[Coyote]

A stock exchange is by definition a place where you trade the ownership shares of companies for money. Trading shares of an employee-owned company would be a contradiction of terms. An employee-owned company is free to do an IPO, but then it won't be an employee-owned company any more.

You're pointing out an inherent problem with the ownership structure of a worker-owned company, not a "discriminatory law". There is no law against selling shares, it's a self-imposed constraint.

Well said.

[mikema63]

As I said my best will have to wait till Monday, but the financial system in General is geared towards that type of corporate structure. All of our corporate and finance laws, our systems for allocating capital, and all our exchange types predates the cooperatives.

The entire system was created for more traditional firms.

Cooperatives aren't even designed to profit in the same way traditional firms do, they are nearly incompatable with the current financial institutions.

The fact that we allocate 90% of capital on an exchange incompatable with coops is an example of how the system isn't compatable with coops.

[SueDeNîmes]

No, I did not. It makes sense to expand in the sense that an expansion would generate an additional surplus in the economy. It is not going to happen if the incentives are screwed up by the the rules of the system preventing A&B from offering C $90k, in which case the potential win-win-win scenario is not going to happen. It is not going to happen because it's illegal. There is no contradiction.

Then I redirect you to my original comment : C then has incentive to step in as a competitor.

They are hiring at $90k, not at $200k, because they are rational beings. I thought that was pretty clear in my example.

As mud. You're still saying both that they are and aren't hiring