What do you guys think of these ideas?

The society I envision starts from a principle that democratic socialists already take seriously: ordinary people should have far more control over the institutions that shape their lives. Where my approach differs is that I do not believe achieving economic democracy requires concentrating economic power in the state. I would rather distribute that power as widely as possible—among workers, communities, consumers, and democratic public institutions.

Most mature businesses would operate as worker-owned cooperatives. Workers would elect their leadership, have meaningful representation in major decisions, receive fair compensation, and share in the surplus their labor helps create. Managers and specialists could still earn more for greater responsibility or scarce skills, but the company would exist primarily for the benefit of the people who work there and the customers it serves rather than outside shareholders seeking ever-higher returns.

These cooperatives would still compete in genuine markets. If one company pays poorly, talented workers would have an incentive to join a better one. If another charges excessive prices, consumers could choose a competitor. Competition would therefore take place primarily between businesses for workers and customers rather than between individual workers struggling against one another for basic economic security.

Outside investment would remain possible without allowing wealthy investors to accumulate control over workplaces. Established cooperatives needing capital could raise money from the public through time-limited investments similar to bonds. An individual might invest $5, $500, or $50,000 in a cooperative they trust, receive an agreed return for providing that capital, and eventually be repaid. Investors would be compensated for risk without gaining permanent ownership or governing power over the workers.

Government would have a different but equally important role. Democratic public institutions would guarantee or provide essential services that markets frequently distribute poorly or unequally, including healthcare, education, infrastructure, transportation, public spaces, and other basic resources. Access to healthcare or education should not depend on whether someone happens to have the right employer or enough money at a particular moment in their life.

Providing these guarantees would expand individual freedom rather than diminish it. Someone could leave an abusive employer without losing healthcare, change careers without risking their family's basic security, pursue education, start a cooperative, care for a family member, or take an entrepreneurial risk with a stronger social foundation beneath them.

At the same time, government itself should remain democratically accountable and constitutionally limited. Civil liberties, freedom of speech, due process, equal rights, privacy, freedom of association, and the protections of the Bill of Rights should remain fundamental. Replacing concentrated corporate power with concentrated government power would simply exchange one hierarchy for another.

The objective is therefore not central planning and not unrestricted shareholder capitalism. It is the democratization and decentralization of power.

Workers should have power in their workplaces. Citizens should have power over their government. Consumers should retain meaningful choice. Entrepreneurs should remain free to create new enterprises. Investors should be able to earn reasonable returns for supplying useful capital. Communities should have strong public institutions available to everyone.

Economic growth would then have a more direct path toward improving ordinary lives. When a cooperative becomes more productive, the people doing the work can receive higher compensation, better benefits, shorter hours, stronger retirement security, improved workplaces, or profit distributions. When technological improvements reduce production costs, competition can help push those gains toward lower prices rather than allowing all of the benefit to accumulate at the top.

This system does not require everyone to earn the same amount, eliminate markets, abolish private possessions, or have government officials run businesses. Its goal is much simpler: prevent enormous concentrations of economic power from allowing a small number of people—whether corporate owners or government officials—to dominate everyone else.

The underlying principle is that democracy should not stop when a person enters their workplace. A genuinely free society should give ordinary people meaningful control over both the political institutions governing them and the economic institutions in which they spend much of their lives.

The desired result is not perfect equality. It is a society in which prosperity is broadly shared, necessities are accessible, markets remain competitive, work provides dignity and security, political rights are protected, and neither extreme wealth nor centralized government can easily overpower the individual.

In short, it is an attempt to combine economic democracy with individual liberty: public provision where collective action works best, competitive markets where markets work best, and democratic worker ownership where concentrated private ownership currently gives a small minority disproportionate control over the economy.

reddit.com
u/trickstah200 — 1 day ago

What do you guys think of these ideas?

I did use AI but I edited and rewrote multiple large portions of this.

I'm more looking for criticism and how to improve this economic philosophy.

The society I envision starts from a principle that democratic socialists already take seriously: ordinary people should have far more control over the institutions that shape their lives. Where my approach differs is that I do not believe achieving economic democracy requires concentrating economic power in the state. I would rather distribute that power as widely as possible—among workers, communities, consumers, and democratic public institutions.

Most mature businesses would operate as worker-owned cooperatives. Workers would elect their leadership, have meaningful representation in major decisions, receive fair compensation, and share in the surplus their labor helps create. Managers and specialists could still earn more for greater responsibility or scarce skills, but the company would exist primarily for the benefit of the people who work there and the customers it serves rather than outside shareholders seeking ever-higher returns.

