owning a piece of a factory or a company they work at also does not directly change the standard of living. Reducing the fraction of the factory output that goes to the owners instead of the workers could.
Would workers owning the company not reduce this fraction to zero?
It would. Eliminating the HR would reduce the overhead from HR to zero. Eliminating the tax office would reduce money spent on that to zero. But these things fulfill a function. Could it be done better? Maybe. But why risk on maybes when that’s not the biggest problem we have with society at all. Not even in the top 10 if you ask me.
The people just getting paid just for owning something don’t seem to be contributing anything useful, and they’re using that wealth to make bad long-term decisions on our behalf. We can’t fix all the other stuff without the power to do so.
You know, there is nothing wrong with not knowing how investments and markets (stock, commodity, …) help direct the economy. It’s a complex topic that most people really don’t need to understand for their lives. But confidently claiming they do nothing just because you don’t know is ridiculous…
I am pretty sure what you are trying to talk about is called negative externalities. A negative externality is simply put a cost (harm) that a company inflicts on others and does not have to “pay for” itself. E.g. destroying the environment. The issue is that negative externalities don’t just apply to companies and capitalism. They are also what turns communist revolutions into authoritarian regimes. Dealing with them (or realistically minimizing their impact) is an incredibly complex subject. Trying to say we should solve it by getting rid of billionaires is like saying we should solve global warming by dropping ice cubes into the ocean.
How do externalities turn communist revolutions into authoritarian regimes?
This is an incredibly complex topic and depends somewhat on your exact setup of revolution and regime.
Let me give another example of negative externalities to at least vaguely illustrate: corruption. It’s the exact same mechanism. The person receiving a bribe benefits from the bribe, but the cost (harm) is usually paid by their employer or society.
For a news agency, a negative externality may be to intentionally spread incorrect information and propaganda. So as an exercise, try to think of the incentives of a news organization in capitalism when it is privately owned and anyone with money can start a competing news agency and in communism, where some kind of political organ (elected or named by elected officials) decides the news agencies funding and if resources are allocated to create a competitor.
Economic and political systems are about incentives. The more the incentives of individual people are aligned with the incentives of society as a whole, the better the system.
Wouldn’t workers owning the factors of production reduce negative externalities by introducing democratic voting into the decision-making process? When there’s no voting, and simply one guy owning the business, then he’s got every incentive to push his costs onto everyone else. If he’s bribed to act against our interests, then there’s no mechanism to remove him from power.
Have there been any successful examples of markets solving externalities on their own? Like coasian solutions in the wild? The best examples I can think of are banning leaded gasoline and CFCs. And the worst examples of things that aren’t happening (like climate targets) are because the people actually in charge don’t care if billions of poors die.
Would workers owning the company not reduce this fraction to zero?
It would. Eliminating the HR would reduce the overhead from HR to zero. Eliminating the tax office would reduce money spent on that to zero. But these things fulfill a function. Could it be done better? Maybe. But why risk on maybes when that’s not the biggest problem we have with society at all. Not even in the top 10 if you ask me.
The people just getting paid just for owning something don’t seem to be contributing anything useful, and they’re using that wealth to make bad long-term decisions on our behalf. We can’t fix all the other stuff without the power to do so.
You know, there is nothing wrong with not knowing how investments and markets (stock, commodity, …) help direct the economy. It’s a complex topic that most people really don’t need to understand for their lives. But confidently claiming they do nothing just because you don’t know is ridiculous…
That’s the bad long-term decisions I’m talking about. They are currently directing the economy to end the world.
I am pretty sure what you are trying to talk about is called negative externalities. A negative externality is simply put a cost (harm) that a company inflicts on others and does not have to “pay for” itself. E.g. destroying the environment. The issue is that negative externalities don’t just apply to companies and capitalism. They are also what turns communist revolutions into authoritarian regimes. Dealing with them (or realistically minimizing their impact) is an incredibly complex subject. Trying to say we should solve it by getting rid of billionaires is like saying we should solve global warming by dropping ice cubes into the ocean.
How do externalities turn communist revolutions into authoritarian regimes?
This is an incredibly complex topic and depends somewhat on your exact setup of revolution and regime.
Let me give another example of negative externalities to at least vaguely illustrate: corruption. It’s the exact same mechanism. The person receiving a bribe benefits from the bribe, but the cost (harm) is usually paid by their employer or society.
For a news agency, a negative externality may be to intentionally spread incorrect information and propaganda. So as an exercise, try to think of the incentives of a news organization in capitalism when it is privately owned and anyone with money can start a competing news agency and in communism, where some kind of political organ (elected or named by elected officials) decides the news agencies funding and if resources are allocated to create a competitor.
Economic and political systems are about incentives. The more the incentives of individual people are aligned with the incentives of society as a whole, the better the system.
Wouldn’t workers owning the factors of production reduce negative externalities by introducing democratic voting into the decision-making process? When there’s no voting, and simply one guy owning the business, then he’s got every incentive to push his costs onto everyone else. If he’s bribed to act against our interests, then there’s no mechanism to remove him from power.
Have there been any successful examples of markets solving externalities on their own? Like coasian solutions in the wild? The best examples I can think of are banning leaded gasoline and CFCs. And the worst examples of things that aren’t happening (like climate targets) are because the people actually in charge don’t care if billions of poors die.