But actually to have any employees companies need to optimize for workers lives anyway. And it seems that cooperatives are not any better in this area - otherwise everybody would work for cooperatives.
Companies need to sell the *idea* of making lives better. They don't actually have to make a customer's life better and many don't despite selling lots of product. Profitability is not a strict function of quality. If it were, we'd not give the slightest fuck about monopolies. It takes a great amount of effort to get companies to compete on "making lives better." If bettering lives is not the most profitable it is very often eclipsed by what is.
It's much more complicated than the simple lie that "you get what you pay for."
One tactic that some people find helpful when they want to buy a discretionary item is to wait a few days/weeks, and make sure that it's not just a whim that they'd regret.
Political campaigns also get more sophisticated. Scott Adams has an interesting podcast where he breaks down the latest manipulative persuasion techniques used.
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/21/business/21auto.html
Answers to your question are nuanced, and fortunes are exchanged in purchases like cars even if customers aren't loyal next purchase(s)
Unfortunately, yes :-(
Of course, at the time I bought it, I wanted it. TBH, it happened more often when I was young, not so much the last 2 decades of my life.
There's much more at play than just "cooperatives are not any better". Cooperatives don't get as much funding from investors because investors won't be owning a larger share of them, and taking their returns, they instead invest in a traditional company because then they can extract as much as possible from their investments.
That by itself already puts small scale cooperatives at a competitive disadvantage, you can't raise as much capital as the non-cooperative startup, even if their product could be better and their employers could be happier the lavishly monied startup will try to outcompete them by throwing money away until they get a larger share of the market.
If somehow this situation was improved where cooperatives are not immediately disadvantaged from an earlier stage we could see more of them popping up, right now there's not nearly enough cooperatives for this comparison to be possible, simply because they get extinguished by others with more capital.
Unions should put their money where their mouth is and invest in cooperatives.
Unions aren't structured for investing, and that's not their reason to exist.
I don't know where you are from so I can't comment on how unions function in your society, where I live they're definitely not in the same realm as a potential investor for cooperatives.
You are also asking for unions to compete against VCs, and banks, let's be realistic that even a large and wealthy union is not even close in terms of wealth management as a small to mid-size bank/investor. On top of that the union has responsibilities to provide benefits to all members, a bank or investor has none of that, tilting the scale even more in disfavor of an union assuming the role of investment.
It's a good thought though, another entity such as a credit union supported by workers in an industry which also takes the role on investing in cooperatives to foment them, would still be an uphill battle but if some good cooperatives came out of it maybe it could be another viable (albeit smaller) model to start companies.
A bank has responsibilities to its shareholders.
Depends on the union. A credit union is structured for investing and is literally their reason to exist.
[1] Although definitely not necessarily. A group of labour unions in these parts collectively own one of the largest hedge funds out there.
As in Labor Union.
Pedantry and HN - name a more iconic duo.
A "Labor Union" is colloquially a Union. A marriage is also called a "Union". And so is the mathematical operation joining two sets.
Not sure why you think we’d randomly change the topic all of a sudden for no reason…
Neither does the Union of European Football Associations, otherwise known as UEFA. They make up for it with a dope anthem.
Neither the Kalmar Union, nor any other personal union of monarchs, ever invested in a cooperative. Although some may have invested in joint stock companies, such as the various East India companies.
Maybe the Soviet Union was into worker cooperatives? Not sure.
And finally, the union of the set of workers at cooperatives and the empty set invests in cooperatives. Hey look, we found one type of union that definitely invests in cooperatives!
(I was just having fun making this as absurd as possible. Sorry, no malice intended).
Is that because most marriages exist in urban centres where cooperatives are uncommon to non-existent? Out here in rural country, where cooperatives are the norm, most married people invest in cooperatives as most of the cooperatives are customer owned. You don't have much choice but to invest, assuming you want to be a customer – and no doubt you want to be, given that they provide basic services for the region.
I'm certainly an investor in several co-ops, and not because I went out of my way to do so. That is, with the exception of one co-op, which I provided additional investment to. That particular co-op runs a very successful operation and provides healthy returns in what is a comparatively stable environment to those who provide an over-and-above investment. They attract quite a lot of investment dollars as a result.
Which says something about unions that aren't investing. Why aren't they investing? Simple: The companies they see in front of them aren't worth investing in.
Think CalPERS, CalSTRS, Teacher Retirement System of Texas, Ontario Teachers Pension Plan, and many others.
They seem to have plenty of extra money to fund political candidates.
