I'm done watching the movie.

Say a man farms some land for a year and then never uses it again, does he then own the land forever?

Nobody owns anything forever, when somebody dies it goes into his estate.

[mikema63]

traditional company

You know what I mean, don't be intentionally stupid.

What special advantages do the owners of hyper-competitive Bay Area startups have over tech coops?

And yet linux is a superior operating system made by people for free just for the fuck of it.

@lucky, so that farmer farms 500 million acres of land over his lifetime, never farming the same land twice, and he and his decendents can own that land till the end of time.

[lucky]

@lucky, so that farmer farms 500 million acres of land over his lifetime, never farming the same land twice, and he and his decendents can own that land till the end of time.

It doesn't matter what he farms, it matters what he owns. You can own land without being a farmer, and you can farm land without being an owner. I don't know about "the end of time" (that land will probably get swallowed by the Sun in 5 billion years), but yes, land is generally owned over long periods of time (not necessarily by descendants). If somebody doesn't see value in land, they'll probably sell it. I don't know what you're asking. This whole line of questions seems tangential to the topic anyway.

[Lagrange]

You know what I mean, don't be intentionally stupid.

No but really, what do you mean? Environments differ radically across industries. Like I said, monopolistically competitive small businesses do not generally enjoy a large markup.

And yet linux is a superior operating system made by people for free just for the fuck of it.

Will you please answer my question? This is a total non-sequitur. Open source software can be great but I'm not sure what you're trying to say about firm ownership structures here.