Let us compare price-setting under conventional capitalism and Sustainablism. Under the former, no firm will:
• increase prices beyond the point where customers are willing to purchase the good or service produced by the firm: no willingness to pay = no sales = no firm = no profit for the owners
• decrease prices beyond the point the firm can cover the cost of producing the good or service: no means of production = no sales = no firm = no profit for the owners13
Firms naturally seek the highest possible price for their goods and services, and customers seek the lowest possible price. This tension is settled by the free market and the forces of supply and demand.
In contrast, Sustainablism establishes or assumes the following to achieve equilibrium:
• firms are composed of employees (specifically, the managerial class14) who set the prices of their goods and services
• sales are executed with customers, who accept the sales price
• this setting and acceptance of prices is required for a transaction to take place
• transactions create profits for owners
• owners want continuing profits
• because owners want continuing profits, they will make decisions that ensure the long-term life of the firm (rather than its destruction)
• Sustainablist firms are 50:50 owned by employees and customers
• Because ownership of Sustainablist firms is held equally by employees and customers, they must therefore fairly resolve any underlying tensions to set prices so that transactions can take place for themselves, as owners, to realize profit
I legitimately cannot see a difference here besides using different words to describe the same thing.
I'm amazed you managed to parse any meaning out of that. Like yeah no shit owners want to make profit so they'll keep customers "happy" insofar as it is profitable to do so. OR they could collude with other owners in related sectors to create artificial monopolies, force out any competition, and charge what they want for an awful product. Or they could create nothing at all and gather capital exclusively through their hypothetical value as determined by the magic bullshit generator of the stock market.
But you see, if customers own 50% of the company, they’ll want to pay higher prices solely from their pockets to make more profit that they have to split with all the other customers and workers.
And I guess if they’re not happy with the price or product they can stop being a customer but does that mean you’d have to give up your ownership?
I don’t know if he addressed this anywhere because it was too long and I didn’t read much of it.
I legitimately cannot see a difference here besides using different words to describe the same thing.
I'm amazed you managed to parse any meaning out of that. Like yeah no shit owners want to make profit so they'll keep customers "happy" insofar as it is profitable to do so. OR they could collude with other owners in related sectors to create artificial monopolies, force out any competition, and charge what they want for an awful product. Or they could create nothing at all and gather capital exclusively through their hypothetical value as determined by the magic bullshit generator of the stock market.
But you see, if customers own 50% of the company, they’ll want to pay higher prices solely from their pockets to make more profit that they have to split with all the other customers and workers.
And I guess if they’re not happy with the price or product they can stop being a customer but does that mean you’d have to give up your ownership? I don’t know if he addressed this anywhere because it was too long and I didn’t read much of it.