Completely spit ballin here, but...If owners provided nothing of value, the amount of money made by owners would be a complete waste. As such, co-ops could afford to get rid of that waste and undercut owned companies, easily able to put them out of business. If an owner made ten million dollars, an otherwise suitably equal co-op would be able to invest up to ten million dollars in various ways that would be actually useful, rather than just wasting it by giving it to an owner.
Because this *hasn't happened* I pose the following questions:
why are there still hierarchical, owned companies if more efficient co-ops should be able to put them out of business? Does this not imply, primarily, that the owner actually does something valuable enough to warrant his existence?
