Would something along the lines of the Meidner plan with workers retirement funds being invested in other work-owned companies go someway to solving the problem of workers opting for pay increases over re-investment in the firm?
Yes, I think. The higher the level at which collective ownership is implement, the less the negative employment effect obtains. The Meidner Plan would socialize industries by having the equity of firms be gradually transferred to the sectoral union representing workers in that industry. Pooling ownership at the sector level means that any one firm’s hiring dilutes equity claims across thousands of workers, largely eliminating the hiring disincentive. But the problem of inequality between firms/sectors remains: more capital-intensive sectors will pay higher dividends to workers than relatively labour-intensive sectors. This is why I prefer @Matt Bruenig and @Econoboi’s preferred model of sovereign wealth funds, which they’ve written about extensively.
Hey thanks for bringing my attention to this, good stuff!
So I'm still not completely convinced problem 1 is actually a problem. Having coops err on the side of being small would produce an organic way to combat monopolization. In theory new coops should pop up to fill the economic niches other coops leave 'on the table' by not expanding, however if this truly doesn't happen in practice then we do have a problem. If so, I'd say it can be tackled with cooperative leagues (or more ambitiously/thoroughly with the above proposal of Meidner plans/SWFs).
For number 3, that does not (as stated) really apply for coops, and number 2... yeah okay number 2 is a problem that coops cannot solve on their own. To be fair, it's a problem traditional capitalists firms *also* have, and coops do improve on it a little bit. But the improvements would also become smaller and smaller the more you zoom out (e.g: decent inequality reduction in your village, slightly noticeable in your country, barely detectable at the world stage).
This is great for tackling the sociological problems of resentment/decline in trust, since they arise disproportionately out of *local* inequality, but wouldn't do much in tackling inequality in who gets access to food and medicine, which is probably a bigger deal.
So yeah, you'd need a sovereign wealth fund or something like it. Which is great because SWFs are good on their own, and coops are good on their own, which means there are two roads towards the synergistic excellence that SWF+coops bring.
The state doesn't have any money. All "public" spending is funded by someone else’s labor, taxed away under threat of force. Bureaucrats and politicians pay themselves handsomely for the privilege. Fewer resources for real businesses, less incentive to take risks, slower growth, and less freedom for everyone. What the state calls “public spending” is just a drain on the economy and a theft of people’s lives and work.
These are all capitalistic remedies, whether they belong to old socialist economies or not, which are totally restructuring capitalist falsities. Digitalism is paving the way off the capitalistic mode of production. Not economy but technology is the determinant. See: Digitalism vs. Capitalism
Dear Chris: Economy is much more than management. If it was only a “management,” then it is determined by what kind of energy, tools, and devices we have to manage. Let me intrigue you: In Arabic (and in Turkish as well), “siyaset” is politics. But what the word “siyaset” means is the person and the process of taming the horse (seyis). On the other hand, to manage in English is to direct, but where? Obviously, at the Horse Arena or Menage. We at least need a horse to manage. The horse comes first, then you can manage.
Digitalism is a new "mode of production and consumption..." It will convert the exchange value of goods and services into "use and/or satisfaction value." For further info see my book: Digitalism vs. Capitalism
The last point on decentralisation is quite interesting. I was not aware of restrictions hampering internal, intra-republic trade in Yugoslavia, apart from some minor and mostly informal hindrances. Would appreciate any additional info on this.
Would something along the lines of the Meidner plan with workers retirement funds being invested in other work-owned companies go someway to solving the problem of workers opting for pay increases over re-investment in the firm?
Yes, I think. The higher the level at which collective ownership is implement, the less the negative employment effect obtains. The Meidner Plan would socialize industries by having the equity of firms be gradually transferred to the sectoral union representing workers in that industry. Pooling ownership at the sector level means that any one firm’s hiring dilutes equity claims across thousands of workers, largely eliminating the hiring disincentive. But the problem of inequality between firms/sectors remains: more capital-intensive sectors will pay higher dividends to workers than relatively labour-intensive sectors. This is why I prefer @Matt Bruenig and @Econoboi’s preferred model of sovereign wealth funds, which they’ve written about extensively.
Thanks
https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/projects/social-wealth-fund/
https://econoboi.substack.com/p/my-journey-to-democratic-socialism
@Bob Jacobs
Hey thanks for bringing my attention to this, good stuff!
So I'm still not completely convinced problem 1 is actually a problem. Having coops err on the side of being small would produce an organic way to combat monopolization. In theory new coops should pop up to fill the economic niches other coops leave 'on the table' by not expanding, however if this truly doesn't happen in practice then we do have a problem. If so, I'd say it can be tackled with cooperative leagues (or more ambitiously/thoroughly with the above proposal of Meidner plans/SWFs).
For number 3, that does not (as stated) really apply for coops, and number 2... yeah okay number 2 is a problem that coops cannot solve on their own. To be fair, it's a problem traditional capitalists firms *also* have, and coops do improve on it a little bit. But the improvements would also become smaller and smaller the more you zoom out (e.g: decent inequality reduction in your village, slightly noticeable in your country, barely detectable at the world stage).
This is great for tackling the sociological problems of resentment/decline in trust, since they arise disproportionately out of *local* inequality, but wouldn't do much in tackling inequality in who gets access to food and medicine, which is probably a bigger deal.
So yeah, you'd need a sovereign wealth fund or something like it. Which is great because SWFs are good on their own, and coops are good on their own, which means there are two roads towards the synergistic excellence that SWF+coops bring.
surprisingly few and relatively unimportant critiques from the god-father of neoliberalism
The state doesn't have any money. All "public" spending is funded by someone else’s labor, taxed away under threat of force. Bureaucrats and politicians pay themselves handsomely for the privilege. Fewer resources for real businesses, less incentive to take risks, slower growth, and less freedom for everyone. What the state calls “public spending” is just a drain on the economy and a theft of people’s lives and work.
These are all capitalistic remedies, whether they belong to old socialist economies or not, which are totally restructuring capitalist falsities. Digitalism is paving the way off the capitalistic mode of production. Not economy but technology is the determinant. See: Digitalism vs. Capitalism
Economy is management of resources, both natural and artificial. By definition, artificial resources are named technology.
Dear Chris: Economy is much more than management. If it was only a “management,” then it is determined by what kind of energy, tools, and devices we have to manage. Let me intrigue you: In Arabic (and in Turkish as well), “siyaset” is politics. But what the word “siyaset” means is the person and the process of taming the horse (seyis). On the other hand, to manage in English is to direct, but where? Obviously, at the Horse Arena or Menage. We at least need a horse to manage. The horse comes first, then you can manage.
What you said aligns with what I said. Yet, what I would like is your definition for "digitalism".
Digitalism is a new "mode of production and consumption..." It will convert the exchange value of goods and services into "use and/or satisfaction value." For further info see my book: Digitalism vs. Capitalism
The last point on decentralisation is quite interesting. I was not aware of restrictions hampering internal, intra-republic trade in Yugoslavia, apart from some minor and mostly informal hindrances. Would appreciate any additional info on this.
The link isn't working. Could you fix it?