/biz/ - Business & Finance

it should be at the discretion of the company

>>316
What do you mean, exactly?

Literally the best economic system.

The only people who can own shares are employees, and every employee gets an equal share. (And an equal vote to fire people who aren't working hard enough)

Having the workers be owners ensures the workers won't be abused, and likewise won't vote for wages that will destroy the company.

Companies themselves can still behave in free trade between each other.

>>507
you mention companies running on behalf of the employees. if a company chooses to structure itself like that then they can do it, but you shouldnt have a system that requires all companies to do so.

Isn't that called syndicalism?

>>667
Why not? Why does the boss have a better claim to a company the the hundreds of employees who work in it?

>>725
From my understanding, Syndicalism is essentially confederations of trade unions planning the economy: mutualism can involve a free market.

>>801
Okay.
I think something similar was done in former Yugoslavia.
It was called workers self-managment. It kinda had it's faults, but I'm not sure if it was system or state which were faulty.

>>274
>being ancap
>implying you're not just a gold-worshipping kike who wants to be able to exploit workers with no regulation

>>884
Does anyone know anything about the economy of socialist Yugoslavia? Why did it end in collapse: were the problems to do with the economic system, or external/political factors.

>>801
>Why not? Why does the boss have a better claim to a company the the hundreds of employees who work in it?
I work for a very successful financial institution, for the last 14 years we have doubled in size every 5 years and are projecting for that trend to continue through the next 10 years.
every quarter we have a meeting in the main office where I work. all employees are invited and encouraged to come, they can also phone in or watch a stream since they can't all be there and wouldn't be able to fit.
it generally takes about an hour and a half and we sit there going over charts discussing our strategy over the next quarter, rate adjustments, lots of pie charts and bar graphs, very technical boring stuff.

not everyone went to business school. Most didn't in fact.
It doesn't make sense for the janitor or a teller to have the same say in calculating our mortgage refinancing rates in a changing market as investment specialists and strategic planners.

>>1121
Basically, imagine if every state in the U.S. hated each other, and you would get shot for crossing the border to another state.

And also every state said their borders were bigger than they really were, so you get shot for crossing those imaginary borders too, some of which are in your state and vice versa.

That's why Yugoslavia collapsed.

>>1121
Being Yugoslav I can tell you it was mostly ethnic tension and state being communist (actually single-party dictatorship in reality).
How successful economic model was is kinda hard to estimate, we definitely had a big growth after 50's but in the late 80's it came crashing.
Though it's open to debate whether it was just economic warfare by West directed against Yugoslavia or incompetence of our leaders.
One thing is certain: our external debt is bigger now than it was then, several times, and our economies are actually same or smaller. However, IMF refused to give us credits back then. So that is kinda fishy.

>>1163
Janitors would know not to meddle in things they don't know how to do, because they would know making poor choices would ruin their own income.

And if they didn't, everyone else would vote to fire them for being a threat to their income.

>>1163
That doesn't answer the question: after all, there is no reason why there can't be specialist committees dedicated to fiscal planning. I asked why there should be a capitalist at the top who has more ownership of the company than the people that constitute it. After all, there is no guarantee that he will make the right decisions - he was just lucky enough to have access to the capital. He could be as dull witted at the janitor, but just a lucky heir.

>>942
>being colourblind
>and illiterate

>>274
It works only if slavery exists. Just read George Fitzhugh and Thomas Carlyle

>>1342
>He could be as dull witted at the janitor, but just a lucky heir.
but use my company as an example here. clearly the people who are tasked with making the decisions are doing the job. In most cases its not just a company being run by lucky chimpanzees.
I don't know if you have spent much time in board meetings and the sort but there are reasons the people in the big offices up stairs are sitting there.
fact is some jobs are less important and easily replaceable. You can find anybody to clean a toilet, you cant find just anyone with decades of investment experience. You shouldn't be forcing companies to weigh the value of objectively less valuable people against the value of objectively more valuable people.
>>1271
the people at the bottom that don't know what they are doing outnumber the people at the top who do. They can vote for pay raises and things like that without considering the repercussions to the companies budget. Business is no place for democracy.
I didn't finish my thought before because I got side tracked but where I was going is; all employees are welcomed to the meeting and the vast majority don't show up. This is a time for everyone to sit down and get facetime with the CEO and the board members because they are up there answering any questions and concerns and will stay until everyone has had a chance to talk. 4 times a year the lowest tier entry level worker can come in and express anything they want directly to the CEO and they never do, they never show up, they show no interest in coming.

that's why they shouldn't have the same influence in decisions

>>1342
This too.

