For My Friend, Pilt

[Ponca Dan]

I stumbled on this article about “left wing new economics.” It is painfully long and taxed my poor attention span to the max, but I trudged on because I found it so fascinating.

The main problem I had with the article is it never really explained what this new economics is. As best as I could discern it seemed a lot by what in the old days leftist libertarians called “spontaneous socialism.”

In the libertarian perspective spontaneous socialism could comfortably fit within a free society that allows each person to pursue his own objectives without interference. The socialism of the libertarian variety consisted of local co-ops, businesses that are purportedly owned and managed by the people who work in them. Some people would opt for collectively owned enterprises while others are free to strike out on their own and become entrepreneurs singly.

I didn’t get the impression that the leftist new economists are willing to go that far, they want everybody pigeon holed in co-ops. But beyond the authoritarianism they propose it seemed to me they are onto something new and exciting as a potential economic model.

The problem is I’m not sure if I am understanding them correctly. I’m curious if you know much about this subject and if you are willing to give me a highly edited version of it.

You don’t need to read it, it is VERY long. I had never heard of left-wing new economics before, but I found it fascinating and thought there are many aspects of it that could coincide with individualist economics in a free society.

I’m curious what you think.


https://www.theguardian.com/news/20...etwork-of-thinkers-is-transforming-capitalism

 

[HighStickHarry]

No energy for this

 

[Ponca Dan]

No energy for this

I don't blame him. It's a REALLY LONG article.

 

[HighStickHarry]

I don't blame him. It's a REALLY LONG article.

Me neither. Got to keep his energy up.

 

[CBradSmith]

Me neither. Got to keep his energy up.

Non-idiot kids take it out of you.

 

[CBradSmith]

High energy BOOST:

 

[HighStickHarry]

Non-idiot kids take it out of you.

Dude probably has to work a lot of overtime to pay that kids 100,000$ Weekly allowance. Looking for a little government relief!!

 

[squeak]

Me neither. Got to keep his energy up.

Think he has low T?

 

[HighStickHarry]

Think he has low T?

Do we think he has any T?

 

[07pilt]

The main problem I had with the article is it never really explained what this new economics is.

Agreed. I think because there is no such thing as a monolithic new left economics. I think what the article is talking about is "'[the] gap [that] has opened up' in the west 'between the theory of how a market economy delivers … and the reality'." has energized and given more credence to economics that didn't originate from the Chicago School.

As best as I could discern it seemed a lot by what in the old days leftist libertarians called “spontaneous socialism.”

I think they talked about coops so much because the guys they could get for interviews were coop guys. Or maybe it is a UK thing. In the US the focus seems to be more on economic concentration, labor unions, and growing the welfare state.

In the libertarian perspective spontaneous socialism could comfortably fit within a free society that allows each person to pursue his own objectives without interference. The socialism of the libertarian variety consisted of local co-ops, businesses that are purportedly owned and managed by the people who work in them. Some people would opt for collectively owned enterprises while others are free to strike out on their own and become entrepreneurs singly.

I didn’t get the impression that the leftist new economists are willing to go that far, they want everybody pigeon holed in co-ops. But beyond the authoritarianism they propose it seemed to me they are onto something new and exciting as a potential economic model.

A big challenge for coops is where to get their capital. I know that existing legal frameworks in the US aren't exactly coop friendly and that people are lobbying to change that. The Cleveland projects the article mentions seems like government investment designed to increase work in Cleveland by investing in projects that will buy in Cleveland, employ in Cleveland, and make products to be consumed in Cleveland. Jane Jacobs's "Cities and the Wealth of Nations" is a good read on the subject, I think.

The problem is I’m not sure if I am understanding them correctly. I’m curious if you know much about this subject and if you are willing to give me a highly edited version of it.

They talk a lot about a democratic economy which just means proposals to make workers shareholders in their workplaces. I think Germany has a law that a certain number of corporate board seats are selected by the workers.

