The rank hypocrisy of capitalist propaganda

That is because you don't yet understand it. It's not about subsidizing enterprises. That is done "BIG TIME" today under capitalism. The incentives in question for cooperatives is a simplification of laws that make formation of worker cooperatives possible, creates a legal pathway, and creates the possibility of organizational funding of cooperatives through loans.

Today, the formation of worker co-ops is all determined state-to-state by state laws. In some states it is actually impossible to legally form worker cooperatives because the mindset is of laws that are structured for the formation of privately-owned businesses of various types. In other states the laws on formation of LLCs can be used in varying degrees of acceptability to form worker co-ops, if complicated and very inconvenient. In many places banks simply refuse to loan to worker co-ops because the bank can't figure out who to hold for the final responsibility of loan repayment should the enterprise fail. And to get past these difficulties it is necessary to form new laws.

Recently, Bernie and Patrick Leahy submitted a bill, S.1081-1082, for this purpose, and in the House, Maggie Hasan submitted HR.2357 to provide a legal framework for financing needs and loan capabilities.

So it's not about handouts. It's about legal pathways that make it possible.

Now I suggest you read the Rhode Island legislation through to see it. It is short and easy to read.

 

The evidence being?

 

Those are all government regulated businesses as you pointed out. VW is not an American company. Design flaws are not always found prior to product coming to market. Equifax was hacked, it was not something they deliberately released. Medical insurance companies did not push opioids, drug companies did as a result of the need for new pain killers.

 

e.g. Logue and Yates (2006, Cooperatives, Worker-Owned Enterprises, Productivity and the International Labor Organization, Economic & Industrial Democracy, Vol 27, pp 686-690) note:

”A survey of empirical research on productivity in worker-owned enterprises and cooperatives finds a substantial literature that largely supports the proposition that worker-owned enterprises equal or exceed the productivity of conventional enterprises when employee involvement is combined with ownership. The weight of a sparser literature on cooperatives tends toward the same pattern. In addition, employee-owned firms create local employment, anchor jobs in their communities and enrich local social capital.”

 

The link you provided raised a great many questions, and I would be more tempted to ask them were this threads title indicative of a discussion about worker owned/operated cooperative enterprises.
But one simple question which arose from the link you provided.
It appears there would be a fee charged to those who are accepted (by whom?) to become "Members" which would result in a single "membership share", AND then there is a "Paid-in capital", exclusive of the membership fee. Am I correct in assuming that the disbursement of profits would be relative to the "Paid-in capital" while regardless of the amount invested a person who may have invested 90% of the capital to start the business would have but a single vote in all decisions related to running the business?

 

Are they more profitable? Can they react as fast to a changing environment with all those owners?

 

I've already said: maximising productivity is only key in perfect competition. We know that economic rents dominate because of market power. This ensures the distinction between maximising productivity (an efficient outcome) and maximising profitability (an inefficient outcome)

 

Oh I understand now. Your an idiot. Maximizing production is a terrible goal. So what if you make a billion widgets, if the widget has a market of 100,000? Better to maximize the profit on units you can actually sell. Or did none of that occur to you?

 

It is 'you are'. Please be accurate when trying to non-economic sneer!

This made me laugh. I didn't refer to maximising production (that would refer to the likes of the principal-agent problem in capitalism). I referred to maximising productivity. Read up on the difference and then get back to me

 

Cooperatives are also a fallacy as publicly traded corporations often times have far more owners. Many of those cooperatives are agricultural and share storage facilities for the most part. Hardly a situation that creates higher production because of the ownership.

 

You should actually be referring to how worker ownership is often a reaction to capitalist failure (where workers take over companies that are threatening unemployment). That they manage higher productivity levels is impressive, but also predicted (including by Austrian Economics)

 

Many companies have profit sharing and that does not equate to higher productivity necessarily. What do you suspect is the result of maximizing productivity in most cases?

 

link

 

That merely reflects an effort to control work effort (i.e. efficiency wages). Ownership is quite different (e.g. how democracy improves information flows within the company)

This is a nonsensical question. Try and construct your argument

 

If what you say is true, why not begin a thread with the OP containing the legislation to be discussed in a civil fashion?
Wouldn't it be a nice change to see a thread present an issue and work towards achieving a solution acceptable to all, or at least a majority of those who initially differ from one another?

 

Nice deflection there sport. Work effort IS productivity, aka your beloved maximizing productivity. Democracy is a form of government, not an economic system.

 

You're saying nothing. Controlling effort refers to stuff like shirking and sociological efficiency wage analysis. That is very different to ownership effects. You should be blubbering, at the very least, to voice effects from unionisation

 

Further deflection, interesting.

 

No response, not interesting

 

So you follow with an uninteresting post in reply.

Since you cannot project your total profit prior to market conditions and other factors, wages are not going to reflect the net gain of an employee. It will take time and an employee is not going to be motivated by a profit sharing check months away when he has other concerns today. Many companies have to pay attendance bonuses just to get people to show up. That the sort of person you want owning a company?

 

Merely a factual one. That can be uninteresting.

So you're stating that modern economics is wrong that wages are set according to marginal productivity criteria?

I'm still trying to work out what you're trying to say. Are you trying to work out why empirical research shows worker ownership is more productive? If so, put more effort into it!

 

You need to be consistent in your terminology. worker ownership can be many things besides cooperatives, which you are using as your foil. Self employed people would also fit that definition.

 

Wages are set by the minimum amount necessary to complete your work force requirements.

 

Sounds more like a Marxist approach! Well done

 

You really should educate yourself on economics.