4 ms·

Well maybe "taking over the market" is also a monopolistic and anti-competitive practice and if we had say, working regulation that forbade the existence of the

Well maybe "taking over the market" is also a monopolistic and anti-competitive practice and if we had say, working regulation that forbade the existence of these behemoth companies then the landscape of value would look a little different.

Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
This is maybe an underappreciated point, an employee-owned company with in a monopoly (or near monopoly) market position will act just as aggressively to screw over their captured consumer base as any other private ownership model. The employees may be better off, but the rest of us will suffer the same.
- throwaway7ahgb 2y ago
  Agreed, COOPs don't fundamentally change human behavior which has doses of greed. A large COOP monopoly will suffer the same fate as others'.
  - shkkmo 2y ago
    This is an assumption and one that I believe is faulty. Humans' caring is often related to the degree of connection. Employees at a company are more closely connected to their customers than investors and are thus more likely to care more about those customers. Monopolies are still bad either way, but I doubt that the failure modes at employee owned monoploes is the same as at outside investor owned monopolies.
    - photonthug 2y ago
      Yeah. Saying "COOPs don't fundamentally change human behavior which has doses of greed" is like saying that a kingdom works the same way as a democracy since hey, it's all just humans. Simply involving more decision makers is a meaningful change. Certainly involving more decision makers that are outside of the business/legal/accounting class is a meaningful change.
      - shkkmo 2y ago
        Technically a worker owned Co-op is different from a company with an ESOP as described in this article. The article it links to has more details: https://www.nceo.org/articles/employee-ownership-by-the-numbers https://www.nceo.org/articles/employee-ownership-by-the-numb... There are a multitude of ways that employee ownership can be encouraged, required, or ownership can be limited to employees.
throwaway7ahgb 2y ago
The OP is postulating they would look different but not better. Nobody has refuted the claim that if COOPs were better they would be more popular , but they are not. Uplifting the entire global financial system to make a COOP more attractive through regulation wouldn't change this.

Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago

This is maybe an underappreciated point, an employee-owned company with in a monopoly (or near monopoly) market position will act just as aggressively to screw over their captured consumer base as any other private ownership model. The employees may be better off, but the rest of us will suffer the same.

throwaway7ahgb 2y ago
Agreed, COOPs don't fundamentally change human behavior which has doses of greed. A large COOP monopoly will suffer the same fate as others'.
- shkkmo 2y ago
  This is an assumption and one that I believe is faulty. Humans' caring is often related to the degree of connection. Employees at a company are more closely connected to their customers than investors and are thus more likely to care more about those customers. Monopolies are still bad either way, but I doubt that the failure modes at employee owned monoploes is the same as at outside investor owned monopolies.
  - photonthug 2y ago
    Yeah. Saying "COOPs don't fundamentally change human behavior which has doses of greed" is like saying that a kingdom works the same way as a democracy since hey, it's all just humans. Simply involving more decision makers is a meaningful change. Certainly involving more decision makers that are outside of the business/legal/accounting class is a meaningful change.
    - shkkmo 2y ago
      Technically a worker owned Co-op is different from a company with an ESOP as described in this article. The article it links to has more details: https://www.nceo.org/articles/employee-ownership-by-the-numbers https://www.nceo.org/articles/employee-ownership-by-the-numb... There are a multitude of ways that employee ownership can be encouraged, required, or ownership can be limited to employees.

throwaway7ahgb 2y ago

The OP is postulating they would look different but not better. Nobody has refuted the claim that if COOPs were better they would be more popular , but they are not. Uplifting the entire global financial system to make a COOP more attractive through regulation wouldn't change this.