You don’t need to read it, it is VERY long. I had never heard of left-wing new economics before, but I found it fascinating and thought there are many aspects of it that could coincide with individualist economics in a free society.

I’m curious what you think.

I think that was a poorly written article and that the Guardian should give Brian a call.

 

[HighStickHarry]

 

[CowboyPhil]

I appreciate this type of beginning to a conversation that your previous, "Discuss" posts.

I stumbled on this article about “left wing new economics.” It is painfully long and taxed my poor attention span to the max, but I trudged on because I found it so fascinating.

The main problem I had with the article is it never really explained what this new economics is. As best as I could discern it seemed a lot by what in the old days leftist libertarians called “spontaneous socialism.”

In the libertarian perspective spontaneous socialism could comfortably fit within a free society that allows each person to pursue his own objectives without interference. The socialism of the libertarian variety consisted of local co-ops, businesses that are purportedly owned and managed by the people who work in them. Some people would opt for collectively owned enterprises while others are free to strike out on their own and become entrepreneurs singly.

I didn’t get the impression that the leftist new economists are willing to go that far, they want everybody pigeon holed in co-ops. But beyond the authoritarianism they propose it seemed to me they are onto something new and exciting as a potential economic model.

The problem is I’m not sure if I am understanding them correctly. I’m curious if you know much about this subject and if you are willing to give me a highly edited version of it.

You don’t need to read it, it is VERY long. I had never heard of left-wing new economics before, but I found it fascinating and thought there are many aspects of it that could coincide with individualist economics in a free society.

I’m curious what you think.


https://www.theguardian.com/news/20...etwork-of-thinkers-is-transforming-capitalism

I have wondered how a community like this could work or would work with Americans.

From what I got in the article, the population would have ownership in their places of employment, therefore, all would benefit from success. The biggest issue would be those that innovate/transform/discover new enterprises/products/technologies would need to be the type of people that would be ok with not reaping all of the rewards that current entrepreneurs receive. It would cut down on the income gap and idealistically there would be no income gap.

But, finding these type of selfless people are near impossible to find. Basically you would have to find people that would perform the tasks of engineers willing to accept the fact that sanitation workers will be paid the same or similar.

The paragraph that talked about Cleveland developing "community" businesses to keep wealth within the city would be a more reasonable and achievable goal to attain in current communities. It would be up to the communities to develop a model of what might work in their area.

 

[Ponca Dan]

I appreciate this type of beginning to a conversation that your previous, "Discuss" posts.



I have wondered how a community like this could work or would work with Americans.

From what I got in the article, the population would have ownership in their places of employment, therefore, all would benefit from success. The biggest issue would be those that innovate/transform/discover new enterprises/products/technologies would need to be the type of people that would be ok with not reaping all of the rewards that current entrepreneurs receive. It would cut down on the income gap and idealistically there would be no income gap.

But, finding these type of selfless people are near impossible to find. Basically you would have to find people that would perform the tasks of engineers willing to accept the fact that sanitation workers will be paid the same or similar.

The paragraph that talked about Cleveland developing "community" businesses to keep wealth within the city would be a more reasonable and achievable goal to attain in current communities. It would be up to the communities to develop a model of what might work in their area.

I have no idea if a company organized as a co-op would be successful. Based on my hippie history from a different era I wouldn't think it would last very long for the exact reason you state. But the "exciting" part about it, if "exciting" is the proper term, would be that people living in a free society would be left alone to give it a try. The article pointed out, and Pilt agreed, the hard part would be finding funding that would allow the enterprise to get off the ground. I would expect that whoever put up the money, and therefore was taking the risk, would insist on receiving the lion's share of any profits, at least until he recouped his investment. But that goes against the idea of the workers being the owners. So that creates something of a dilemma before getting started. But I'm sure there are ways around it. Maybe the workers would be willing to give the investor a controlling interest until an agreed upon term of divestment.

