Phillip Blond

He doesn\’t seem to understand what he\’s talking about:

By removing the regulatory barriers to worker buy-outs of failing firms we could generate wealth and ownership among the low-waged, and stop firms from going to the wall.

A company that has no market for its production is still bust whether the workers own it or not. What is this wibble?

And what does he think happens when a firm does fail? Are the assets destroyed? No, they\’re redeployed to other, higher value, uses. This is the very definition of wealth creation: the movement of resources from lower to higher value uses.

He seems entirely ignorant.

10 comments on “Phillip Blond

  1. “A company that has no market for its production is still bust whether the workers own it or not. What is this wibble?”

    Lots of failing firms change ownership and recover.

  2. And what does he think happens when a firm does fail? Are the assets destroyed? No, they’re redeployed to other, higher value, uses. This is the very definition of wealth creation: the movement of resources from lower to higher value uses.

    For all I know it would happen in the real world. It is not true in my experience otherwise. Let us say a butcher goes under, its assets are chiefly the expertise of its employees its established clientele sources and reputation . Such ideas a commonly ascribed to with large business when the casino is open but seemingly impossibly complex in an ordinary context .
    Anyway Tim let us suppose that under the pressure from internet sourced buying a Baby product shop goes under . Let us say that the big ticket one off items it deals with require experience and trust to sell properly , let us say that the proprietor can tell which baby seat fist which car . Let us say this vital service as business model is defeated by the first cheat problem of people taking the advise and then sourcing the product elsewhere .
    Perhaps there is no option but your Polly Anna view of the market fits exceedingly poorly with the experience of anyone working in a real one or anyone who observes value destroyed not reassigned by its processes .

    What is left , in this case , is far far worse

    The market is like a Combine Harvester , normal civil life and family and ideally like well ordered gardens .It is not always appropriate to mow the lawn with a Combine harvester .This admittedly off hand remark reminds me that the alliance of Libertarian Liberal and Conservative is a marriage of convenience at times

  3. “It is not true in my experience otherwise.”

    I’ll give you one real example. The Palm Pilot came about because of the ideas and expertise of the staff at the failed GO Corporation, and the ideas an innovation of that lead us to today’s smartphone market, with the billions in wealth that’s created.

    I have to say Newmania that your writing is very difficult to follow. Please spend a bit more time thinking about what you write so your ideas are communicated better.

  4. Sorry KT ,I was working whilst opining , I would have deleted that if I could . (My shame is boundless. ) Still , while I have no doubt that there are examples of assets finding their way to better employment,( The old Boot maker to the red army Nokia for example ) , there are equally examples ,like deep mining and land management, where the market cannot be taken neat.
    I was replying to Tim’s dewy eyed belief in “The Market” as some sort of uniquely infallible judge and jury . It is not .

  5. Moreover – what “regulatory bars” is he talking about? MBOs already account for the vast majority of pre-packed administrations, there’s nothing to stop non-management employees using the same procedures – the bars are practical rather than legal.

  6. “I was replying to Tim’s dewy eyed belief in “The Market” as some sort of uniquely infallible judge and jury . It is not .”

    I don’t think Tim’s ever said the market is infallible. It’s always veering from optimism to pessimism in different sectors. And there are non-free markets, such as the one GO Corp. tried to engage in (they were crushed by Microsoft dirty tricks).

    Overall, taken as a whole, in the long run, etc., the Market does a pretty good job at allocating resources where they can be used efficiently. It certainly beats Labour MPs deciding what we shall eat and where we shall live!

  7. But I think the problem Kaytee is not that Tim thinks its the best solution, he sometimes gives the impression that he thinks a market exists independent of people and institutions and ideas. So if a firm is going bust no change in ownership or management or anything can help as the ‘market’ has spoken.

    I remember a classic example of this (not Tim) in a debate about privatising social security in which the person noted that if you were worried about stock market returns falling short everyone could simply have a protected policy, ie using put options. There apparently wasn’t even a question over whether there would be enough people willing to sell such puts.

  8. As a sometime mining engineer can I ask why deep mining wouldn’t benefit from neat market?

    It surely can’t be worse than the state interference and dithering the industry generally suffers under.

  9. “And what does he think happens when a firm does fail? Are the assets destroyed? No, they’re redeployed to other, higher value, uses.”

    Indeed, the case of Rover and the Phoenix 4 being a good case in point.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.