Designing a Cooperative

[Juggernaut Nihilism]

Anyway, designing a cooperative is really easy. It's just a matter of putting all of the skillsets of everyone in the cooperative in a bucket, and then when going out to market those skillsets you market the collective skillsets and not the individual skillsets.

Good points.

However, it is next to impossible to get anyone to join a collective. I mean you won't even join a collective. You joined a corporation, greedily exploiting markets.

I mean if you of all people won't join a coop then who in the world ever will.

Haha.

[Juggernaut Nihilism]

Yes, I don't know anything about the AUS market. Around here renting makes sense in 9 out of 10 cases. And our government is going under before our corporations do, long before.

Not sure what you mean here. We have ridiculously underpriced mortgages right now (~0% real interest rate) that can be bought at FIXED rates. If I were not living in Russia and had a significant borrowing ability, I'd buy big into US real estate, probably in the DC/North VA area . The real interest rates cannot stay at 0% forever, and when they do diverge, I would get a 30-70% discount on my purchase.

Good luck on that.

It takes a year or more if you need to sell, few people are in a position to be able to do that. 4% mortgages don't look that great if the market dips another 10%+.

Prices would have dip at least that much. A 100k mortgage, at 4%, amounts to 171k over 30 years, but a 90k mortgage at 6% comes out to 194k. Prices would have to fall 20% to even them out. When you factor rising rents, residential real estate isn't looking as bad as it was, especially when you consider that another 20% housing drop would annihilate the world economy, so governments will hyperinflate before they let it happen (in which case holding any real asset at all is preferable to most alternatives). Still, I'm buying up agricultural land and putting money into my cabin in Montana since there is a non-trivial chance that I am completely wrong about residential real estate, but it is less likely that food prices will be going down permanently any time soon.

[Enki]

Government cannot go down before the corporations do. If the government goes down, so do most of the corporations.

That's because you misunderstand, as always, the true nature of corporations.

Governments are going down.

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2012 ... or-Detroit

Corporations are chartered by governments. Without governments to make the legal distinction they are merely organizations.

And I have worked collectively with people. It's just that 'joining a collective' isn't some sort of meaningful act that you embark upon like noddy did, it's simply a normal informal act of mutually benefitting one another.

I have joined plenty of collectives, Rainbow, Burning Man, Occupy, etc...

But in response to your 'governments are going down' argument, I'd like to point out that its by and large because they bailed out the corporations. You say I don't understand the nature of corporations, but you're making the argument corporations heavily invested in the dollar will survive just fine when the dollar is worthless. Time will tell whether you have any genuflecting clue what you're talking about.

[noddy]

how does a short term event (party?) relate to an ongoing commitment and sustainable (woot, i used that word) cooperation ?

[Juggernaut Nihilism]

The tax structure is used to encourage and discourage certain behaviors. Corporations are nothing more than an institutionalized incentive to capital formation. Corporations themselves are not the problem.

[noddy]

my only problem with corporations is when they (a) steal my tax money to bailout their own failures and (b) play games with the laws to make anyone who isnt them illegal.

alas, all thats done with the consent of the middle class fear worshippers so i dont blame the corporates.

oh and (c) they are usually horrid places to work but thats a personal preference thing.

[Enki]

how does a short term event (party?) relate to an ongoing commitment and sustainable (woot, i used that word) cooperation ?

Ongoing commitment is a series of short-term events.

And I am not talking about 'a party'. I am talking about communities where I could find homes to stay at if I found myself homeless. People who I work with and who I have brought money to and who have brought me money. People who I have worked on hurricane relief with. People who I have worked on political campaigns with. There are pools of people that I work with on an ongoing basis where they rotate in and out of my life, but there are long-term ongoing relationships that are mutually beneficial.

[Juggernaut Nihilism]

my only problem with corporations is when they (a) steal my tax money to bailout their own failures and (b) play games with the laws to make anyone who isnt them illegal.

alas, all thats done with the consent of the middle class fear worshippers so i dont blame the corporates.

oh and (c) they are usually horrid places to work but thats a personal preference thing.

At least as far back as Robespierre, it dawned on certain people that the little bourgeois rebellion against the nobles that we have come to call liberal democracy would result in Money taking the place of Privilege. We know how he tried to fix it. I'm not certain that we've come up with a better solution in all this time...