One idea floated in the article is for the government to put up the funds. Personally I think that would be a disaster. The government doesn't do anything without attaching strings. There is no doubt in my mind that bureaucrats would run the companies, not the workers. So I don't see an advantage for workers to want to participate. Not to mention the dog-eat-dog competition for start-ups to get a bite of the apple. It puts the government in the position of choosing winners and losers, and the political circus that would create would be a nightmare.

I think the Cleveland approach sounds interesting. Start small, stay small, stay local would give such a business plan the best chance.

 

[CBradSmith]

A little vigor left

 

[07pilt]

I have no idea if a company organized as a co-op would be successful. Based on my hippie history from a different era I wouldn't think it would last very long for the exact reason you state. But the "exciting" part about it, if "exciting" is the proper term, would be that people living in a free society would be left alone to give it a try. The article pointed out, and Pilt agreed, the hard part would be finding funding that would allow the enterprise to get off the ground. I would expect that whoever put up the money, and therefore was taking the risk, would insist on receiving the lion's share of any profits, at least until he recouped his investment. But that goes against the idea of the workers being the owners. So that creates something of a dilemma before getting started. But I'm sure there are ways around it. Maybe the workers would be willing to give the investor a controlling interest until an agreed upon term of divestment.

One idea floated in the article is for the government to put up the funds. Personally I think that would be a disaster. The government doesn't do anything without attaching strings. There is no doubt in my mind that bureaucrats would run the companies, not the workers. So I don't see an advantage for workers to want to participate. Not to mention the dog-eat-dog competition for start-ups to get a bite of the apple. It puts the government in the position of choosing winners and losers, and the political circus that would create would be a nightmare.

I think the Cleveland approach sounds interesting. Start small, stay small, stay local would give such a business plan the best chance.

I often thing about how little capital it would take to nudge things in the right direction. If you subsidized 1% of principal on debt for high density development you could transform a city or district for $100 million. Like Dan said, it probably isn't best to do that through a government bureaucracy, but a private investor with lots of business and realestate interest in a city could really clean up by nudging development in a way that would be beneficial to that interest (also could be a tax write off). By the same token the subsidy necessary to make co-ops more viable would be making financing easier for them. Debt convertible to callable prefered's would do the trick but it would take someone one being committed to making those finance opportunities available.

 

[iasooner1]

Starting in LA; they have all that 'bullet train' $$$$ sitting around doing nothing; come on Newsome - time for the left coast dims to put up or shut up

 

[Ponca Dan]

I often thing about how little capital it would take to nudge things in the right direction. If you subsidized 1% of principal on debt for high density development you could transform a city or district for $100 million. Like Dan said, it probably isn't best to do that through a government bureaucracy, but a private investor with lots of business and realestate interest in a city could really clean up by nudging development in a way that would be beneficial to that interest (also could be a tax write off). By the same token the subsidy necessary to make co-ops more viable would be making financing easier for them. Debt convertible to callable prefered's would do the trick but it would take someone one being committed to making those finance opportunities available.

One thing in the article that resonated with me as a business owner was the part that questioned how many workers would really be interested in being a part owner.

It resonated with me for this reason: I have observed in my 50+ years of owning a business that there is the employee attitude and the employer attitude.

To the employee it is just a job, it does not define who he is. The money he earns from the job is what allows him to be his “real” self. At 5 o’clock when he heads home the job is completely forgotten until 7 o’clock the next day when he comes back. I have had employees, for example, that have needed to be reminded what job they were on the day before. They had so completely put it out of their mind. I don’t say this to demean the “employee attitude,” it’s simply an observation I have made.

To the employer, on the other hand, the job does define who he is. Oftentimes the job consumes him, he obsesses over it 24/7. He does not necessarily have a life outside his job. In my case, as an example, when I was getting the business off the ground I once worked every single day, minimum of 9 hours a day for 13 straight months. It’s not the healthiest lifestyle! But most business owners I know (anecdotal, I know, but I know a lot of business owners) can tell similar stories.

