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'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.