These cooperatives would still compete in genuine markets. If one company pays poorly, talented workers would have an incentive to join a better one. If another charges excessive prices, consumers could choose a competitor. Competition would therefore take place primarily between businesses for workers and customers rather than between individual workers struggling against one another for basic economic security.

Outside investment would remain possible without allowing wealthy investors to accumulate control over workplaces. Established cooperatives needing capital could raise money from the public through time-limited investments similar to bonds. An individual might invest $5, $500, or $50,000 in a cooperative they trust, receive an agreed return for providing that capital, and eventually be repaid. Investors would be compensated for risk without gaining permanent ownership or governing power over the workers.

The government would have a different but equally important role. Democratic public institutions would guarantee or provide essential services that markets frequently distribute poorly or unequally, including healthcare, education, infrastructure, transportation, public spaces, and other basic resources. Access to healthcare or education should not depend on whether someone happens to have the right employer or enough money at a particular moment in their life.

Providing these guarantees would expand individual freedom rather than diminish it. Someone could leave an abusive employer without losing healthcare, change careers without risking their family's basic security, pursue education, start a cooperative, care for a family member, or take an entrepreneurial risk with a stronger social foundation beneath them.

At the same time, the government itself should remain democratically accountable and constitutionally limited. Civil liberties, freedom of speech, due process, equal rights, privacy, freedom of association, and the protections of the Bill of Rights should remain fundamental. Replacing concentrated corporate power with concentrated government power would simply exchange one hierarchy for another.

The objective is therefore not central planning and not unrestricted shareholder capitalism. It is the democratization and decentralization of power.

Workers should have power in their workplaces. Citizens should have power over their government. Consumers should retain meaningful choices. Entrepreneurs should remain free to create new enterprises. Investors should be able to earn reasonable returns for supplying useful capital. Communities should have strong public institutions available to everyone.

Economic growth would then have a more direct path toward improving ordinary lives. When a cooperative becomes more productive, the people doing the work can receive higher compensation, better benefits, shorter hours, stronger retirement security, improved workplaces, or profit distributions. When technological improvements reduce production costs, competition can help push those gains toward lower prices rather than allowing all of the benefit to accumulate at the top.

This system does not require everyone to earn the same amount, eliminate markets, abolish private possessions, or have government officials run businesses. Its goal is much simpler: prevent enormous concentrations of economic power from allowing a small number of people—whether corporate owners or government officials—to dominate everyone else.

The underlying principle is that democracy should not stop when a person enters their workplace. A genuinely free society should give ordinary people meaningful control over both the political institutions governing them and the economic institutions in which they spend much of their lives.

The desired result is not perfect equality. It is a society in which prosperity is broadly shared, necessities are accessible, markets remain competitive, work provides dignity and security, political rights are protected, and neither extreme wealth nor centralized government can easily overpower the individual.

In short, it is an attempt to combine economic democracy with individual liberty: public provision where collective action works best, competitive markets where markets work best, and democratic worker ownership where concentrated private ownership currently gives a small minority disproportionate control over the economy.

reddit.com
u/trickstah200 — 1 day ago

What would you call this view? I don't know what to identify it as?

I think companies should be heavily influenced by the employees and the profits they bring to the company.

I think the view that company owners take home all the profit by right is ridiculous. You employed people as an agreement to work together to make money, labor was given to bring profits to the company. Each employee should receive a proportionate wage to the company's profits. This would incentivise employees in private sector jobs to work harder to improve profits and increase their own wages in the process.

Wouldn't this be the real American dream?

Increased competition nationwide would drive down costs.

Housing would become more affordable .

Wages would go up.

Prices go down.

As it stands the richest people in society who can buy up the most companies control those companies.

However the companies should be controlled by the owner as an executive director and the organization of employees as a unionized body.

This would bring back back the golden age of America in my opinion.

The richest country in the world, but does it really feel like it?

reddit.com
u/trickstah200 — 9 days ago

Frame vs machine pricing

So overall, I seem to understand that most people are not happy with the price of the steam machine, is the frame expected to be more expensive? Is that Guaranteed or just speculation, is it likely? Does anybody have a strong idea of the price based on the steam machines price?

reddit.com
u/trickstah200 — 2 months ago

Half life 3 chances

When the frame was being developed there were leaks found multiple times and it was clear to many people they were working on it, but I have seen and heard 0 about a new half life game, or anything like that for VR or otherwise.

What are the chances that they have been working on a huge new installment of the game series and have leaked absolutely nothing this entire time with hundreds of people trying to find leaks about it 24/7.

reddit.com
u/trickstah200 — 2 months ago