No, you need a system to fund new companies, only capitalism does that naturally. The alternative to capitalism would be central planning, or that we vote to fund new companies.
So you would have to organize a vote to make a new search engine if you thought Google wasn't good enough, and without that vote there would be no new search engine funded so we wouldn't have alternatives, so people wouldn't even know if anything better could exist.
It is hard enough today to get a handful of founders and investors agree to make a company, imagine needing thousands to millions of people to vote to agree on making a new company... I don't see how that could work nearly as well.
Also I asked for real examples, not hypothetical, when you make up hypothetical scenarios like that you miss many real world requirements like what I brought up here, your system doesn't solve that. To have a healthy market you need to fund new promising ideas, capitalism does that via rich people, communism does that via central planning, how would you do it except voting? And as I said above, voting isn't good enough, voting to fund new companies would massively slow down progress.
Most wouldn't want a new company, workers doesn't benefit from it, without rich people you need hundreds or thousands of workers to risk their savings to fund a company just to most likely lose all their money and not even get paid since the company folded and they were paid profits instead of salaries, that isn't something they would be happy to do.
> No, you need a system to fund new companies, only capitalism does that naturally.
I'm not sure why you have come to believe this. Companies can start small and grow large as they need to. As companies grow and gain employees, those employees gain equal control over their company in the same way that citizens to a country gain the ability to vote. I'm not sure where this conception comes from that we need to have the entire country vote on starting new companies, that has nothing to do with this.
> capitalism does that via rich people
You appear to think that the goal of this is to eliminate wealth inequality, but that's not the point at all. You appear to be importing your conceptions about communism into this conversation, but this has nothing at all to do with communism. This is a market economy where companies are structured as democracies rather than as monarchies.
No, you need a system to fund new companies, only capitalism does that naturally. The alternative to capitalism would be central planning, or that we vote to fund new companies.
So you would have to organize a vote to make a new search engine if you thought Google wasn't good enough, and without that vote there would be no new search engine funded so we wouldn't have alternatives, so people wouldn't even know if anything better could exist.
It is hard enough today to get a handful of founders and investors agree to make a company, imagine needing thousands to millions of people to vote to agree on making a new company... I don't see how that could work nearly as well.
Also I asked for real examples, not hypothetical, when you make up hypothetical scenarios like that you miss many real world requirements like what I brought up here, your system doesn't solve that. To have a healthy market you need to fund new promising ideas, capitalism does that via rich people, communism does that via central planning, how would you do it except voting? And as I said above, voting isn't good enough, voting to fund new companies would massively slow down progress.
Most wouldn't want a new company, workers doesn't benefit from it, without rich people you need hundreds or thousands of workers to risk their savings to fund a company just to most likely lose all their money and not even get paid since the company folded and they were paid profits instead of salaries, that isn't something they would be happy to do.