[noddy]

my only problem with corporations is when they (a) steal my tax money to bailout their own failures and (b) play games with the laws to make anyone who isnt them illegal.

alas, all thats done with the consent of the middle class fear worshippers so i dont blame the corporates.

oh and (c) they are usually horrid places to work but thats a personal preference thing.

At least as far back as Robespierre, it dawned on certain people that the little bourgeois rebellion against the nobles that we have come to call liberal democracy would result in Money taking the place of Privilege. We know how he tried to fix it. I'm not certain that we've come up with a better solution in all this time...

its ratios of haves to have nots and thusly enough motivated population prepared to make brutal examples, same as ever

for now, despite enki's fears of projected futures the ratios are still in favour of the status quo and we are in wait and see mode as to if the privileged group is going to be stupid enough to push a bit furthur.

[Enki]

its ratios of haves to have nots and thusly enough motivated population prepared to make brutal examples, same as ever

for now, despite enki's fears of projected futures the ratios are still in favour of the status quo and we are in wait and see mode as to if the privileged group is going to be stupid enough to push a bit furthur.

If they are that stupid then they don't deserve to be elite.

[noddy]

its ratios of haves to have nots and thusly enough motivated population prepared to make brutal examples, same as ever

for now, despite enki's fears of projected futures the ratios are still in favour of the status quo and we are in wait and see mode as to if the privileged group is going to be stupid enough to push a bit furthur.

If they are that stupid then they don't deserve to be elite.

if it does get to that i just hope their would be enough spunk left in the west to do so.

plenty examples of a passive and depressed population putting up with tyranny.

[Enki]

its ratios of haves to have nots and thusly enough motivated population prepared to make brutal examples, same as ever

for now, despite enki's fears of projected futures the ratios are still in favour of the status quo and we are in wait and see mode as to if the privileged group is going to be stupid enough to push a bit furthur.

If they are that stupid then they don't deserve to be elite.

if it does get to that i just hope their would be enough spunk left in the west to do so.

plenty examples of a passive and depressed population putting up with tyranny.

It would only take about 50 people to overthrow the US Government.

[Juggernaut Nihilism]

my only problem with corporations is when they (a) steal my tax money to bailout their own failures and (b) play games with the laws to make anyone who isnt them illegal.

alas, all thats done with the consent of the middle class fear worshippers so i dont blame the corporates.

oh and (c) they are usually horrid places to work but thats a personal preference thing.

At least as far back as Robespierre, it dawned on certain people that the little bourgeois rebellion against the nobles that we have come to call liberal democracy would result in Money taking the place of Privilege. We know how he tried to fix it. I'm not certain that we've come up with a better solution in all this time...

its ratios of haves to have nots and thusly enough motivated population prepared to make brutal examples, same as ever

for now, despite enki's fears of projected futures the ratios are still in favour of the status quo and we are in wait and see mode as to if the privileged group is going to be stupid enough to push a bit furthur.

I disagree about the status quo. Revolutions, then as now, occur because the conditions of life change, causing an evolution of values and mores which are not reflected in stubborn institutions, which tend to take their geological time to catch up. When the discrepancy between values and institutions becomes too glaring, as it had by 1789 and is today, the stretched rubber band reaches a point where a violent redistribution of energy becomes possible.

[noddy]

my only problem with corporations is when they (a) steal my tax money to bailout their own failures and (b) play games with the laws to make anyone who isnt them illegal.

alas, all thats done with the consent of the middle class fear worshippers so i dont blame the corporates.

oh and (c) they are usually horrid places to work but thats a personal preference thing.

At least as far back as Robespierre, it dawned on certain people that the little bourgeois rebellion against the nobles that we have come to call liberal democracy would result in Money taking the place of Privilege. We know how he tried to fix it. I'm not certain that we've come up with a better solution in all this time...

its ratios of haves to have nots and thusly enough motivated population prepared to make brutal examples, same as ever

for now, despite enki's fears of projected futures the ratios are still in favour of the status quo and we are in wait and see mode as to if the privileged group is going to be stupid enough to push a bit furthur.