See: Paris Hilton.

She had absolutely no business skill, but owns clothing and perfume companies, and just pays someone to run them for her because she was born into wealth. She contributes nothing and leeches from the workers.

>>1737
she supplied the capital though.
if I buy a boat and hire you to work on it because I'm not experienced, you don't now own the boat too.

>>1733
>the people at the bottom that don't know what they are doing outnumber the people at the top who do.

You have the answer to this problem in your own post.

> 4 times a year the lowest tier entry level worker can come in and express anything they want directly to the CEO and they never do

Some janitor can't just start a vote at any time for "give me more money"

He needs to write up a proposal stating how much money, and where it's coming from. Otherwise the accounting department will just ignore it and tell him "You can't vote the sky green, there's no money for this raise."

>>1733
>vast majority don't show up
Which is exactly his point: they recognize their own inability to constructively contribute, which is why he was pointing out your image of them bankrupting the company with their ignorance in greed is nonsense.

Do you think it is just coincidence that the vast majority of poor and disenfranchised people end up with shit jobs?

>>1832
So because she came out of a certain womb, she has the right to other people's labour?

>>1832
What we're saying is that shouldn't happen. If you don't like it, learn to sail or spend your money on something else.

The idea of someone owning something without being involved with it is a strictly western (and very recent) concept. Every other culture in the world got by just fine without the concept that someone can own something and pay someone else to work it, until the West forced their culture on everyone else. There is no law of nature that demands the world work that way. It can be changed too.

>>1907
>Do you think it is just coincidence that the vast majority of poor and disenfranchised people end up with shit jobs?
its because they aren't as smart as the people who have good ones. They are less valuable to a company and that's all there is to it.

>she has the right to other people's labour?
if shes paying them, yes. she isn't forcing anyone to work. if you don't want what shes offering you then don't work for her.
>>1896
>You have the answer to this problem in your own post.
the only answer to that is to not let them have an equal say in what goes on. They can have an opinion, they can let their opinion be heard, but to actually give that opinion weight against the company is a bad idea.

>>2036
>If you don't like it, learn to sail or spend your money on something else.
so I will spend my money on something else and you won't have a job using your skills to work on my boat.
how does that make things better?

why do you care how much involvement an owner has as long as the people working get to take home a paycheck at the end of the day? They are choosing to work for the companies they do, they aren't being forced by anybody.

>>2109
You're literally arguing in favor of feudalism.

>>2056
>if you don't want what shes offering you then don't work for her.
The way you say that implies that choosing not to work - and thus being denied shelter, food and liberty - is a choice in any meaningful sense. The idea that serving capital is something labourers freely engage in a fairly obvious myth.

>its because they aren't as smart as the people who have good ones.
So essentially, a world where overwhelmingly poor people's children stay poor and rich people's children stay rich is the natural order of things?

>>2135
No, my argument is what right do people have to demand that all companies give employees an equal say and share in what the company does?
I suggested originally that such a structure should be done at the discretion of the company and I am being met with people saying that companies should be made to do so by force.
and that is the ultimate reason why systems other than capitalism fail.

in a capitalist state private entities are able to practice alternatives if they choose to do so, but if you make one of those alternatives the standard then everybody must abide by the same structure whether they want to or not.

>>2218
What right do business owners have to demand their workers be subservient and get no say in the product of their labor?

What right to Barons have to demand their serfs be subservient and get no say in the product of their labor?

Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his own brow?

No says the man in Washington, it belongs to the poor.
No says the man in the Vatican, it belongs to God.
No says the man in the Moscow, it belongs to everyone.

No says the man in the Penthouse, it belongs to his boss.

>>2232
do you want me to lie to you and say all people are created equal? some are better than others and inherently have more value. This is the reality of the human condition.
inheritance is not only monetary however, you can inherit other things. Look at professional athletes who make millions playing sports. Under the assumption that inheriting things is unfair then why are these people allowed to play sports? after all they only inherited good genes from their parents to make them stronger and faster than other people.
Why should the children of musicians be allowed to be musicians themselves? they only inherited their musical talent and passion by growing up in a musical household.

but to address the first thing you said. There is not just one company they can choose to work for, there are options. If they don't want to live in a world where they have to work for other people they can head out into the woods with a hatchet and try to make it the old fashioned way.
Those are really the alternatives

>>2362
When workers are paying the bills they can have a say. It is that simple.

