2 ms·
Co-ops are of course worse for investors. There are no voting stock in co-ops, so the stockholders can't squeeze maximum profits off workers and consumers. Eur
by jampekka 3y ago
Co-ops are of course worse for investors. There are no voting stock in co-ops, so the stockholders can't squeeze maximum profits off workers and consumers.
Europe had very strong socialist/non-capitalist political movements in the 19th century. Co-ops were seen as one alternative to capitalism, and were a huge movement.
For example in Finland the largest bank and largest retail chain are (consumer) co-ops, and in general co-ops are big players in the economy.
- terr-dav 3y ago>Co-ops are of course worse for investors. What investors?
- jampekka 3y agoFor example banks giving loans.
- terr-dav 3y ago1. I wouldn't call that an investment 2. Cooperatives tend to be more resilient in times of crisis: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jsc.2393 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jsc.2393 My reason for asking that question in the first place is that 'investor' isn't a role I associate with a worker-owned enterprise. The workers are the owners are the investors, so the statement reads as invalid to my mind.