I disagree about the status quo. Revolutions, then as now, occur because the conditions of life change, causing an evolution of values and mores which are not reflected in stubborn institutions, which tend to take their geological time to catch up. When the discrepancy between values and institutions becomes too glaring, as it had by 1789 and is today, the stretched rubber band reaches a point where a violent redistribution of energy becomes possible.

hah, is that our roles switching over time i wonder.

i suspect this viewpoint depends on the financial crisis perceptions.... is it going to grind out for decades japan style or blow out spectacularly south american style.

[Mr. Perfect]

Corporations are chartered by governments. Without governments to make the legal distinction they are merely organizations.

A rose by any other name.

And I have worked collectively with people. It's just that 'joining a collective' isn't some sort of meaningful act that you embark upon like noddy did, it's simply a normal informal act of mutually benefitting one another.

I have joined plenty of collectives, Rainbow, Burning Man, Occupy, etc...

Yes but let's get serious. Where did you ever put your income in the trust of other people. If you of all people won't join one of those who ever will?

But in response to your 'governments are going down' argument, I'd like to point out that its by and large because they bailed out the corporations.

I don't know, Democrats say they made money on the bailouts. How can you go under on something you made money on?

You say I don't understand the nature of corporations, but you're making the argument corporations heavily invested in the dollar will survive just fine when the dollar is worthless.

I don't know if corporations will last forever. I know they will last longer than most governments. They don't need much of a government to actually exist in effect. Many illegal business function exactly as corporations do, to the letter. They often are very zealous in protecting their intellectual property, interestingly enough.

And like most businesses, they will trade in whatever currency is popular, dollar or something else.

Time will tell whether you have any genuflecting clue what you're talking about.

Judging by how well I judged STPN stuffing your money into my pockets I am very happy with my clues. Very, very happy.

[Mr. Perfect]

its ratios of haves to have nots and thusly enough motivated population prepared to make brutal examples, same as ever

for now, despite enki's fears of projected futures the ratios are still in favour of the status quo and we are in wait and see mode as to if the privileged group is going to be stupid enough to push a bit furthur.

If they are that stupid then they don't deserve to be elite.

if it does get to that i just hope their would be enough spunk left in the west to do so.

plenty examples of a passive and depressed population putting up with tyranny.

It would only take about 50 people to overthrow the US Government.

Don't tease me like that.

[Mr. Perfect]

my only problem with corporations is when they (a) steal my tax money to bailout their own failures and (b) play games with the laws to make anyone who isnt them illegal.

alas, all thats done with the consent of the middle class fear worshippers so i dont blame the corporates.

oh and (c) they are usually horrid places to work but thats a personal preference thing.

Every place you ever worked was probably incorporated.

[noddy]

my only problem with corporations is when they (a) steal my tax money to bailout their own failures and (b) play games with the laws to make anyone who isnt them illegal.

alas, all thats done with the consent of the middle class fear worshippers so i dont blame the corporates.

oh and (c) they are usually horrid places to work but thats a personal preference thing.

Every place you ever worked was probably incorporated.

in common speak "corporate" is the large companies that cross state and national boundaries .. not the specific legal/taxation definition.

note: im not anti "corporate" and i dont blame the "corporates" for the modern condition.

any place that is big enough and detached enough from its workers to have a HR department smells funny to me hah.

[Torchwood]

I note that it is usually those from comfortable backgrounds who preach the virtues of non-materialism.

The co-operative ideal is not exactly new. it goes back to at least 1820 with Robert Owen. If we accept that delivering goods and services efficiently at a price that the masses can afford is a good thing, and that free markets do that most effectively, then co-ops have been free to compete with the mainstream capitalist model since then. Some long lasting ones have stayed around, but they are hardly numerous, and I don't buy the idea that there is a capitalist conspiracy to keep them down.

I think that is because there are inherent structural flaws in the model. Producer owned co-operatives will tend to tilt too much towards the workers (that is, owners) at the expense of the consumer, and usually invest too little or too cautiously.

Consumer owned co-ops (the retail co-ops) used to be the main retail chain here, but have done badly compared to capitalist supermarket chains, and never got into online retailing at all. As the "owners" have no commitment beyond shopping there, there is even less pressure on management than with diversified share ownership

[Farcus]

So much for Arthur Jensen's Corporate Cosmology...

