Modern-style companies have existed for a couple hundred years now. For some reason, co-ops (employee ownership) has had very limited success in that whole time, and across all free market countries. Could that reason be that it's a less effective method of providing value? In economics terms, I think what we have here is the tragedy of the commons - if all employees equally benefit from improving company's situation, what incentive I as an industrious and creative employee have to make the company better? - I'll do the hard work and will only reap a tiny fraction of the reward. Contrast that with an industrious and creative owner, who reaps a large part of the reward, and thus has a huge incentive to constantly improve his company. It is very visible in communist economies - the companies are owned by everyone so people care about them as much as they care about the pavement on the street or a public toilet.
> It is very visible in communist economies - the companies are owned by everyone so people care about them as much as they care about the pavement on the street or a public toilet.
In existing and past "communist" economies the companies are NOT directly owned by people who work there. They are owned by the government who employs the workers.
Which is not the same as direct ownership. It's similar to the dynamic of democracy at work in the US at federal level vs. local municipal level. If large-scale federal level democracy doesn't work too well, we're not immediately dismissing democracy outright, right?
You are putting far too much trust into speculative market forces.