I restacked this article, but it's not showing up on my dashboard. I'll post here what I said in my note.
It may be hard to imagine a world in which we do not have the type of corporations that we have now, but, as MW points out, they aren't natural. They've evolved by means of State charters, and we, the people, could change the way a corporation is defined. I think that employee-owned and -run cooperative corporations should be the norm, and they could be encouraged by taxing them at a lower rate. What are some other solutions? Remove limited liability? Do away with stock ownership by those who are not materially involved in providing the service or product? But then how would people make money with their money? you may ask. By putting it in a community bank savings account and allowing it to be loaned out at modest interest. Enough of casino capitalism already.
Many thanks for the restack, and helping me reach more people!
Yes, it's strange that in this world where justice and fairness seems to be such a hot topic, it is accepted as normal that those with money to invest can take the profits of other people's labour. And while the stock-market will not go away overnight, there are many incremental moves that can be begun. Profit sharing is indeed an important one, and a number of big companies already do it very successfully. I think your suggestion of offering tax incentives for more to do it is a great example of how simple, practical and incremental steps could easily be made. (Assuming we had governments that actually were interested in empowering their populations – but that's a different hurdle!)
When (frequently) I speak of a mutually regulating triangle between 'culture, state and commerce', I draw upon Steiner (or more precisely, on something which as a natural archetype long pre-dated Steiner, but was more consciously articulated and explored by Steiner). There, the mutually reinforcing nature of many good principles has tremendous synergistic potential. For example:
That commodity production should be treated differently than other forms of remunerated work.
That the needed culutural institutions should be funded (unconditionally) by some percentage of he profits from production facilities balanced by less taxes to government, and thereby putting the development of culture (which includes education and science etc) in the hands of the people. That is touched upon in michaelwarden.substack.com/p/the-circular-economy but awaits more extensive treatment in future posts.
That production facilities would be owned neither privately, nor by the state, but by 'institutions of the cultural', freely formed among the people, who would select talented enrepenuers to operate them and, being realistic, give them a contractually fixed percentage of profits commensurate with their talents. Profits beyond the contractual arrangment with the person running the enterprise, and the percentage returned to cultural institutions, would be shared among those doing the work.
Regarding investment and interest, an interesting possibility would be to legislate a fixed rate of return for people investing in companies. That way the needed principle of investment continues, but beyond that profits are shared with the employees (better, 'co-operators') of the enterprise. And maybe any losses too. The basis for investment would change. Instead of investing wherever the biggest profits are to be made (including arms, AI, GM, etc), the only basis people would have for choosing to invest in one company over another would be that they believe in what the company is doing. Since this implies the end of (or at the very least radical transformation of) the stock market, it is clearly a long-term aspiration. But there's nothing wrong with long-term aspiriations, if they are principles-based and can guide practical and incremental steps in the shorter term. Besides, we presently have vast numbers of people wanting an end to the current form of capitalism, and many others opposing them on the basis that investment is necessary to make things happen, and so is reward for talent / effort. This approach would satisfy both.
All this still really is only the tip of the iceberg when one starts to delve into the implications of this triangular dynamic. A book is in the works... hopefully more news before too long.
Great work, Michael, on a topic that desperately needs the airtime! You're right -- so few people have any idea that this issue undergirds so much of the erosion of human rights. It's largely invisible and "inevitable" just like the encroachment of Big Tech -- hey's that's just evolution, folks! Thank you so much for researching all of the legal maneuverings so that we can see how the road's been paved. Frankenstein, indeed.
Some of the pieces I I write sometimes get quite a lot of response, and some of the more 'fringe' ones like this get very little. I could hope at best that in this case it was something so new to some readers that they don't know what to make of it. Who knows? Maybe for some of them it is 'old hat'.
Anyway, one positive response from one wise and wonderful person is enough to tell me I'm on the right track. Thanks for being that person!
Of course you're on the right track! And I wouldn't jump to any conclusions about the radio silence... I've noticed a summer slump, if you will, in readership. Plenty of people are stepping out of the loop for a while -- a healthy hiatus!
Having said that, I also think that "legalese" exists to intimidate. Same with medical jargon, or any jargon for that matter. "Oh, that's too hard to understand, so I'll just trust that what they're saying/doing is good for me/us/the world." Not that you're writing in legalese, but reporting on it may have the same effect.
Anyhoo... keep at it, says the "wise and wonderful." (I'm flattered! 🙏🏼) xox
I restacked this article, but it's not showing up on my dashboard. I'll post here what I said in my note.