A man is entitled to the payment he agreed to receive in exchange for his labor, no more and no less.
Employees are not being forced to work for companies and they are entering in a contract. Upon meeting for a job interview I will hand you a form that says "You will be making an entry level wage of $13.25 an hour" and the moment you say "Alright that sounds good" and sign the paper you have made a contract with me.

nobody held a gun to your head and made you sign it. If that doesn't sound like a good wage and you think you are worth more you can go try somewhere else.

>>2412
>do you want me to lie to you and say all people are created equal?
No, absolutely not: I do want you to explain why, if our current system of capitalism provides such marvelous opportunities, that the intelligent the children of poor people remain poor, while rich dullards live in luxury.

>why are these people allowed to play sports? after all they only inherited good genes from their parents to make them stronger and faster than other people.
Your body and personality are factors intrinsic and inseparable from you, the person. If you are intelligent, beautiful or talented, you would still be so without any money. What were are talking about here is the possession of capital, which is not a facet of the individual, but an entirely external factor. And it is that factor which is the single most important in determining a persons future wealth and freedom.

>There is not just one company they can choose to work for, there are options
Indeed, there are other companies where they can serve capital. This is why mutalism is so valuable: it allows workers to work for benefit of themselves and their peers, whilst maintaining the free market to keep productivity, innovation an efficiency high.

>head out into the woods with a hatchet and try to make it the old fashioned way.
Which would be an admission that the rich have a unchallengeable right to the control of capital.

>>2587
>Muh contracts

That makes sense when the two people making a contract are on equal terms.

But one party is clearly at an advantage, which makes for unfair deals.

If the employer doesn't accept your terms, the consequence is they need to pick someone else from the list of hundreds who applied.

If you don't accept the employer's terms, you face unemployment like 30% of the rest of the country, including possible starvation. Your only choice is to accept their terms, beg for handouts, or starve. Only in a world with 0 unemployment are people negotiating on fair terms.

I think Pope Leo XIII said it well.

"If through necessity or fear of a worse evil the workman accept harder conditions because an employer or contractor will afford him no better, he is made the victim of force and injustice."

>>2362
Fucking lol'd hard.

ur a cheeky cunt m8, anon didn't even recognize this.

>>2805
>If the employer doesn't accept your terms, the consequence is they need to pick someone else from the list of hundreds who applied.
well that is really sort of the point. What makes you more valuable than the other hundreds of people exactly like you? You need to be worth something more if you want more in return.
>>2720
I have never met a poor person that was also intelligent.
I see a lot of poor people who overestimate their intelligence but I have never actually met one who was capable of something better and stayed poor.
and I am not talking about knowledge either, I am talking about the ability to administrate and problem solve.

>>2992
>I have never met a poor person that was also intelligent.
Then either you have an incredibly shallow experience of life, or you are just blatantly trolling. Do you genuinely believe that intelligence is inherited to an extent to give the reason rich people's children go on to be rich, with the opposite effect for the poor, rather than inherited wealth?

>>3088
I am not saying all rich people are intelligent, but I am saying all poor people *who remain poor* is the important part are not intelligent.
I have scarcely ever met a chronically poor person that could be considered average because at least average will get you a job you can live off of.

>>2992
>I have never met a poor person that was also intelligent.
>Van Gogh
>Poe
>Tesla
>Wilde
>Melville
>Gutenberg
>Canvass White

You might not have met them, but I'm sure you've heard of some of them.

>>3347
part of being intelligent is figuring out how to apply any skills you might have

>>3403
What, to painting, writing, science, writing, writing, inventing or engineering? Like they all did?

>>3476
if you are poor, do not want to be poor anymore, have a skill, and then don't use it to create wealth for yourself.
That is not effective application

>>2036
>There is no law of nature that demands the world work that way
Im pretty sure lion prideswork that way. and wolf packs. isnt that the entire premise behind the whole alpha system thing?

>>3536

This is the stupidest post in /biz/'s short history.

