4 ms·
"Free markets" and "planned economies" don't encompass the breadth of possibilities of organisation of politics and economics. Case in point: TFA... This post
by andrepd 2y ago
"Free markets" and "planned economies" don't encompass the breadth of possibilities of organisation of politics and economics. Case in point: TFA...
This post is precisely about a free market economy where the (imo unnatural) disconnect between working in an enterprise and owning the products of that enterprise doesn't exist. That's all.
Not sure what "command economy" has to do with it.
- WalterBright 2y ago> unnatural If you hire a landscaper to redo the landscaping of your property, is he thereby entitled to own a share of your property? How about the guy you hired to fix your water heater? Does he get a share, too? Is that natural?
- defrost 2y agoThis exemplifies a transition from "strawman argument" to "strawman dressed as a clown argument".
- WalterBright 2y agoWhat's the salient difference between hiring a worker to help your business, and thereby being entitled to a share of your business, and hiring a worker to do some work on your house, and thereby being entitled to a share of it?
- bryan_w 2y agoYou make a good point
- fuzzfactor 2y agoVery good point, you would have to make the decision yourself whether to offer shares for what type and length of service. And if so it could be considered a (very) generous decision more often than not.
- bluefirebrand 2y agoHiring a worker to do some work on your house is a transaction Hiring a worker to help your business is employment I'm sure I don't have to explain the differences between a transaction and employment?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]