What a worthless article. One study cited, with patronizing language like "cuddly". Then a torrent of anecdotes and speculation to rubbish the idea. We learn t

What a worthless article. One study cited, with patronizing language like "cuddly". Then a torrent of anecdotes and speculation to rubbish the idea. We learn that it's not the solution to everything (what is?); that some firms that use this model have failed (as opposed to traditional firms, which last forever?), and then it degenerates into mere speculation, raising the spectre of Bolshevism. Maybe the Economist has forgotten this, but incentives matter. Anyone who wants to argue against the principle of employee ownership is also arguing against executive bonuses and stock options. Who's the Bolshevik now?