/biz/ should read this book

free markets are great, capitalism is not

>>3929
not that guy, but explain to me how that post doesnt make sense? Im no econ wiz or anything, but that makes sense to me. if you are poor and dont want to be poor, use a skill you have to get out of poverty. if you are successful in doing that, you are intelligent. there are more factors involved, but Id say intelligence and luck are the big two. an abundance or lack of either will raise you up or bring you down.

>>274
How is that a "third-way" worker ownership of the means of production *IS* Socialism!

>>4220
It's a form of free market socialism

>>4058
1. The labor market is saturated thanks to immigration
2. A lot of jobs are being automated, making various skillsets undesirable
3. Education is prohibitively expensive, and thanks to point 1, necessary to have your skills validated
4. Plenty of low-paying jobs make you dependent on government subsidies, which cuts on upwards mobility

We're far past the days where a man could pull himself up by his bootstraps

>>4333
they can still start their own company or find a way to make money for themselves IF they are smart.

thats what the guy was trying to say. a smart person will not stay poor because they are smart and will eventually figure out a way.

>>1261
Yugoslavia had the highest rate of economic growth in the world, during much of that time period from the 50s to the late 80s

>>4710
That's just utopian babble. You need to be absurdly lucky to pull yourself out of poverty. Especially if you want to maintain any sort of moral integrity.

For every smart person that starts a successful business, thousands of others are now not only poor but pouring every last cent to pay for their loans. For every smart person that finds a way to make money, thousands of others don't and live in perpetual poverty for the rest of their lives.

These are not the indicators of a good system, but of a broken one.

>>274
I'm a big fan of it, having read up on distributivism and voted for the party that holds its values in the last election here.

I think the best thing about it, is it's not an ideological fancy for people with their heads in the sky, as you don't have to get bogged down in dogma and ditch everything ala communism or ancap etc etc; instead you can just encourage the formation of cooperatives and what have you, through government policy.

It is a shame that in my country the Labour movement was divided by the communist era, which caused the downfall of mutualism/distributivism in the Labour party.

>>4220
Because it doesn't ditch capitalism- the premise of its philosophy is that the problem with the current capitalist system is there are not enough capitalists participating.
As such it's not doing away with capitalism, but defining the goal of it differently to achieve what could be a better goal.

It's the third way because it's a strange orgy of many different ideas and schools, and it doesn't quite fit.

>>4710
That's plain false.

There are more factors to a person pulling themselves out of poverty than just being "smart", whatever that even means

Even if somebody happens to rise above whatever the standards of poverty are in their environment, it doesn't automatically mean that everything is rosy.

A family that toils day and night in sweatshops may eventually earn enough money to be above the poverty line - OK, so they are "smart" enough to rise out of poverty

does that make society humane and just because by toiling in horrid sweatshop conditions you can eventually rise out of poverty?

>>4710
Brains are practically a form of non-financial capital. A smart man will find it somewhat more difficult to be poor- for he has that capital. The same, with a strong man, or a skilled man- when his skill is in demand!
There are poor people who might have their capital, but nowhere to invest it- or the willpower and knowledge to do so.
Starting a business isn't a great option- in my country, 90% of new businesses fold in their first year, and it's similar for most of the western nations.
Entering an established market as a poor person with not a lot of capital won't usually turn out well- and the chances of a poor person finding a developing market or entrepreneurial/new venture, are slim.
Add to that the irrational behaviour that scarcity gives (I can find studies if you want, it's quite interesting) and poor people inevitably will keep themselves poor through poor financial choices.

I doubt it can be fixed- maybe I listened too much when reading Ecclesiastes, and I've become a pessimist- but seeing that no society yet has rid themselves of the poor, I don't think we will be any time soon, unless the "robots will replace the poor, tech will fix all" crowd are right.

>>4936
>>5178
>>5262
how would mutualism fix any of that? the poor, unskilled masses would still be unskilled and get shit jobs, or no jobs at all. why would anyone want to hire one of them? if they get hired, why would anyone that is better than them look to them as equals?

Id say the system is fine. the sad part is, a lot of people just dont have enough to flourish in the system. If you want the quality of life for poor people to change, change the poor people and not the entire system.

>>5774
>how would mutualism fix any of that?

By doing what you yourself said later in your post, by giving them enough to flourish.

>If you want the quality of life for poor people to change, change the poor people and not the entire system.

