Again, I have explained it. You're simply struggling with Smith's rejection of hyper-rationality. There's no notion of 'one man, one island' selfish maximisation behaviour. The democratic firm will craft decisions according to social motivation. Harming others (and that is what a zero sum game necessarily is) will provoke revulsion. Love how you're trying to argue against Smith mind you!
How would an employer/employee model have more of a 'one man, one island' selfish maximization behavior than in a WSDE?
Corporations more closely follow hyper-rationality (which is appreciated in basic economics through concepts such as moral hazard). They're not constrained, towards long term sense, through motivation of the socially minded.
You're asking for repetition. Within a community, motivations are socially minded. Rather than boring me with your repetitive questions, shouldn't you read the Moral Sentiments?
You haven't answered the question of why a worker in a corporation is less inclined to rent-seek than a worker in a WSDE.
I have, you just haven't understood Smith. A corporation is more likely to act with hyper-rationality (and take advantage of asymmetric information). Decision-making in a worker owned enterprise, however, necessarily takes into account our social nature. Cheating, for example, is seen as a source of disutility. Exploiting others is deemed to be repugnant. This is basic economic psychology mind you, so its a shame you need your hand held. Mises.org failed to mention it?
Chortle, chortle! Did you think that after Deepwater Horizon? Corporations come the closest to hyper-rationality.
You thought it was just an accident? Wowsers. You must have missed all of the court cases. Long holiday?
Already said. Rent seeking is typically part of zero sum game behaviour. Would a worker enterprise exploit workers or consumers? The first makes no logical sense; the latter is unlikely because of socially motivated decision-making.
You're asking my why one firm might exploit people outside their firm. Do you understand human nature? At all?
What do you think Smith was talking about? He's referring to our human nature. But hey, have a go at Smith if you want. That would at least be amusing. Of course we can refer to more modern analysis, such as the criminals failing to follow the prisoner's dilemma logic. Behavioural economics makes fake libertarian "its human nature" comments look decidedly ignorant.
So you’re still sticking with your contention that no WSDE would ever exploit anyone outside of that firm. You have no understanding of human nature.
Look at the difference in our approach. I've referred to one of the great political economists (who happens to agree with me). I've also referred to behavioural economics, coupling it with well known experimental game theory. And your response? Any economics at all? Nope. Just the obligatory low brow 'its human nature it is'
So you have no evidence that a WSDE would never exploit anyone outside their firm. You simply assert it. Okay.
Chortle, chortle! Be serious in your response: I've referred to one of the great political economists (who happens to agree with me). I've also referred to behavioural economics, coupling it with well known experimental game theory. And your response? Any economics at all? Nope.
Adam Smith said that a WSDE would never exploit anyone outside their firm? Can you provide the quotation where he says this?