4 ms·

Yes, that is an element missing in this article. I think in other places (The ABCs of Socialism by Jacobin) they have said that there will still be organization

Yes, that is an element missing in this article. I think in other places (The ABCs of Socialism by Jacobin) they have said that there will still be organizations and managers. More generally, I'd push back a little: socialism strives to have the workers own the business (broadly, the economy) but there is of course still management and a need for QA, R&D,etc. I like to point to Vanguard as an example of socialism that works well while people don't even realize it. The people who own Vanguard mutual funds and ETFs are collectively those who own Vanguard and control its direction. There is still a lot more than the service of a mutual fund that Vanguard provides, to the extent we don't realize its inverted corporate structure is a kind of cooperative. And all the time, the owners' financial interests come first in providing low-cost exposure to equity markets. Why hasn't the broad mutual fund market engaged in a race to cut fees with each other? In fact it has been Vanguard's fees which have usually pushed others' lower.

Kalium 10y ago
There will still be organziations and managers and Q&A and R&D! We'll just starve them all of resources and wonder why we're being out-competed by corporations who use different economic models and structures. That's not an abstract hypothesis. That's what happened to the Yellow Cab Co-op in SF. Vanguard is a decent example, but it's in a unique market where information is shared very widely and customers are extremely sensitive to price. And nothing other than price relative to returns.
- tanderson92 10y ago
  Well their innovation was really the idea that costs matter and that market-cap index mutual funds can work better for investors. They created the market. It was not always the case that investors chose the lowest-priced fund. There is a reason the S&P 500 fund was originally considered to be "Bogle's Folly". It was even maligned as un-American! But it worked well, and non-cooperative businesses are now forced to compete on this factor. However, they do so as a loss-leader for their more profitable (for the managers) products. http://www.vanguard.com/bogle_site/lib/sp19970401.html http://www.vanguard.com/bogle_site/lib/sp19970401.html
  - Kalium 10y ago
    OK. So how does a hack at Jacobin and a true believer HN commentor (yourself) go about disrupting Uber by doing better with a co-op which is more efficient by virtue of not overcompensating managers?
    - tanderson92 10y ago
      Fascinating. I'm merely commenting on misconceptions and discussing what I think the intent of the article is. Your hostility to these ideas is directed at the writer ("hack") and those honestly discussing the article ("true believer" -- did I ever claim to be or even agree with the article?). As for my personal knowledge at implementing this: I don't know how it can be done since I'm a scientist and not a business analytics person. But I know that a cooperative could compete well against the taxi cab industry. Perhaps not against Uber which broke lots of regulations to become an entrenched force in the industry. Disengaging, I don't like to discuss with those who attack others while ignoring the evidence brought forward.
      - Kalium 10y ago
        I don't agree that this article and the existence of Vanguard rise to the level of evidence in this instance. I am suggesting that those interested in producing evidence should roll up their sleeves and go produce some in the marketplace.

Kalium 10y ago

There will still be organziations and managers and Q&A and R&D! We'll just starve them all of resources and wonder why we're being out-competed by corporations who use different economic models and structures. That's not an abstract hypothesis. That's what happened to the Yellow Cab Co-op in SF. Vanguard is a decent example, but it's in a unique market where information is shared very widely and customers are extremely sensitive to price. And nothing other than price relative to returns.

tanderson92 10y ago
Well their innovation was really the idea that costs matter and that market-cap index mutual funds can work better for investors. They created the market. It was not always the case that investors chose the lowest-priced fund. There is a reason the S&P 500 fund was originally considered to be "Bogle's Folly". It was even maligned as un-American! But it worked well, and non-cooperative businesses are now forced to compete on this factor. However, they do so as a loss-leader for their more profitable (for the managers) products. http://www.vanguard.com/bogle_site/lib/sp19970401.html http://www.vanguard.com/bogle_site/lib/sp19970401.html
- Kalium 10y ago
  OK. So how does a hack at Jacobin and a true believer HN commentor (yourself) go about disrupting Uber by doing better with a co-op which is more efficient by virtue of not overcompensating managers?
  - tanderson92 10y ago
    Fascinating. I'm merely commenting on misconceptions and discussing what I think the intent of the article is. Your hostility to these ideas is directed at the writer ("hack") and those honestly discussing the article ("true believer" -- did I ever claim to be or even agree with the article?). As for my personal knowledge at implementing this: I don't know how it can be done since I'm a scientist and not a business analytics person. But I know that a cooperative could compete well against the taxi cab industry. Perhaps not against Uber which broke lots of regulations to become an entrenched force in the industry. Disengaging, I don't like to discuss with those who attack others while ignoring the evidence brought forward.
    - Kalium 10y ago
      I don't agree that this article and the existence of Vanguard rise to the level of evidence in this instance. I am suggesting that those interested in producing evidence should roll up their sleeves and go produce some in the marketplace.