It may be hard to imagine a world in which we do not have the type of corporations that we have now, but, as MW points out, they aren't natural. They've evolved by means of State charters, and we, the people, could change the way a corporation is defined. I think that employee-owned and -run cooperative corporations should be the norm, and they could be encouraged by taxing them at a lower rate. What are some other solutions? Remove limited liability? Do away with stock ownership by those who are not materially involved in providing the service or product? But then how would people make money with their money? you may ask. By putting it in a community bank savings account and allowing it to be loaned out at modest interest. Enough of casino capitalism already.
Many thanks for the restack, and helping me reach more people!
Yes, it's strange that in this world where justice and fairness seems to be such a hot topic, it is accepted as normal that those with money to invest can take the profits of other people's labour. And while the stock-market will not go away overnight, there are many incremental moves that can be begun. Profit sharing is indeed an important one, and a number of big companies already do it very successfully. I think your suggestion of offering tax incentives for more to do it is a great example of how simple, practical and incremental steps could easily be made. (Assuming we had governments that actually were interested in empowering their populations – but that's a different hurdle!)
When (frequently) I speak of a mutually regulating triangle between 'culture, state and commerce', I draw upon Steiner (or more precisely, on something which as a natural archetype long pre-dated Steiner, but was more consciously articulated and explored by Steiner). There, the mutually reinforcing nature of many good principles has tremendous synergistic potential. For example:
That commodity production should be treated differently than other forms of remunerated work.
michaelwarden.substack.com/p/the-economist-is-wearing-no-clothes
That the needed culutural institutions should be funded (unconditionally) by some percentage of he profits from production facilities balanced by less taxes to government, and thereby putting the development of culture (which includes education and science etc) in the hands of the people. That is touched upon in michaelwarden.substack.com/p/the-circular-economy but awaits more extensive treatment in future posts.
That production facilities would be owned neither privately, nor by the state, but by 'institutions of the cultural', freely formed among the people, who would select talented enrepenuers to operate them and, being realistic, give them a contractually fixed percentage of profits commensurate with their talents. Profits beyond the contractual arrangment with the person running the enterprise, and the percentage returned to cultural institutions, would be shared among those doing the work.
Regarding investment and interest, an interesting possibility would be to legislate a fixed rate of return for people investing in companies. That way the needed principle of investment continues, but beyond that profits are shared with the employees (better, 'co-operators') of the enterprise. And maybe any losses too. The basis for investment would change. Instead of investing wherever the biggest profits are to be made (including arms, AI, GM, etc), the only basis people would have for choosing to invest in one company over another would be that they believe in what the company is doing. Since this implies the end of (or at the very least radical transformation of) the stock market, it is clearly a long-term aspiration. But there's nothing wrong with long-term aspiriations, if they are principles-based and can guide practical and incremental steps in the shorter term. Besides, we presently have vast numbers of people wanting an end to the current form of capitalism, and many others opposing them on the basis that investment is necessary to make things happen, and so is reward for talent / effort. This approach would satisfy both.
All this still really is only the tip of the iceberg when one starts to delve into the implications of this triangular dynamic. A book is in the works... hopefully more news before too long.
Thanks again for your comments.
Great work, Michael, on a topic that desperately needs the airtime! You're right -- so few people have any idea that this issue undergirds so much of the erosion of human rights. It's largely invisible and "inevitable" just like the encroachment of Big Tech -- hey's that's just evolution, folks! Thank you so much for researching all of the legal maneuverings so that we can see how the road's been paved. Frankenstein, indeed.
Thanks for the feedback Mary!
Some of the pieces I I write sometimes get quite a lot of response, and some of the more 'fringe' ones like this get very little. I could hope at best that in this case it was something so new to some readers that they don't know what to make of it. Who knows? Maybe for some of them it is 'old hat'.
Anyway, one positive response from one wise and wonderful person is enough to tell me I'm on the right track. Thanks for being that person!
Hope you are having a wonderful holiday!
xox
Of course you're on the right track! And I wouldn't jump to any conclusions about the radio silence... I've noticed a summer slump, if you will, in readership. Plenty of people are stepping out of the loop for a while -- a healthy hiatus!
Having said that, I also think that "legalese" exists to intimidate. Same with medical jargon, or any jargon for that matter. "Oh, that's too hard to understand, so I'll just trust that what they're saying/doing is good for me/us/the world." Not that you're writing in legalese, but reporting on it may have the same effect.
Anyhoo... keep at it, says the "wise and wonderful." (I'm flattered! 🙏🏼) xox
Hhmmm, I think you are right. Both summer hiatus and a natural (and healthy!) distaste for explorations of legal and political shennanigans.
Thanks for the encouragement, and you are indeed wise and wonderful!