But the poor people are a systemic result of what we have now. You're essentially advocating we grab our buckets and start chucking water out instead of buying a new boat.

>>5262
>robots will replace the poor, tech will fix all"
One problem Ive had with this argument is the poor will never be able to afford the things that will replace them.

The poor will become observers of the very things out work which are slowly starving and killing them

>>5895
how would stupid and unskilled people flourish? Why would they be hired in the first place? Why would they be paid any more than they do now?

If were going off a boat metaphor, id say the boat is sinking because theres too much shit in it. water is coming in from the outside, its loaded down by extra stuff nobody needs, etc. my solution would be to seal up the hole to prevent water from coming in, throw the excess water and the other worthless parts overboard.

if were talking about people, its a harsh thing to say but it is true. there are too many worthless people. they need to get some worth, or they will be removed. If were still using the boat example, water needs to stop dragging the boat down or somehow get used for something to make the boat better than before. I have no idea how to achieve the second part

>Advocating anything other than free market capitalism

Why would you willingly make life harder for yourself and your fellow man?

>>6166
>Why would you willingly make swimming in pools of blood-money harder for your CEO overlords

FTFY

>>6056

>how would stupid and unskilled people flourish? Why would they be hired in the first place? Why would they be paid any more than they do now?

The current system completely divorces a person's opinion from their economic output, unless you're at the top. With Mutualism, a person's worth is more accurately represented, and thus they have ground to bargain for better conditions for themselves.
It's Capitalism that's creating all this "waste". You know, all that shit in the boat? It was you who shat it. If you weren't shitting all over the boat might not be sinking. But you're gonna shit on the boat, cause as long as you live, you're gonna have to shit, and you only have one boat. You don't get to throw people off on a whim like that, just because you can't cant stop shitting. Okay, I'll get off the boat metaphor.

I don't see Free Market Capitalism as this ultimate resolution because it's still Capitalism. It still makes use of and perpetuates scarcity, as it needs it to be structurally sound. It still centralizes power in the hands of a few. It still needs a hierarchic underlying structure to reinforce its methods. It still rewards vapid, destructive sociopaths. Everything about it and that it reinforces is animalistic and backwards.

Is your name owen by any chance?

>>6166
>Advocating anything other than free market capitalism
Why would we do that to ourselves?

>>7162
>With Mutualism, a person's worth is more accurately represented
yeah I dont see how. Their worth would still be next to nothing because they are stupid and unskilled.

explain how they would be suddenly worth more by switching systems

The problem with mutualism is that it doesn't understand the essential role that a capitalist plays in the production process. For capital goods to be able to exist, they need to first be invested in, and that investment requires people saving their money instead of spending it. If workers want to own businesses in capitalism, they can, and that's fine. The fact that they DON'T should tell you though that working up the amount of savings that you need to run a business is not an easy thing to do, and it's better to let certain people specialize in that task specifically. Because that's one of the great things about the market. It allows for specialization.

And don't forget the time it takes to produce something! If every final product was not owned by capitalist and therefore is instead owned jointly by every contributor of land and labor to the production process, then no income will be seen by any of them until the product itself sells. If a project takes 5 years to build from scratch to completion, then no one who worked on that will see any money for 5 years. Is that really worth it? Doesn't it just make a lot more sense for them to sell the product NOW to the capitalist, who then reaps the profits at the end as interest for waiting out the time for them?

>>7562
hmm. I am not sure of mutualism, but certainly in distributism, specialisation is not in any way hindered by the system - you can still have mass-production, just that the means to that are co-owned.

>If every final product was not owned by capitalist and therefore is instead owned jointly by every contributor of land and labor to the production process, then no income will be seen by any of them until the product itself sells
I'm not quite sure how that is an inherent property in this system- they don't have to be a vertical monopoly.

co-ownership doesn't have to be a thing along the entire production process - you can have a co-owned forestry group, a co-owned sawmill, and a co-owned furniture making factory for instance, selling down the line to each other.

Wether they decide to amalgamate is exactly the same as the current system, where businesses might decide to vertically integrate- or as many do, stay separate but have tight-fitting contracts along supply chains.

> If a project takes 5 years to build from scratch to completion, then no one who worked on that will see any money for 5 years
at least in distributism, investment is still encouraged. The idea is not to rid of capitalism, but to make more capitalists.
Instead of getting money from one rich man, you get money from several less wealthy people- or the credit union they use.

