3 ms·

Exactly. Investors will always constitute a force against cooperatives; countries with successful coops (Spain, Italy, the Nordics, even Canada) provide other f

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.
  - chii 2y ago
    > people who work should get money and they do. > not the people who don't work and they don't. With the exception of some basic welfare payments, which i am not opposed to, what you mentioned is what currently happens. But you're unilaterally classifying capital as not being work would be wrong. Capital is solidified work from previous/earlier times, but unconsumed and saved.
    - agentultra 2y ago
      I think they're referring to the class of people who profit from capital rather than their labour. That class profits from the labour of others. They don't have to exploit their bodies, experience, and skills (labour) to realize profits. They're the ones who, "don't work." They're not talking about people who "don't work," and collect welfare.
    - skinnymuch 2y ago
      Capitalists don’t work. That’s what they meant.

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.
- chii 2y ago
  > people who work should get money and they do. > not the people who don't work and they don't. With the exception of some basic welfare payments, which i am not opposed to, what you mentioned is what currently happens. But you're unilaterally classifying capital as not being work would be wrong. Capital is solidified work from previous/earlier times, but unconsumed and saved.
  - agentultra 2y ago
    I think they're referring to the class of people who profit from capital rather than their labour. That class profits from the labour of others. They don't have to exploit their bodies, experience, and skills (labour) to realize profits. They're the ones who, "don't work." They're not talking about people who "don't work," and collect welfare.
  - skinnymuch 2y ago
    Capitalists don’t work. That’s what they meant.