Top hit from my casual search is a report containing case studies, two of which are SEIU.
A Union Toolkit for Cooperative Solutions [2021]
https://unioncoops.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/...
Also, Richard Wolff has been advocating worker directed social enterprises (WSDE, aka coops?) for a while. Sadly, his now dated arm wavy book doesn't is more advocacy than HOWTO.
Democracy at Work: A Cure for Capitalism [2012] https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-at-Work-Cure-Capitalism/dp/...
And his website is not very focused.
https://www.democracyatwork.info/
I'm fine with polemics (about marxism, socialism, capitalism). But I'm already convinced.
Now I just want concrete action steps.
Please share any other (better) resources and links.
We forcibly allocate capital less efficiently; make markets less efficient and less responsive to innovation; with the sole aim of achieving a utopian worker-cooperative owned world?
Hrmmm, where have I heard that before...
I wish we didn't force capital to do things like that. Then it can run wild with Mandatory arbitration which bars access to the justice system, algorithmic manipulation of prices for rents / real-estate (1) and installing spyware on the customer's computers (2) and MITM attacks of your communication (3). They are all free market innovations. Very efficient at doing the wrong thing.
1 - https://rentalhousingjournal.com/fbi-searches-property-manag...
2 - https://www.pcmag.com/news/hp-accused-of-quietly-installing-...
3 - https://techcrunch.com/2024/03/26/facebook-secret-project-sn...
I call this the "Jr. developer fallacy." Start a job, encounter some bugs, suggest rewriting the entire codebase from scratch on [insert-trendy-framework].
The many systemic market failure modes of capitalism are well documented and written about at great lengths.
That "by any metric" is just plain wrong. There's several metrics by which the US healthcare system is among the best--in general, if the metric you are tracking is largely covering the success rates of medical procedures (sibling comment mentions 5-year cancer survival rates, for example), then the US generally scores high. If the metric you are tracking is instead covering general population health or things easily caught with preventative medicine, then the US scores abysmally in those metrics.
In other words, the US healthcare system actually turns out to be very good (if perhaps not on a per-cost metric)... but access to the good healthcare system is extremely poor. And that's kind of what you'd expect for a market-driven system: good healthcare if you can afford it, shit healthcare if you can't.
US Healthcare is expensive, but the quality is better than most other countries.
The American pharma companies also don't do the research, a lot of it comes from scientific institutions funded by public money.
What pharma companies do is provide capital for drug trials which are absurdly expensive, they are more alike investment companies than actual research institutes...
That's certainly not true. Of course compared to pretty much every highly developed country if we factor in relative spending per capita you'd be right.
But yeah, purely market/profit driven systems (with extremely poor and inefficient regulation) certainly don't work in certain sectors like healthcare.
Also it depends on what do you mean by 'socialized medicine', if you're specifically talking about single payer, your point is only valid if you ignore all other countries which don't have single payer besides the US. The Swiss and (as far as I can tell) to a lesser Dutch healthcare systems are 'privatized' to a much higher degree than the one in US i.e. effectively fully, there are no Medicare/Medicaid equivalents there. Instead they are very strictly and relatively efficiently regulated. They pretty much have Obama/Romneycare++.
If you mean something else than single-payer then the US system is arguably heavily 'socialized', both through insurance polling (just like in the countries I mentioned) and because the US government itself spends more on healthcare than most industrialized countries even relative to GDP. e.g. if we exclude all private spending (both individual and insurance) government health spending per capita in the US is significantly higher than in Britain and more than 2x higher than in Spain (and still significantly higher if adjusted by PPP GDP per capita)
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.GHED.PP.CD?locat...
I feel that the USA's education system has indoctrinated students so deeply into the red scare that real terms have become meaningless to discuss political and economical systems with the larger American audience, the words simply don't mean the same, they mean what you've been indoctrinated to believe they mean.
What other forms of semi-stable functional "socialism" are there?
> have become meaningless to discuss political and economical systems with the
Discussing hypothetical pseudo-utopian systems like "socialism" or "communism" isn't particularly meaningful either (from the economics perspective, not philosophical).
IMHO the problem with socialism is that it will pretty always be outcompeted by private ("capitalist") enterprises which can provide goods and services which are both higher quality and cheaper (yes by "underpaying" their workers but also they tend to be much more efficient). Therefore you can't really allow both in the system/country.