Hmm. maybe I should make a distributivist thread, it seems it has differences to mutualism.

>>7997

>hmm. I am not sure of mutualism, but certainly in distributism, specialisation is not in any way hindered by the system - you can still have mass-production, just that the means to that are co-owned.

I'm not saying a mutualist system would not have specialization, I'm saying that it would be missing it in this one vital area.

>I'm not quite sure how that is an inherent property in this system- they don't have to be a vertical monopoly.

There's a difference between joint ownership and a vertical monopoly. If business A contributed to the production process of good x, then A would be a joint owner of x in a system with no capitalists. "A" would not necessarily be a monopolist though. There might also be business B that compete with A. But if B did not contribute to the production of X, then B would not own X in any sense.

A capitalist is, by definition, a person who spends money on producer goods (i.e. the factors of production). Instead of spending their money on consumption goods, they saved their money and bought a producer good instead, which is useless to them as is.

The only conceivable market scenario that does not involve capitalists in some way is one where producer goods are never sold, meaning the final product must necessarily be jointly owned by everyone who contributed to the production process.

So yeah, co-ownership does have to be a thing along the entire production process if you're going to eliminate all capitalists but keep the market system.

>>274
>>632
so how does it work?

instead of being paid x amount of money and the owner takes the rest, all salaries take a % of the total profit?

>>8531

Pretty much. In a co-op, people are joint owners of the business. To work at this business, you need to contribute capital to help fund it, and to own stock in this business, you need to work there. Its either both or neither, eliminating the possibility of specialization of each task.

Apparently the fact that businesses can also do poorly and that saving up the necessary capital to actually keep a business going is really hard work hasn't really crossed their mind. IIRC, most businesses don't even see a profit until 2 years after they start operating. Good luck to all those workers who try to feed their families in the mean time.

>>632
>clique/family gets control of company
>they vote themselves to be "more equal" than the plebians
and the snake eats its own tail

>>8262
Well Distributivism doesn't involve getting rid of capital, or capitalists. I don't know enough about mutualism to speak on its behalf.

I meant vertical integration rather than vertical monopoly. I'm not exactly gifted with a way of words today.

I know a couple co-operatives, and none of them are vertically integrated.

>>8595
i dont even see how that would change anything.
the janitor wouldnt have a ton of capital to invest, and wouldnt have enough valuable skills to get a bunch out of it. meanwhile the already rich and smart ceo would invest a ton and have extremely valuable skills. ceo gets 50% of profits, janitor gets .0005% of profits. how is this any different from the current system?

>>8595
Co-ops are still a thing in my country, but mostly in rural areas, and they're mostly agricultural or rural tourism co-ops. There are still a handful of bigger ones in the "redder" cities though. Just in case someone was wondering if this kind of thing actually works.

>>5141
>is there are not enough capitalists participating.

you just described distributism

>>8686
yeah I know, took me a while to realise that distributism and mutualism are quite different.

I am in fact a huge faggot for this, and would like to apologise for any confusion caused.

>>8671
are you from Spain?

>>8740
Portugal. Close enough.

>>8749
Sou de Valência, mas agora estou a fazer um Erasmus em Porto.

Como é que ainda não te deitaste?

>>8772
Final de semestre chega e eu viro animal noturno.

>>8791

mesmo aqui, hoje(ontem) acordei-me às 17:00. de que parte és?

>>8664
If the co-op is purchasing factors of production, then they're capitalists by definition. Perhaps not "pure" capitalists because they also contribute their own original factors of production (i.e. land and labor) as well to the whole process, but they are capitalists, and are earning money off of the labor of others the same way any other capitalist does.

They are either vertically integrated and never function as a capitalist (i.e. purchasing factors of production), or they are not vertically integrated and are therefore capitalists. There's no middle ground here.

>>8671
Adding to that, I have an amusing anecdote.

I just happen to be from one of said "redder" cities. We have a really old, really big co-op that's been around for ages. A few years back some rich guy started going around trying to buy up everyone's share. Eventually he had enough to have some say around the place.

The co-op was essentially group of small stores and cheap restaurants. Local factory workers and other lower-middle class people went there, because the prices were cheap. The place was basically run to break-even.

So what does the guy do? Raise prices. Try to eek some profit out of the place. Everyone stopped going to the damn place. 3 years later, after wasting tons of cash, he gave up, sold the shares for cheap and the place returned to norm.

