"Neo-classic economics conceptualizes economics as path-independent. An EFFICIENT MARKET is path-independent, as is a market with a single, stable equilibrium. In a path-independent system, it should be impossible to make money purely by trading, WITHOUT PRODUCING ANYTHING OF VALUE. That sort o…
"Neo-classic economics conceptualizes economics as path-independent. An EFFICIENT MARKET is path-independent, as is a market with a single, stable equilibrium. In a path-independent system, it should be impossible to make money purely by trading, WITHOUT PRODUCING ANYTHING OF VALUE. That sort of activity is called arbitrage, and basic financial theory holds that in an efficient market arbitrage is impossible, because everything is already priced in such a way that there are no inconsistencies. You cannot trade dollars for yen, trade those for euros, back to dollars and make a profit. Nonetheless hedge funds and investment banks have made fortunes trading currency markets. Their success should be impossible in an efficient market but this does not seem to have bothered economics theorists."
You're losing me, I'm afraid, but to me, and I'd love your feedback, preferably in lay language - but it seems to be that having stakeholders creates disloyalty to the end user and incentives for deception, cheap products that are marketed well and choosing cheap labor over healthy, happy employees, who in turn will make better products and services. So it seems to me if you just have the person with the business and their employees and their customer, the relationship itself creates capitalism in a benevolent, symbiotic ways where one produces what they other wants/ needs, and the customer holds the business accountable for integrity, quality, innovation and values.
Instead of "profit" for a "company" - treating a company as a "person" - if all "profit" just went to the business owner and their employees or was reinvested in community, R&D etc, it seems better to me than having stakeholders who would put profit above the wellbeing of the product/service recipient. Of course some owners and employees may want to cut corners, but the customer will see this and be able to use capitalism to hold them accountable....by not buying their product - whereas WEF wants ALL stakeholder capitalism where they create our desires and control all parameters and loyalty is to shareholders/stakeholders rather than the TRUE stakeholders, which are the creators and beneficiaries of what is created. In nature trees and mammals a symbiotic system, as are many trees and mycelium - they each perform a roll that benefits the other and in turn receive benefit from the other.
a private company just like a private person can do as they see fit. a publicly traded company has different parameters, but ultimately less gov and regulations and zero taxation sorts everything out.
Glass-Steagall Act and Sherman Antitrust Act would be the bare minimus....
How does that fit in with your thoughts on my reflections? It seems like without removing the shareholder principle, you get big companies swallowing smaller ones rather than true competition of products, services, ideas...
More complex than shareholder "capitalism."
"Neo-classic economics conceptualizes economics as path-independent. An EFFICIENT MARKET is path-independent, as is a market with a single, stable equilibrium. In a path-independent system, it should be impossible to make money purely by trading, WITHOUT PRODUCING ANYTHING OF VALUE. That sort of activity is called arbitrage, and basic financial theory holds that in an efficient market arbitrage is impossible, because everything is already priced in such a way that there are no inconsistencies. You cannot trade dollars for yen, trade those for euros, back to dollars and make a profit. Nonetheless hedge funds and investment banks have made fortunes trading currency markets. Their success should be impossible in an efficient market but this does not seem to have bothered economics theorists."
You're losing me, I'm afraid, but to me, and I'd love your feedback, preferably in lay language - but it seems to be that having stakeholders creates disloyalty to the end user and incentives for deception, cheap products that are marketed well and choosing cheap labor over healthy, happy employees, who in turn will make better products and services. So it seems to me if you just have the person with the business and their employees and their customer, the relationship itself creates capitalism in a benevolent, symbiotic ways where one produces what they other wants/ needs, and the customer holds the business accountable for integrity, quality, innovation and values.
Instead of "profit" for a "company" - treating a company as a "person" - if all "profit" just went to the business owner and their employees or was reinvested in community, R&D etc, it seems better to me than having stakeholders who would put profit above the wellbeing of the product/service recipient. Of course some owners and employees may want to cut corners, but the customer will see this and be able to use capitalism to hold them accountable....by not buying their product - whereas WEF wants ALL stakeholder capitalism where they create our desires and control all parameters and loyalty is to shareholders/stakeholders rather than the TRUE stakeholders, which are the creators and beneficiaries of what is created. In nature trees and mammals a symbiotic system, as are many trees and mycelium - they each perform a roll that benefits the other and in turn receive benefit from the other.
a private company just like a private person can do as they see fit. a publicly traded company has different parameters, but ultimately less gov and regulations and zero taxation sorts everything out.
Glass-Steagall Act and Sherman Antitrust Act would be the bare minimus....
How does that fit in with your thoughts on my reflections? It seems like without removing the shareholder principle, you get big companies swallowing smaller ones rather than true competition of products, services, ideas...
a broad topic....maybe a substack post one day in the future...
okay :)