But politically it's the progressives who champion worker owned businesses while conservatives prefer a 3rd party investor class to 'hold' the monies.

It was telling how confused you were when you started to answer the questions. The fact that you have to get money from some adult is so ingrained in you. You don't even consider that the people who are creating the actual wealth should run their own operation.

I mean millions of tiny businesses pop up with one or two guys who have skills and a truck. They need a small bank loan but no investors are ever involved.

You seem to think a guy like Trump who holds the money is harder to come by than a good plumber. Trumps a talker but talk is easier than work.

Even if we accept this, a business plan can exist following socialist principles. A worker's cooperative (as in the specific more modern phenomena that arose in the 1800s) is an example of this. It's pretty much how they arose.

And I don't really think socialism can be well described as merely "an economic system". It is very much a political system.

I don't care who progressives want to work for/with. It's a free country. I would not trust my investment of labor/capital that was put into a coop. I would put that investment into place that has a higher return.




You have to have capital to start a business, this can come from many of sources which I listed a few. Unless, of course, you are talking about stealing a company and giving it to workers, then that would be socialist.

No, you clearly argued that you needed a special class of people to run a business. Including investors.

I think this indicates that you're not actually observing how the economy works but just riffing of things you've read.

Stealing is what investors do to things like employees pension funds.
It's actually stupid of you to imply that socialists are thieves and capitalists are not. But then, it does sort of prove my point about your narrow view of the economy.

I mean, just as a thought exercise, why does there need to be a tiny investor class that clutches the purse strings ? Why can't the investor class be wide and include the people who create the wealth via labor and not just ideas ?

While just stealing it would be capitalist?

I don't think hyperbolic exaggerations serve much purpose.

Obviously people starting a worker's cooperative have not overturned the state (either peacefully ala Bakunin or violently ala Marx) and instilled their socialist utopia on society at large, but it still doesn't mean that socialist principles are not in play.

worker coops seems to be a really bad example. Whether we call it socialism, or not, there is nothing restricting workers from doing this in a capitalist society. What's the beef with capitalism?

Saying worker owned cooperatives are not socialist is absolutely on a par with saying love is hate.

Well, I would tend to agree. I don't think there needs to be much of a beef between socialism and capitalism.

Plenty of people who like either disagree with me however, and as history has shown that disagreement can reach spectacular levels.

What are you talking you about? I made the point you need capital to start a business. RF is making an argument that way of thinking is wrongheaded. There is no other way to start a company, if for no other reason to pay yourself. You need capital. The obvious conclusion to that is that he believes companies should be given to workers. Since people own those companies, it's theft to take that ownership from them and give it to someone else. That's what I would call socialism.

Businesses do need capital. That's not 'wrongheaded'.


The only questions I've posed is why do a small elite need to control when and how that capital is doled out. Why can't a wider swath of society control the capital ?

Is the idle land owner a necessary attribute of a modern economy ?

Its worth remembering that capital is not a thing, but a relationship between persons mediated through things.

This is the problem with socialism. Socialist want the benefit of capital and risk without providing that risk and capital themselves. They have to essentially steal it from someone. How else are you going to get the capital to a wider swath, outside of earning it?


Why? That's like asking why only a small percentage of people are capable of playing Major League Baseball.






No, but that does not mean it should be illegal.

So all of these worker owned businesses stole their start up capital ?
Do you have an proof of that ?


For that matter how does any business get it's start up capital ?
Most businesses don't have outside investors. Yet somehow....they exist.
It's all theft ?

bolded is an absurd statement. you have never read any socialist academics or economists. like, the reason most of them become socialist is due to critiques on capitalism. so of course they are aware of some of the positives.

however, the current ruling elites certainly wont stand for anything that could be considered socialist. they are even attacking the post office! but any worker compensation or public services are relentlessly attacked by both parties.

The simple fact is we have mixed economies in first world countries.

To say either capitalism or socialism is entirely good or bad is just wasting time that you could be spending on actually improving the system.

The Koch boys were skin flints and yet they spent millions to get people like it'shot confused and riled up. That's what we should reflect on in these all or nothing arguments. Why are we even having them when they're totally absurd ?

Third way Bay-bay.

(an awful lot like the first way)

why is it theft when a company or capital is given to a large group of people working at a company? but not theft when billions of the public's money gets given to an individual like Elon Musk?

If we're starting a biz and I have the loot but need other people to make it happen--are those people/labor not sharing some of the risk by devoting their time/energy? Do you think it's better to pay xx/hr period, pay+some %stake or higher% stake no upfront? Having a stake in the outcome is a pretty good motivator ime. It's not being stolen from to chop out those %s--it's smart. And it exists all over the place in various forms already.

Capital is just a part of the equation--that biz is likely going nowhere w/o labor to make it happen. Our system's kinda predicated on the idea that having the money is the more important part/taking 'all' the risk and very special and thus deserves a bigger slice But is it really?

I guess the Koch think tank universities didn't prep him for this quiz.

If I pay $5K to have my house painted and the value of my home increases $20K due to the work the painter performed, I don't think the painter is entitled to $20K. Same goes if I'm a homebuilder paying employees to paint homes, an entrepreneur paying a web developer to build an ecommerce site, a factory owner paying employees to assemble widgets, someone to detail my car before I put it up for sale, etc.

As with any worker who takes a job with a start up, they risk the job not being there in a year, but they also may not be around in a year, if they find a better job, and their wage compensates them for their time and risk. Of course, if you giving someone with an otherwise common skill set an and equal equity stake, they probably gonna think they hit the jackpot and stay around. I think it's great you want to share equal upside with your employees and give them equal say in how you run the business. Consequently, increasing your risk, lowering your return, and lowering your control. The ROI has to be better than it would normally need to be to make your investment of capital worth it, as opposed to investing that capital into some other option that has less risk, and better upside.

Say you are a poker player, and you provide the bankroll, and bring on a few coaches...are you going to give them an equal share of your winnings?

If you need someone with unique skills, it might be wise to offer an equity stake.

A study from 2007 found that in the US cooperative startups had a 5 year survival rate of ~90%. Non-cooperatives had a rate more like 5%. Similarly, cooperative banks (credit unions) had a failure rate between 3 and 5 times lower than other banks as a result of the 2008 financial crisis.

It may be lower ROI but the risk of investing in a cooperative is actually much, much smaller than in any other business.

It's almost as if humans are wired to work together towards common goals and the concept of rugged individualism is a myth put forth by people who made a living off stealing the labor of others.

That might be true, but are you going to front all the capital for the coop, as was alluded to in the question?

Does the painter own your house ?

We're talking about worker owned companies.

My actual question above was why do we need a tiny investor class to manage the purse strings, what harm or benefit would be done to the economy if it was a larger class of employee/owners.