Sustaining Capitalism in a Finite World

Then why does government need to get involved?

 

When you investigate state laws governing coops, you begin to see why Rhode Island, Massachusetts, N.Carolina, Texas, Colorado, New York, and California have passed new laws on it. The existing law in my state actually prevents worker-owned/operated coops by specifying details on the issuing of shares and voting rights on them (among other things creating an obstacle). Also, financing can be a major problem due to laws. With privately owned corporations the question of who to sue in a lawsuit is spelled out. Not so with WSDEs and therefore banks are hesitant to loan to them.

 

I meant why does the government need to promote them.

As far as I'm concerned there should be no special laws governing co-ops, corporations, partnerships, or sole proprietorships. Basic contract law should be sufficient for all such business models.

 

That's simply naive.
http://ncba.coop/our-work/cooperative-statute#

 

What is really needed other than contract law?

 

If you would read the summaries of one or two states in the link I just posted, you might find the answer to that question. Read some of the categories in one of them. Look at the questions raised. I posted that link for a reason.

 

That link points to all the laws specifically concerning co-ops by state. These are the laws I argue are not needed, and that any business could exist simply via contract law.

 

Well, I said that standard contract law doesn't cover all the things that are covered in those co-op laws. If you want a more specific critique of contract law and its relevance to cooperatives, consult an attorney.

 

I said that we don't need special co-op laws, or corporation laws, or partnership laws. I'm suggesting that it would be easier if those laws were prohibited. All we need is contract law. A business can be created via a contract between its owners, and that business can engage with trading partners via contract. Then you could create a WSDE in any state in the union. No special law would be necessary.

 

Try running that by an attorney and see what he says. There are too many details specific to each kind of contract.

 

If there were no special co-op statutes or corporation statutes or partnership statutes, a contract attorney could construct any of these through contract.

 

Sure.... at a greater cost, but it's pointless. Nothing wrong with standards and provisions that simplify it. If you want to really find out why such laws are important and enormously beneficial, I can provide you with links where you can find contact information to ask about it from those who know. Just let me know.

 

No, nothing wrong with standards. And I'm sure it would be simple to have standard contracts for any business model.

 

yes it's a free country. and???????????????

 

Foundations of capitalism can be many. Most importantly it is about caring for your customers and workers.
The state/private thing is right out of Marx. You might as well use Hitler given the history of Marxism.

 

Neither Marx nor Hitler have anything at all to do with what I posted.
Caring for your customers and workers has more to do with achieving success in business in a capitalistic world.

 

Sure it does, private versus public ownership is exactly how Marx described it. It is meaningless as it tells you nothing abut what happens after ownership.

 

wrong!! it is the fundamental activity on which capitalism is based and they activity which makes it 100 times superior in living standards. Socialism has no such activity since customers and workers have no options and thus is fundamentally different.

 

Could you phrase that comment more clearly?

 

You seem to be confusing capitalism with free market competition.

 

Capitalism is simply sustaining industry and trade in the private sector minimizing government intervention/control. The products of industry and trade are never static, and at the business level don't really require 'increasing accumulation'. All the individual business must do is obtain a portion of the marketplace large enough to provide sustainable profits. While new products/services appear others vanish all caused by myriad reasons. If all the demand has been met then at that point capitalism and the economy will have some challenges...

 

...and KEEP "a portion of the marketplace large enough to provide sustainable profits." And this has been done historically by protecting the market share one has and to stay on top or get on top of the share distribution by out-doing the competition. The competition grows. So all competitors must struggle to grow to keep up. In capitalism, if you stand still you will get run over by the competition.

This is basic!!

 

The introduction of the iPhone for example took huge chunks of demand from the other 100 cell phone companies, as well as piqued interest and sales from new buyers. iPhone is the winner of market share and those other 100 companies are the losers. In another 5-10 years it will something new taking hunks of the marketplace...

 

That's true, but that is not the standard threat facing the majority of businesses. Certainly there are several different kinds of threats businesses face from competitors, and the oldest, best known, most common is probably that of market share. And you have to admit that businesses tend to grow or fail, so growth is the norm in order to manage the threat of lost market share. We've all seen it.

 

OMG!!! The iphone is a threat exactly because it took market share!!!!!!!!