So realistically "socialism" can only exist if the state suppresses any alternatives using various degrees of coercion and force. Since no real competition and by extension dissent can exist (i.e. nobody has enough resources to challenge the state without significantly damaging their career/status/wellbeing) the state ends up becoming more and more oppressive/controlling and unavoidable corrupt. I'd love to see any empirical evidence disproving this but as far as I can tell historically that's what always ended up happening.
Cooperatives. This article we're discussing here is advocating for socialism, it's just not using that word.
However I'm not sure cooperatives are strictly a "form" of socialism, they have been a part of capitalist societies since pretty much the very beginning. I guess it depends where we draw the lines between partnerships etc. and cooperatives, I guess hiring additional workers who don't have an equal stake/share in the enterprise or subcontracting any sort of labor (let's say on a significantly meaningful scale, but still very hard to avoid) would be it.
Never mind the heavy leftward tilt of teachers, students, and universities.
The ones that were overcharging consumers?
Yeah it is great for customers when prices go down.
That's a benefit, not a drawback.
Those cabbies should have offer better service at a lower price if they wanted to compete.
Consumers are the judge of what's best. And they vote with their wallet and feet.
Efficiency with regard to what goal? The current allocation of capital in the US is quite inefficient if we're interested in the welfare of the public. Billionaires have far more capital than they know what to do with, and since they're unaccountable for their investment choices, they strongly tend to steer the economy toward vanity projects. Meanwhile, many families can't put food on the table, and infrastructure is falling apart.
Whatever it is about this system that you find "efficient," I don't find it valuable. The Chinese state takes a rather strong hand in allocating capital, and that has treated it fairly well over the past few decades. A mixed economy where private capitalists are not solely responsible for investment choices, and where ownership of that capital is more evenly distributed among the public, could fix a lot of problems.
The Chinese government has spent massive amounts on vanity projects. A lot of government funds have also been looted by CCP honchos.
Thanks but no. I’ll take American capital allocators over the Chinese any day.
Most importantly, I don’t want to live in a dictatorship.
Billionaires get to invest however they want because it's their property. What you see as a vanity project actually employs workers, feds families, and generates tax revenue. They are massively contributing to the economy.
I think it'd be good, is why. Non-intervention with private property is extremely low on my list of moral priorities. If someone's starving, I don't think you really have a right to keep food away from them.
> What you see as a vanity project actually employs workers, feds families, and generates tax revenue.
…and are they actually making anything useful? Or are they wasting everyone's time? Workers could be employed doing any number of things. For a rich person to "creating jobs" means nothing if those jobs are pointless. We could easily take that money away and create jobs doing something more important.
I believe in private charity, which would solve this. But I do not believe the state gets to steal from some people to give to others. The only reason for taxiation is to fund public goods.
> …and are they actually making anything useful? Or are they wasting everyone's time? Workers could be employed doing any number of things. For a rich person to "creating jobs" means nothing if those jobs are pointless. We could easily take that money away and create jobs doing something more important.
Who gets to define importance? This argument always devolves into state controlled economies which are charactetized by deadweight loss, corruption, and poor incentives. I'll take my access to private property every time.
As an aside, do you also believe in private knocking-you-on-the-head-to-take your-food-you-don't-think-they-deserve?
As an exercise, I invite you to trade without money: barter your goods or services with others. It's more work but completely doable. But remember the state is still expecting taxes on that transaction. And then ponder upon whether state-issued money is truly the source of private sector asset accumulation.
The public sector produces plenty of wealth - security, public goods, law and order, environmental protections, public health measures...
Nobody is obliged to accumulate state pegged money, yet most people do. Feel free to accumulate cheese if you wish.
Yeah, because they're corrupt and undemocratic. I certainly don't endorse China. But they do put to rest the idea that the freer the market, the stronger the economy.
Unfortunately Xi is now focused on saber-rattling about national security and bullying neighbors. He has cracked down on free markets, and China’s economy is suffering due to his incompetence.
China is strong because of its massive population combined with an economy that performs better than the only other country with a similarly massive population.
The thing is, people who pile up capital don’t have to be efficient with it. They can basically do whatever they want with their money. They can build giant vanity estates, which you could certainly call inefficient — who needs 20,000 square feet for a family of 3? But… we also care about freedom, so we let people do inefficient things. The only difference between rich people and poor people is they have more money so their inefficiencies are louder. But everybody spends money on senseless wants and vanity. Who needs manicures and hair extensions? Arguably nobody. The “poor” spend on vanity too. And we let them because we care about freedom.
If you wanted to implement a perfectly-efficient system, would that mean banning the fulfillment of any desire that wasn’t strictly a need? I don’t think anyone would want to live in such a system.
