Cooperative Business

[Jubal]

I'm certainly not ignoring that money needs to move around an economy, I just don't think that shares in companies need to move around an economy which is a totally different proposition. The reason that I dislike shares as an ownership mechanism is that basically I don't think people should be able to gain an income based on prior wealth. Sure, a real venture capitalist does take risks; but most investors are not actually in that position. At the small end it's people on higher end middle class incomes who invest in very broad-based financial trusts where the risk is close to zilch short of a 1929 level stock market collapse, at the large end (and very frequently) that share wealth is inherited.

So, basically, your model of the bold investor who cleverly knows how to put a business together and helps build the UK economy is not how most share ownership works, at all. Most share owners are basically sitting on their wealth as a rentier style income (I own this, so pay me money) in the same way that a landlord sits on theirs, except with even fewer obligations because shares don't ask for their drains to be fixed. Most investors don't even need to decide what to invest in, they pay people to do that for them. This contributes more or less nothing economically, and means that the benefits of a good year in business are enjoyed almost by definition by people who are already wealthy and don't need it. I'd prefer the benefits of a market economy to go to the people who, you know, actually do the work to make it happen. That in turn will lead to money circulating better, because bluntly put poorer people spend more of their money as a percentage. More consumer power, more demand, and the wheels keep turning. Ditto with non-profits, as Penty said the fact that a business doesn't make a profit doesn't mean that it doesn't do anything or move money around or generally be useful (this category includes basically the entire charitable sector, for example).

[Clockwork]

I forgot about this.

@Penty, Giving them money means it's like using money twice to pay for things. It changes the value of it. Money leaving the UK actually means we get more money more often than not as our currency is stronger than most. On currency, fair enough I'm wrong, it's not something I've looked into.

@Jub, I don't see how you can argue that shares aren't needed in an economy. Just take a look at any share index and see how much companies are worth. Sure, dislike it away but it has value and you can't change it without changing how every economy works. Asking the UK to leave them alone because they give you a bad taste is a piss poor idea for any country.

Inherited wealth is a large part of why people work hard to get huge sums of money. If you say that nobody should inherit (not you per se, you know) what reason is there for people to work hard to amass wealth (and therefore pay tax on it)? You'd ruin the country with medicority. I'm not sure if you're aware but it's like 0.5% of the county paying for 25% of it.

I did not build that model at all. What I was saying is that you'd force investors to take their money out of UK businesses. It would make no sense to put money into a Uk economy with cooperatives all over the show.

Charities by and large are bad economics. Ones like Bill Gates Foundation check the economic value before starting an enterprise but others sink money without creating any.

I honestly don't know what you think should happen instead of people who have investments making money off a good business year. To change that you'd have to put a ban on investments by UK citizens...I hope I don't need to explain why that's an even worse idea.

Why do we want more demand in this country Jub? In my and a fair few others opinions, we don't. Creating demand is not the sole and in the case of the UK not even close to the best way to develop the economy. Consumers have innate power, giving them more is unnecessary. Look up consumer sovereignty for more info but in short it's wallet voting. Worker power like you were wanting earlier is ok if you take a socialist stance but bad if you take a capitalist one.

[Pentagathus]

What are you talking about? Giving who money? In return for products or just donation? How is that like using money twice to pay for things?
By money leaving the UK do you mean UK investment in foreign companies or people trading Stirling for other currencies? I meant it as in businesses investing or spending surpluses made in the UK (taken from UK consumers) abroad, and I really don't see how that strengthens our economy (unless it's an investment that will be returned back to that company and redistributed to the UK but I wasn't meaning that sort of arrangement.) I'm this sense it surely has the same effect as importing goods that could be sourced domestically.

[Clockwork]

CIC's. As in the whole topic. CICs (including cooperatives) require money to start up. The businesses themselves don't generate profit, the clue is in the non-profit bit. If you give money to a business that hasn't earned it then the business is effectively selling a product (the business itself) without any value. When they spend that money to build it up, the money is used for a second time. Doing this for a nationwide chain or even lots of single outlets across the country will have a real effect.

[Pentagathus]

Non profits usually do generate a surplus, but they reinvest into the business or towards achieving their goal as a non profit. A successful not for profit would still be able to pay off loans made to start up. Coops are also not necessarily not for profit businesses.
Edit:
Also your concept of the money being spent twice still makes no sense. If the money was given to cover start up costs then it is being spent once, on the start up costs. It is being spent on what it is given for. Of course it will be spent again by whoever profits from the start up but that is normal circulation, the entire basis of discussion we are having.