[Simple Minded]

I note that it is usually those from comfortable backgrounds who preach the virtues of non-materialism.

The co-operative ideal is not exactly new. it goes back to at least 1820 with Robert Owen. If we accept that delivering goods and services efficiently at a price that the masses can afford is a good thing, and that free markets do that most effectively, then co-ops have been free to compete with the mainstream capitalist model since then. Some long lasting ones have stayed around, but they are hardly numerous, and I don't buy the idea that there is a capitalist conspiracy to keep them down.

I think that is because there are inherent structural flaws in the model. Producer owned co-operatives will tend to tilt too much towards the workers (that is, owners) at the expense of the consumer, and usually invest too little or too cautiously.

Consumer owned co-ops (the retail co-ops) used to be the main retail chain here, but have done badly compared to capitalist supermarket chains, and never got into online retailing at all. As the "owners" have no commitment beyond shopping there, there is even less pressure on management than with diversified share ownership

Torchwood,

Bravo! Very rational, very intelligent!

Thanks!

[Torchwood]

Yes, but there are exceptions. The John Lewis partnership is the exception that proves the rule.

("Proves" in this context is the archaic meaning of "tests". This is often misunderstood.)


Charlie Mayfield, executive chairman of the John Lewis Partnership, has a delicate message to convey.

His pride in the employee-owned retail group’s commercial success, and in the interest politicians are showing in it as a talisman for corporate reform, is tempered with caution about how applicable its model can be to others.


“Our model isn’t a panacea,” he insists. “While people have said some nice things about the partnership, and I am a great advocate for it, it concerns me that we can be painted into a position where it appears that we are terribly smug and have got all the answers.”

John Spedan Lewis, son of the retailer’s founder, created a model for a business owned by its staff and managed on democratic principles that has grown in appeal, as people search for less volatile ways of creating growth after the financial crisis.

The fact that it also has a firm hold on the affection of middle-class Britain, through the reputation for reliable quality of its John Lewis department stores and Waitrose supermarket chain, adds to its mystique.

It is understandable, then, that politicians such as Nick Clegg, deputy prime minister, should use it as shorthand for the reforms they want to encourage.

Spedan Lewis, a visionary who believed staff worked better if they had a stake in their company, transferred his shares in the business into a trust in two phases, in 1929 and 1950. All 81,000 staff, or “partners”, own the business. Its constitution states that its purpose is to ensure “the happiness of all its members, through their worthwhile and satisfying employment in a successful business”.

It has an executive chairman and is governed under a set of principles, with policy influenced by an elected council representing the partners.

Staff receive an annual share of profits according to a ratio, whereby the highest paid member cannot earn more than 75 times the average wage of a shop floor salesperson. Partners get final-salary pensions and perks, ranging from holiday homes to sailing clubs. There is a weekly Gazette where staff can air concerns, anonymously if they choose, and senior managers are expected to respond.

But, says Mr Mayfield: “The ownership model on its own doesn’t guarantee success, it’s how you use it. Our business has varied in its performance.” Last year, pre-tax profits fell 3.8 per cent to £354m and the staff bonus was worth 14 per cent of annual salaries, down from 18 per cent.

It is doing better than many companies in a tough retail climate, however. In the past decade or so Waitrose has doubled in turnover and trebled its profits, while John Lewis has both grown and built a successful online business faster than many competitors.

Peter Cox, who wrote a history of the group after retiring from Waitrose in 2003, says the partnership was inward-looking from about 1960 until the late 1990s. “JLP has had very sharp management in the past 20 years. Before then, it was liable to coast.”

Accusations thrown at it in the past – that the management system can be bureaucratic and that employee ownership holds back expansion and productivity – are now a “canard”, Mr Cox adds. “It has very sharp trading teams. An example of critical decision-making, which surprised many inside and outside the business, was its acquisition of Buy-com in 2002 as the foundation of the John Lewis internet trading business – then lagging, now massive.”

Mr Mayfield, a former McKinsey consultant, believes the company benefits from having a close relationship and dialogue with its shareholders, who work in the business and understand it. “We have every incentive to build the capacity of our organisation over the long term, which feeds directly into competitive advantage over time.”