What you see as vanity, such as hair extensions, may be a high utility item for others. Consider the hair extensions make them a more attractive mate and provide them the opportunity to breed with a better stock, for example.
Similarly, consider that 20k ft sq mansion in context: all the prior owner(s) of that property were traded revenue for the land. And the construction workers were paid. And now the gov gets taxes.
At every step, each contributor to the end product voluntarily participated and maximized their outcomes. That is maximally efficient, economically speaking.
It is not. The resources which went towards that mansion would be (by your definition) much more efficiently spent elsewhere. The utility which one wealthy person gets from a 20k sqft mansion is much smaller than the total utility which 20 homeless people would get from a 1k sqft apartment.
My answer is economically efficient. Yours is utilitarian. I believe in private property.
Holy mother of slippery slopes x) Do you think $current_economic_system can be improved? Ah so you want to ban fulfillment of any desire? Sheesh
Yes. Their inefficiencies are deafeningly loud and have a massive impact on the rest of us. This is why I am suggesting that we intervene to get rid of the ultrawealthy as a class.
> If you wanted to implement a perfectly-efficient system
Stop right there. Don't pretend that "what if we got rid of billionaires" is a slippery slope towards a society of perfect clones where all individuality is suppressed. You don't really believe that—you're just fishing for gotchas, and it's beneath you.
YCombinator is billionaires investing in startups.
> Billionaires tend to steer the economy toward vanity projects.
Musk's only meaningful contribution to SpaceX was money. We could just have raised NASA's budget instead, but we didn't. There are lots of things that we need to spend money on. Space is not our top priority.
Musk, however, is independently wealthy and can spend his money on whatever he wants. So he spent it on rockets, as a vanity project. Yes, some useful innovations came out of that. But what was the opportunity cost? Was this where the money was best spent? I have no reason to believe so.
It was a heck of a lot more than that. See "Elon Musk" by Vance.
> We could just have raised NASA's budget instead
He did it for a tiny fraction of NASA's budget.
> So he spent it on rockets, as a vanity project
He's reached cash flow positive.
> Was this where the money was best spent? I have no reason to believe so.
Becoming the richest man in the world through his investing is a whopper of a reason that it was well spent.
NASA does a lot of things. If they'd been given SpaceX's capital and a mandate to build reusable rockets, I'm sure they could. They're world-class engineers.
> It was a heck of a lot more than that. See "Elon Musk" by Vance.
I'm not going to read his biography for the sake of your post. Rich people like to act as if they're uniquely good leaders, but it's easy to take credit from a room full of people when they're all on your payroll. If Musk had something to contribute other than fame and cash, name it.
> Becoming the richest man in the world through his investing is a whopper of a reason that it was well spent.
Not at all. Him becoming rich benefits nobody but himself. Funnelling money toward one individual's personal wealth is an extremely poor allocation of resources.
> He's reached cash flow positive.
Barely. And so what? Pet rocks were profitable. Did we actually need SpaceX? Is this really best the direction that so many billions of dollars worth of economic activity could have been directed? Is Elon Musk, the buffoon who ruined Twitter, really the person who should be making that choice?
The welfare of the public today is not the same as the welfare of the public for all time. The Soviet Union couldn't compete on the development of computers, because the USSR was trying to optimize towards what could computers be used for then and there. It turned out that computers could be used for a lot more than what people thought of at the time.
Drug R&D and patents lead to enormous profits for companies, because they can charge outrageous prices for the drugs. But the benefit to the public is that now those drugs and the knowledge about them exist. That's going to have a cumulative positive effect for hundreds of years in the future.
So you see, I'm actually radically in favour of R&D.
Without the possibility of this outrageous profit we would just get less drug research done. That money would then be invested in something else. Drug prices wouldn't be so outrageous (probably), but we probably also wouldn't have as many treatment options. They might be too expensive now, but there's a chance they won't be in 50 years.
A massive amount of research is funded by public grants. iPhones are a famous example of a private-sector product almost entirely created off the back of public research. It is absolutely not true that private investment is required for pharmaceutical R&D.
There was a great video on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnHdqPBrtH8 Asianometry - "Why the Soviet Computer Failed" (18m56s) [2022-07-07]
Innovation is also becoming a meaningless word to defend the system, the innovations have their foundations fostered with public money, through funding of scientific research which is then later captured by the industries to develop products. The innovation is productionalising another innovation, the foundation is built mostly on public funding. Very few companies actually do ground-breaking research that innovates, they're pretty risk-averse in this sense, the productionalisation of those discoveries has its own value, not questionign that, but it only gets traction afterwards when the brunt of the work of discovery was done.