>>8833
Leiriense aqui

>>8668
It'd be different because right now, if a business does poorly, the janitor still gets paid. Now, if they do poorly, he won't get paid at all. Isn't that better?

>>8958
>Leiriense

tenho de visitar mais portugal, ainda quase não sai da zona de Porto, so fui a Lisboa uma vez.

>>8993
yeah thats dumb also 9000 get maybe?

>>8998
Vai perguntar no /int/, com sorte ainda ha pts por ai para fazer um bocado de shilling turistico

>>8668
>the janitor wouldnt have a ton of capital to invest, and wouldnt have enough valuable skills to get a bunch out of it.
Well, speaking of cooperatives that exist today, what happens is that if the janitor came with no capital to invest, he could borrow it - if the co-op is "set up", he could do so from the cooperative itself.

> meanwhile the already rich and smart ceo would invest a ton and have extremely valuable skills. ceo gets 50% of profits, janitor gets .0005% of profits. how is this any different from the current system?
Again with co-operatives of today, the management get about 3x to 9x the minimum wage of the workers. For any economic new ones out there, take note that salary is an expense, not part of profit.

Onto that, as we all know, income - expenses = profits!

A portion of the profits is divided among the workers, with each getting a proportional share, similar to the ratioed salaries.
That is then added to their "capital holding", which they can't take out until they leave.
Some companies use a portion (but only a portion!) if the company makes a loss.

>>9050

agora tenho uma fofinha de Guimarães, igual ela pode viajar comigo.

>>274
OH WOW
IS THAT ORANGE AND BLACK
THIS IS LITERALLY MY FAVORITE MEME

It's extremely stupid and would fail rather instantly in a free market.

There would also be no economic benefit from doing so(no higher wages).

Sage

>>9263
>working people can't afford to spend months without being able to afford food
>somehow this proves that co-operatives are IMPOSSIBLE IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCE

Shill pls go
>announcing sage
Shill pls go back to >>>/b/

>>9263
>It's extremely stupid and would fail rather instantly in a free market.

Really? Because the closest one I know sprung up during a fascist rule, lived through political post-revolutionary chaos and is still going strong.

Are you that threatened by people joining together to do business without trying to stab one another in the back for profit constantly?

>>9263
mutualism maybe.
But employee ownership? Co-operatives?
You fucking bet they work.

stay a while and listen. Part 3 really gets to the nitty gritty, so skip to that if you have ADHD.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7efaDeFmurQ&list=PLD3F5E6C6DE7DE200

>>9447
>But employee ownership? Co-operatives?
>You fucking bet they work.


>he thinks monodragon is "employee owned" in the way mutualists think

It's not, also you can't debunk what I said.

>Are you that threatened by people joining together to do business without trying to stab one another in the back for profit constantly?
Lol no, you'll lose and and your shitty firm will be destroyed, that's why I want to see you idiots try this lol

>>9316
>>somehow this proves that co-operatives are IMPOSSIBLE IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCE
They are possible, they're just very inefficient and working people have an incentive not to make them

>>9518
>Lol no, you'll lose and and your shitty firm will be destroyed, that's why I want to see you idiots try this lol

Lol yes, they exist, have existed for fucking decades and stayed afloat and they naturally grew to the size necessary taking into account the surroundings, lol

Also you write like a 12 year old. Take Molyneux cock out of your mouth and learn how to write.

>>9567
>Lol yes, they exist, have existed for fucking decades
Yes and they're very hard to get into, and some provide slightly higher wages, and some provide less.

They're not actual worker owned firms like mutualist theorize.

lol

>>9518
>>he thinks monodragon is "employee owned" in the way mutualists think
but OP asks what we think of employee ownership- not just mutualism.

mondragon is an example of employee ownership. Perhaps you have assumed I thought it was mutualist as well- well I haven't.
we can be friends again.

We might as well discuss a broad range of things that hold a tenet similar to co-operation for mutual benefit, not just mutualism. It's more interesting that way, and one should never close his mind to the endless possibilities and get caught in the dogma of one particular school of thought or ideology.

>>9447
Watched the whole thing. It's quite heartening, I wasn't quite sure how that kind of structure could work in such a large scale. Pretty well, it turns out. Hell, half my kitchen appliances were made by one of their companies, apparently.