There is such an economic/social philosophy called market socialism. I suggest you refer to the Wikipedia article on the subject matter and branch off from there. If you do, one realizes that some of the most pivotal economists, including the principal creator of the theory of comparative advantage, David Ricardo, was a market socialist.
You seem to struggle with the concept of economic rent. A worker owned firm is just as capable of exploiting and collecting an economic rent. You just don't have a problem when the workers benefit from the economic rent.
Let's go through this slowly for you. Economic rent is created in capitalism through exploitation of worker. In socialism the owner is the worker. You can't create rent by exploiting yourself!
If anyone wants to see how truely clueless Reiver is regarding economic rent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent
For someone with a 'masters' in economics, you're jolly reliant on wikipedia. The profits created through underpayment are rent. They cannot exist if owners are workers. You've argued against a very obvious point, merely advertising that your knowledge of economics just isn't up to scratch!
Did you have a point relevant to what you choose to quote and respond to? Did Ricardo implement a successful socialist economic system?
Don't fib now (you couldn't even provide an understanding of wage determination). Your "workers in socialism will get economic rents from exploiting themselves" argument was spectacular, even for you!
Like I said, you obviously dont even comprehend the meaning of economic rent. Underpayment to workers is but one of 100s of forms of economic rent. Refer to your jr high economic texts for clarification if you dont like wikipedia.
In terms of comparison between capitalism and socialism, its obvious the most important one. All obvious really! Your attempts at attack are woeful.
From one perspective, there seems to be no incentive to pay multimillion dollar bonuses to management, under stereotypical forms of socialism as described in the political-science definition of socialism. Where would "miss-allocation" of "economic rent" be allocated to in that case?
Here is the point is was making: Special pleading on your part won't work since my argument doesn't need to rely on it as yours tends to rely on special pleading.
If it were the ONLY one, you would of had a point. Its not and you dont. - - - Updated - - - I'll take that as an answer of NO to both questions, that you just couldnt bring yourself to provide.
You may have missed that point with your special pleading of only a political-science definition of last millennium being the "only" version of socialism. Besides, you haven't had a valid argument to rebut my claim that socialism is are requirement for States and statism; besides your special pleading.
Its, without doubt, the most significant. Good of you to admit that employers make inefficient economic rents from exploitation though. Progress is being made!
So insignificant it isnt even mentioned in a basic summary of the concept. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent#Classical_factor_rent
You're still using wikipedia? Golly! You won't be able to deny the significance of the economic rents created through underpayment (Something even accepted by neoclassical analysis). However, as I said, its jolly good of you to admit the existence of inefficient economic rents from exploitation.
A pubicly owned water company sells the same product and services as a privately owned water company sells.
Wikipedia trumps the (*)(*)(*)(*) you dream up in your own mind, every time. Economic rents in relation to labor is most frequently in terms of OVER payment to workers
Which privately owned Firm has a consumer base sufficient to support this type of infrastructure: That is a difference between public sector "firms" and private sector firms. - - - Updated - - - I have not felt any need to resort to fallacy for my Cause, merely due to Wikipedia articles.
The biggest reason for overpayment is the internal labour market; itself used to enable greater worker compliance and to reduce labour bargaining strength (with additional negative knock-on effects such as 'crowding' effects on certain discriminated socio-economic groups)
Has any article explained why only "lower wage" employees are deemed to be overpaid, instead of higher wage employees, ceteris paribus?
