3 ms·

> The purpose of the company isn't to dominate the markets and become the biggest company ever, it's to make a better life for the people working for and patron

by woah 2y ago

> The purpose of the company isn't to dominate the markets and become the biggest company ever, it's to make a better life for the people working for and patronizing the company, instead of just the people who own it. That's perfectly fine, and also the reason why cooperatives are a pretty niche thing: they don't prioritize growth.

Hasu 2y ago
They don't prioritize growth for the same reason healthy cells don't prioritize growth. You need to be cancer or a public corporation to think growth is the most important thing.
- woah 2y ago
  There isn't any value judgement here. There are not more cooperatives because they don't prioritize growth. Who are you angry at?
- satvikpendem 2y ago
  This oft-repeated analogy to biological systems doesn't make much sense, human individuals biologically stay homeostatic with nature, but human groups have grown exponentially, building civilization as you know it. If we didn't prioritize growth, we'd still be hunter gatherers.
Miraste 2y ago
This is only half the answer. Cooperatives are niche in the US because they don't prioritize growth, and they exist in a legal and financial framework that does. If conventional corporations didn't receive massive amounts of investor cash and preferential government treatment to stay unprofitable for years or decades while scaling, one imagines coops would be more competitive.
- satvikpendem 2y ago
  They are investors for a reason, they expect a return. If a coop does not produce good returns, especially as compared to standard corporations, why would one expect investors to invest?
  - Miraste 2y ago
    Exactly. Investors will always constitute a force against cooperatives; countries with successful coops (Spain, Italy, the Nordics, even Canada) provide other funding mechanisms to prevent private investment from dictating the entire market. The United States chooses not to do this. It is a choice, not the natural result of having a finance system.
    - satvikpendem 2y ago
      The US government has a lot of funding mechanisms, the economy does not rely solely on private investment. It is just that the scale of venture investment dwarfs a lot of even governmental investment in most other countries, money made from previous ventures so of course they'd deploy that capital.
    - chii 2y ago
      > provide other funding mechanisms to prevent private investment from dictating the entire market. if this funding comes from the gov't, then you're just forcing taxpayers to subsidize a less profitable funding mechanism. It's merely a wealth transfer (from taxpayers to these coop owners).
      - kilna 2y ago
        Since 1980 the top 1%’s share of national income nearly doubled, while the bottom 50%’s share fell from 20% to 13%. Real wages for most workers stagnated despite productivity rising 62% (1979-2019), ALL of that went to investors. People who claim funding co-ops is a "wealth transfer" ignore existing policies which already funnel taxpayer money upward. Redirecting a fraction of subsidies like bailouts and fossil fuel breaks and the endless war machine... instead to worker owned models that reinvest profits locally and tie wealth to labor... that isn’t a new transfer but a correction. Co-ops reduce reliance on exploitative private equity (e.g., hedge funds buying 40% of U.S. rental homes) and ensure economic gains stay with the people generating value. I have the controversial opinion that people who work should get money, not the people who don't work.

by woah 2y ago

Hasu 2y ago

They don't prioritize growth for the same reason healthy cells don't prioritize growth. You need to be cancer or a public corporation to think growth is the most important thing.

woah 2y ago
There isn't any value judgement here. There are not more cooperatives because they don't prioritize growth. Who are you angry at?
satvikpendem 2y ago
This oft-repeated analogy to biological systems doesn't make much sense, human individuals biologically stay homeostatic with nature, but human groups have grown exponentially, building civilization as you know it. If we didn't prioritize growth, we'd still be hunter gatherers.

Miraste 2y ago

This is only half the answer. Cooperatives are niche in the US because they don't prioritize growth, and they exist in a legal and financial framework that does. If conventional corporations didn't receive massive amounts of investor cash and preferential government treatment to stay unprofitable for years or decades while scaling, one imagines coops would be more competitive.

satvikpendem 2y ago
They are investors for a reason, they expect a return. If a coop does not produce good returns, especially as compared to standard corporations, why would one expect investors to invest?
- Miraste 2y ago
  Exactly. Investors will always constitute a force against cooperatives; countries with successful coops (Spain, Italy, the Nordics, even Canada) provide other funding mechanisms to prevent private investment from dictating the entire market. The United States chooses not to do this. It is a choice, not the natural result of having a finance system.
  - satvikpendem 2y ago
    The US government has a lot of funding mechanisms, the economy does not rely solely on private investment. It is just that the scale of venture investment dwarfs a lot of even governmental investment in most other countries, money made from previous ventures so of course they'd deploy that capital.
  - chii 2y ago
    > provide other funding mechanisms to prevent private investment from dictating the entire market. if this funding comes from the gov't, then you're just forcing taxpayers to subsidize a less profitable funding mechanism. It's merely a wealth transfer (from taxpayers to these coop owners).
    - kilna 2y ago
      Since 1980 the top 1%’s share of national income nearly doubled, while the bottom 50%’s share fell from 20% to 13%. Real wages for most workers stagnated despite productivity rising 62% (1979-2019), ALL of that went to investors. People who claim funding co-ops is a "wealth transfer" ignore existing policies which already funnel taxpayer money upward. Redirecting a fraction of subsidies like bailouts and fossil fuel breaks and the endless war machine... instead to worker owned models that reinvest profits locally and tie wealth to labor... that isn’t a new transfer but a correction. Co-ops reduce reliance on exploitative private equity (e.g., hedge funds buying 40% of U.S. rental homes) and ensure economic gains stay with the people generating value. I have the controversial opinion that people who work should get money, not the people who don't work.