Efficiency of markets is a hypothesis of financial economics with much better written criticism than I can write here, Warren Buffet doesn't believe in it, for example. It's not a given whatsoever, nor proven empirically.
At no point I advocated for a command economy, once more you reply to a strawman to one of my comments, Walter.
The government funded Langley with $60,000 to build a working airplane. It fell into the Potomac "like a sack of wet cement".
The Wrights spent $3,000 and build a working, flying airplane.
The jet engine was invented and developed with private funds. The US government told Lockheed to stop working on jet engines and develop better piston engines instead.
AI, the biggest tech revolution in a couple decades, seems to have been privately funded.
Compilers, which you work with your whole life, came from research done by public funds.
Most medical research has been done with public funds.
Radios, modems, every single piece of networking we currently use was first researched by public funds.
We can keep cherry-picking examples if you wish go down this road, it doesn't foster much of a deeper discussion though if you are going to keep your dogma.
Public funding is necessary, private funding is necessary, what kind of system we can create that enables the best out of both worlds to evolve and be better? That's a discussion I'd like to see, this end of history bullshit is too boring, and tiring to discuss.
Capitalism as it is has empirically shown it's not the best system humanity should rely on, it has its advantages, it has major flaws, admitting that is a pretty good first step into trying to look what's next, how do we go from here. It's destructive, it's inhumane, it's simplistic, it will become a relic just like any other system that came before.
Being dogmatic about it doesn't take us anywhere, it just conserves a status quo which is not the best we can achieve.
As usual, I think you are a bright person, Walter, you've done tons and achieved a lot more than most, but keeping this dogmatic narrow-view of the world certainly pains me, exactly because you are the kind of mind that should be able to see through the bullshit...
It was an incremental step, followed by other incremental steps. There have also been many, many internets along the way: AOL, Prodigy, BYTEnet, MCI, Gopher, RBBS, etc. Every organization that had more than one computer soon figured out how to connect them. Even I did that.
BTW, Ethernet was invented by Xerox. I use it every day.
Compilers appeared shortly after computers that were capable enough to run them appeared. This suggests an inevitability, not a discontinuous invention. Jet engines were a discontinuity, too.
What I see is that if invention X is derived from inventions A,B,C,D,E,F, and D was funded by the government, the government gets all the credit.
> Capitalism as it is has empirically shown it's not the best system humanity should rely on,
How has that been shown?
> it has its advantages, it has major flaws, admitting that is a pretty good first step into trying to look what's next, how do we go from here. It's destructive, it's inhumane, it's simplistic, it will become a relic just like any other system that came before.
Show an example of any system working better.
Free markets are a chaotic system of creative destruction. There have been endless attempts at "fixing" that. None have worked better.
I tend to take a step back and keep in mind that Free Enterprise is not inherently a part of Capitalism and vice-versa. They've gone together pretty well but each might do better with a different partner or different arrangement altogether.
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.
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?
And if so it could be considered a (very) generous decision more often than not.
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?
Investors don't need to own part of a company to buy a Bond, they just want to see good credit rating and yield.
*VC is also part of capital markets but mostly private and such a small % of global investment.
Even if it did, would it not makes sense that investor priorities would change if their only options beyond cooperative businesses were some very small startups and mom & pops?
A system of public banks could handle investment based on the priorities set by all citizens. Everyone would effectively become a shareholder. Successful businesses could be taxed based off what the public invested in those new cooperatives, and those taxes would be used at least partially be used to fund more startups.
Coops have been vulnerable to "hostile takeovers" (I don't know what to call it), transmuting from benefitting members yet another rent seeking enterprise that remains a "coop" in name only.
I was a long time member of PCC and REI. As I understand it, both experienced juntas. Histories I'd love to understand better.
I've read that most farmer coops also fell prey, becoming profiteers, from helping to harming their members. IIRC, there was even a personal account here on HN by a dairy farmer.
In conclusion, I'd LOVE for coops to be the norm. My biggest concern is how to structure coops to remain true to their mission and resilient to enemy action.
Unless you go to where capital isn't concentrated (i.e. rural areas), then co-ops are everywhere. It is not uncommon to be able to get your groceries at a coop, your gas, your phone/internet services, you name it.
Sure. And workers extract as much as possible from their employers. And customers go for the lowest price possible, and sell their stuff for the highest price possible.
That's how people are.
