>>12455363>The costs are higher because the labor is less undercompensatedNo, because they are overcompensated.
Either way you look at it, they are less efficient and thus make workers worse off.
Workers are not only workers, they are consumers. If the products they are consuming cost too much, they have to work harder/longer for less pay.
>not because there's something inherently inefficient about not having absentee owners.There is though, many books have been written on this. Also they aren't "absentee", they are responsible for the health of the firm, have provided the upfront capital and take on the risks.
>These specific higher prices were caused directly by higher workforce earning/buying power in the first place.Yes, an artificial increase in labor costs means the cost of the goods workers receive would cost most.
The workers wouldn't benefit whatsoever from worker co-ops. The ones that exist in the economy today only survive due to special government privilege.
>Don't fall for the "macro is just micro but added up" schoolboy mistake.This is literally true and if you disagree you don't accept basic logic. Pic related.
> Learn some basic economics.Yes, I do understand austrian economics.
>Hardly a critique! The main critique is that it is empirically false.
https://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-us-profit-rate-was-abnormally-high.htmlAlso you didn't read the rest of the article, you just took one line.
>CockshottHAHAHAHA Come on man, the guy is a fucking joke.
See:
>>12453190Also:
https://cdn.mises.org/qjae7_1_6.pdf>empirically measure profit rates and labor-valuesSee above
>And the blog is for social democracy, which you would almost certainly mistake for socialism given your other attitudes.So? The guy is a keynesian, of course I disagree with him. He does a great point by point debunking of marxism though which I appreciate.
>first result on your googleI've been critiquing you manchildren for over a decade, kid.