One attitude is not superior to the other. I suppose it takes s combination of the two to make a company successful. I bring it up because I think an over abundance of the employee attitude would spell doom for a company. I don’t know how many employees are interested in becoming employers.

 

[07pilt]

One t




One thing in the article that resonated with me as a business owner was the part that questioned how many workers would really be interested in being a part owner.

It resonated with me for this reason: I have observed in my 50+ years of owning a business that there is the employee attitude and the employer attitude.

To the employee it is just a job, it does not define who he is. The money he earns from the job is what allows him to be his “real” self. At 5 o’clock when he heads home the job is completely forgotten until 7 o’clock the next day when he comes back. I have had employees, for example, that have needed to be reminded what job they were on the day before. They had so completely put it out of their mind. I don’t say this to demean the “employee attitude,” it’s simply an observation I have made.

To the employer, on the other hand, the job does define who he is. Oftentimes the job consumes him, he obsesses over it 24/7. He does not necessarily have a life outside his job. In my case, as an example, when I was getting the business off the ground I once worked every single day, minimum of 9 hours a day for 13 straight months. It’s not the healthiest lifestyle! But most business owners I know (anecdotal, I know, but I know a lot of business owners) can tell similar stories.

One attitude is not superior to the other. I suppose it takes s combination of the two to make a company successful. I bring it up because I think an over abundance of the employee attitude would spell doom for a company. I don’t know how many employees are interested in becoming employers.

I think a co-op can strike a healthy balance between the two.

 

[CBradSmith]

One t




One thing in the article that resonated with me as a business owner was the part that questioned how many workers would really be interested in being a part owner.

It resonated with me for this reason: I have observed in my 50+ years of owning a business that there is the employee attitude and the employer attitude.

To the employee it is just a job, it does not define who he is. The money he earns from the job is what allows him to be his “real” self. At 5 o’clock when he heads home the job is completely forgotten until 7 o’clock the next day when he comes back. I have had employees, for example, that have needed to be reminded what job they were on the day before. They had so completely put it out of their mind. I don’t say this to demean the “employee attitude,” it’s simply an observation I have made.

To the employer, on the other hand, the job does define who he is. Oftentimes the job consumes him, he obsesses over it 24/7. He does not necessarily have a life outside his job. In my case, as an example, when I was getting the business off the ground I once worked every single day, minimum of 9 hours a day for 13 straight months. It’s not the healthiest lifestyle! But most business owners I know (anecdotal, I know, but I know a lot of business owners) can tell similar stories.

One attitude is not superior to the other. I suppose it takes s combination of the two to make a company successful. I bring it up because I think an over abundance of the employee attitude would spell doom for a company. I don’t know how many employees are interested in becoming employers.

Higher pay than coops attracts those who give extra effort, ultimately leading to a degree of differentiation.

 

[Ponca Dan]

I think a co-op can strike a healthy balance between the two.

Oh, I do, too! I just don’t think a society could be made of mostly cooperatives. That’s what I find so appealing about a society of free people. There would be a marketplace of businesses available for people to choose. Don’t like having a boss? Join a co-op and be your own boss! Aren’t interested in facing the responsibilities of a business owner? Go work for someone!

 

[07pilt]

Oh, I do, too! I just don’t think a society could be made of mostly cooperatives. That’s what I find so appealing about a society of free people. There would be a marketplace of businesses available for people to choose. Don’t like having a boss? Join a co-op and be your own boss! Aren’t interested in facing the responsibilities of a business owner? Go work for someone!

Also Dan, as a shareholder in multiple corporations I can tell you management is the time intensive element not ownership.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Also Dan, as a shareholder in multiple corporations I can tell you management is the time intensive element not ownership.

Yes, I’m referring to small, one owner businesses like mine.