In the 50s, my dad was in Italy watching the news on TV. A man had just won the lottery. The reporter asked him what he was gonna do with the money. Before he could reply, another man stepped in front of him, saying "he's a loyal member of the Communist Party, and he's going to give it to the Party!" The winner pushed him aside, announcing "Oh no, I'm not a Communist anymore!"
Quantity of people benefitted isn't the only measure: magnitude of benefit is also relevant. The customer at a 7Eleven benefits in that they get to... what, buy snacks conveniently? Versus the worker who receives their entire livelihood and benefits, it becomes obvious that workers are the primary beneficiaries of a company.
> But actually to have any employees companies need to optimize for workers lives anyway.
This is quite obviously false. All companies have to do is present a united front on keeping pay low and benefits nonexistent to prevent workers from having better options. I.e. USA 2024.
> And it seems that cooperatives are not any better in this area - otherwise everybody would work for cooperatives.
Why is that exactly?
Can we leave the cynical antiwork comments out? They aren't helpful. This is obviously not the case for a majority of companies and anecdotes don't help.
Everyone is for the highest pay possible until they run their own company and have to provide payroll.
Major companies are regularly prosecuted for conspiracy to suppress wages. It if weren't for government intervention your wages would be much lower and there wouldn't be anything you can do about it.
This blind faith that billion dollar corporations would behave ethically is highly inappropriate
https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-tech-jo...
The social democracies, a middle path, as the Nordic countries have experimented with, seem to have done quite well. And there's now strong evidence that our system (neoliberalism) has stunted economic growth.
Regardless...
I support simple social reforms, like sovereign wealth funds (Alaska, Norway) and universal healthcare, greatly reducing the tension between labor and capital. Then these labor, employment, and ownership reforms wouldn't be so fraught.
Early form of capitalism didn't have limited liability companies. Just because you have to use Unlimited Liability Partnerships, for example, that does not mean it's not capitalism.
Once we move beyond capitalism, there are other words too, like mercantilism, imperialism, Neo-feudalism (arguably what we are getting to), schumpeterianism, etc. Expand your vocabulary.
Huh? You seem to know absolutely nothing about how the Soviet Union worked. They certainly did have money and companies. (And don't give me that BS about the CCCP not being "true communists" -- No True Scotsman fallacy)
In real communist societies like the Soviet Union (which are more accurately labeled "authoritarian socialism"), they need money to control allocation of goods, just like any other modern society. How exactly do you decide how many rolls of toilet paper to give to people? Some people need more than others, so either you have a giant government bureaucracy just to police how much toilet paper people use, how much of every possible type of food to eat, etc., or you just give people money and set prices for stuff, and let them figure it out themselves. These societies were centrally planned, but at some point it's simply impractical to plan everything.
I think it’s you who doesn’t. Notice USSR stands for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It was not a Union of Communist Republics. Have you stopped to think, why is that?
Leaders of USSR were communists, as in they believed in Communism. However, according to them, the country was socialist and they were working towards the goal of achieving Communism. That goal would be achieved eventually, when society or economy or technology was ready. But no official or leader of the Soviet Union would claim that they have already achieved communism.
So you can use USSR to claim that putting communist leaders in charge is a bad idea, but you cannot claim that USSR was an example of communism because not even people running it at the time claimed that it was.
And yes, the eventual goal was to get rid of the concept of money. You can read any of the soviet sci-fi, like Bull's Hour, and see how they imagined it would work.
This is so obviously, trivially false, I doubt even you believe it.
Should we remove the prohibition on murder?
Does regulation only shift murder, not stop or prevent it?
[0]: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/30/feds-powell-inflati...
And even then, there are lots of companies who want to provide the highest pay possible. I have always strived for this in my companies, anyway.
That isn't obvious at all. The US has the one of the highest pay gaps of any developed nation. Our largest companies with the richest executives have employees on food stamps. I'm not being cynical, I'm talking about reality, and I'm not going to shut up about it just so you can maintain your comfortable naivete on this issue.
> Everyone is for the highest pay possible until they run their own company and have to provide payroll.
If you can't pay your workers a living wage your business has failed in the only way I care about.
This doesn't contradict your point, but fwiw the pay gap of quite a few other nations come before the US. In terms of RP, the US ranks about 35th, behind many African and Asian nations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/fotschcase/2017/04/17/uniteds-t...
Nobody is saying that employee ownership is a magic bullet that fixes organization disfunction but data from that first year does show that it can have a positive impact of performance and customer satisfaction.