He also believes the lack of an option to sell the business spurs better performance and he denies the suggestion that decision making is slow.

Mr Cox says that a crucial reason for the partnership’s success is the combination of its ownership structure with the trading principles established by Spedan’s father, the original John Lewis, who opened his store in London’s Oxford Street in 1864. These principles are: “value, assortment, service, and honesty”. Spedan Lewis codified them and added the slogan “Never knowingly undersold”.

Mr Mayfield says the two sets of principles are complementary and create a “multiplier effect”. For example, their application to the Waitrose supply chain acknowledges that suppliers should have a viable business that they can develop as a result of the relationship.

Waitrose now accounts for about 75 per cent of the UK’s outdoor reared pigs, Mr Mayfield says, built up over 30 years of working with the same set of suppliers. “As a result, we have a better product at a similar price to what other supermarkets are able to source.”

He adds that the partnership has “lots of opportunity in what will be a more difficult market”, because customers are looking for genuine value, or quality at the right price.

Not only is it strong in online sales, he says, but the commitment of its employee owners will contribute to the “personal shopping experience” customers will increasingly demand when they do go out to buy.

[Enki]

I think people who don't behave 'cooperatively' view cooperatives from a postion of a sort of jaded idolatry. Cooperation is the normal everyday mode of human interaction. A cooperative can just be an informal group of people whose skills are complimentary who come together to work.

The modern western mind with its obsession with systems has trouble with the notions of cooperation and community.

In the open-source community this style of work is probably more utilized than other forms.

[Simple Minded]

I think people who don't behave 'cooperatively' view cooperatives from a postion of a sort of jaded idolatry. Cooperation is the normal everyday mode of human interaction. A cooperative can just be an informal group of people whose skills are complimentary who come together to work.

The modern western mind with its obsession with systems has trouble with the notions of cooperation and community.

In the open-source community this style of work is probably more utilized than other forms.

I would say that at least 90% of the people, organizations, corporattions, churches, 501c3s, that I have dealt with would fit the definition of "cooperative." Perhaps not in the exact legal sense of property ownership, but in the sense of no one is forced to do anything they don't want to do, or deal with anyone they do not want to deal with, or accept paychecks they think are inadequate.

It is all about voluntary transactions and feedom of association, isn't it?

It would be interesting to see a poll of how your above definition of the "modern western mind" would break down by age, income, location, education, political party affiliation, race, religion, nationality, occupation, attitude of parents, etc.

It would be very interesting to see the patterns of who believes that oppression is rampant, and who does not. Or better yet, just the answer to the question "I am oppressed. True or false?"

I would bet it has a lot more to do with attitude, than reality. Put two people in the same situation, and one feels liberated, while the other feels oppressed. The observer always defines their reality.

Fascinates my simple mind...

[Enki]

Anyway, designing a cooperative is really easy. It's just a matter of putting all of the skillsets of everyone in the cooperative in a bucket, and then when going out to market those skillsets you market the collective skillsets and not the individual skillsets.

Good points.

However, it is next to impossible to get anyone to join a collective. I mean you won't even join a collective. You joined a corporation, greedily exploiting markets.

I mean if you of all people won't join a coop then who in the world ever will.

Haha.

There was nothing factual in his post. "haha Mr. Perfect said Conservative dogwhistle...haha."

People join collectives on a daily basis. Nearly impossible is bullshit. Ignorami who don't know what they are talking about don't understand that there are lots of collectives out there, they simply are not incorporated. A General partnership is one of the standard forms of small business and it is a....collective.

Simple Minded I agree with most of what you said, but the bit about 'oppression' I view as a non-sequitur, and don't really understand what it has to do with the topic.

A cooperative is simply equitable equity. No more, no less. A C-Corp or LLC where the owners are the workers who own a stake in the company, that's a cooperative.

When someone else owns the fruits of my labors, then that is not a cooperative. Pretty simple.

As for Mr. Perfect's idiotic jibe at me. I joined a corporation that incubates product ideas and those products are their own corporation where equity is distributed by contribution. So really, I work for a corporation that builds cooperatives. To the small mind of the dimwitted, if we organize the legal protections of a C-Corp, even if the options are shared based upon productive input, then it's not a cooperative.