Insights into Post-Capitalism: Why the Next Dominant Firm May Be Non-Distributing

[aurum]

2 hours ago, Bjorn K Holmstrom said:

Risk isn't infinite. When you pay off a mortgage, the bank doesn't own your kitchen forever. Why should a VC own a company forever?

You cannot compare VC investing to mortgages.

They have different terms because they operate differently, with different goals and incentives.

If startups wanted a bank loan, i.e a mortgage, they could get one. But notice they often don't. They specifically seek VC funding, because VC funding is superior for their goals.

VC exists precisely because what you are describing doesn't work for innovative firms.

Risk IS functionally infinite for a business because survival never ends. It doesn't matter how big you are, you are always at risk of losing it all. There is no time when you are in the clear. There are always competitors, changing markets, recessions, regulatory changes, lawsuits, loss of employees, etc.

2 hours ago, Bjorn K Holmstrom said:

 NDEs are for-profit engines that reinvest 100% of surplus into wages, R&D, and growth.

Because they don't leak 10-20% of revenue to passive shareholders, they can outcompete extractive firms on innovation and resilience. That's a competitive advantage, not idealism.

If they're so competitively advantageous, then where are they?

Why isn't Amazon an NDE?

2 hours ago, Bjorn K Holmstrom said:

 Pension funds and sovereign wealth funds (managing trillions) actively seek the stable 7-12% yields that NDEs provide

That's fine, but that's not going to get you innovative firms that rise to prominence.

You need high-risk investing. End of story.

 

 

 

[Bjorn K Holmstrom]

1. "Where are they?"

Bosch (€90B revenue, massive R&D) is an NDE. Rolex is an NDE. The model scales, it's just rare because the current financial ecosystem selects for extraction, not retention.

As that ecosystem shows strain (enshittification, monopoly degradation), the niche opens. We're in the transition phase, the legal and funding instruments are being built now.

Your question assumes the current dominant model is optimal. It's just current.

2. Risk types

You're conflating operational risk (company might fail) with capital risk (investor loses money).
Operational risk is infinite, the company must always fight to survive
Capital risk is finite, once an investor has 5x return, their capital risk is zero
Why should they extract 10% of profits in year 20 when they have zero skin in the game? That's not risk compensation, that's a tax.

3. The founder's choice

You claim startups choose VCs because the model is superior. But if founders had a real choice:
Option A: Sell 20% forever (VC)
Option B: Sell 20% until I repay you 5x, then I get it back (redeemable equity)

Every rational founder would choose B. They choose A only because B doesn't exist at scale yet. And yes, in Option B you still get the VC's expertise and network during the growth phase. You just don't pay for it forever.

We're not arguing banks should fund startups. We're arguing for high-risk/capped-reward instruments that align incentives without permanent capture.

You're looking at today's menu and asking why everyone isn't ordering a dish that doesn't exist yet. We're writing the recipe.

[Davino]

@aurum Yes, those are all good points. As I mentioned on the limitations of NDEs, it's all about getting the ball rolling. My assumption is that over the next centuries, some company will get that ball rolling, getting into top positions and making a powerful statement into the global economy.

[Davino]

Another important general point: this a prediction/tendency for the next 300 years, don't be short-sighted in this sense, you gotta see very long term how this will play out.

Edited December 29, 2025 by Davino

[aurum]

17 hours ago, Davino said:

My assumption is that over the next centuries, some company will get that ball rolling, getting into top positions and making a powerful statement into the global economy.

I appreciate the long-view.

The question is still two-fold:

1) Whether NDEs would actually be competitive in an environment where extraction is less adaptive.

2) Whether passive shareholders are inherently maladaptive extraction

I would argue that NDEs would mostly not be competitive in serious sectors, even 300 years from now. Because the reality is that shareholders = power. This is true even if there is an extractive element as well.

[Davino]

@aurum How do you see the economical landscape evolving? 

I'm interested to see how you think it will unfold

[Breakingthewall]

On 29/12/2025 at 2:42 PM, Davino said:

Another important general point: this a prediction/tendency for the next 300 years

I would say it's impossible to make a prediction because it depends heavily on the evolution of technology, and that could take unexpected paths: immortality, unlimited energy, and so on.

What does seem obvious is that in the coming years we will see China explode. Never before in history has there been such a push, a billion wills fanatically coordinated forward. The Chinese capitalist model is very different from the American one, since it is state-controlled and follows a fixed agenda. Anyone who deviates from it is expelled. Let's see how it evolves 

[aurum]

7 hours ago, Davino said:

@aurum How do you see the economical landscape evolving? 

I'm interested to see how you think it will unfold

I expect that as consciousness evolves and society develops, we will see externalities become less economically adaptive. This is a law of consciousness. As identity expands and intelligence increases, the bias and double standards of the mind become less tenable. Currency and business structure will likely evolve. We will likely develop global institutions that help coordinate global economic activity.

That said, survival will still continue. Which means competition, scarcity, zero-sum dynamics, power, leverage, unique advantage, positioning, innovation, etc. Anything that doesn't bend to survival will still die out.

Beyond that, I don't feel confident in making too many particular predictions. It's possible we could see things like decaying currency, universal basic income, a movement away from debt-based economics, doughnut economics and the rise of B-corps. But I don't know at this point. The economy is an organically evolving entity and no one can consistently predict it. We simply adapt to survival incentives. 

[pablo_aka_god]

Also the system must be simple otherwise implementing it at planet scale would be impossible.

I think these 3 changes would get us in the right direction:

1- after 10M USD all inheritance is taxed at 95%

2-total income above 1M/year is taxed at 70% and income above 5M/year is taxed at 90%

3-reinvest all this extra tax money into education.

just using the tax system we can get a long way

We need more people who are able to afford housing and quality education and much less billionaires who can get into politics. This is the fundamental flaw of capitalism today.

Edited December 31, 2025 by pablo_aka_god

[pablo_aka_god]

Also kill the real estate industry. 

Homes are for people to live in not for speculation.

Owning 2, 3 homes max is still fine! I'm not advocating for Communism. Owning +3 properties should be extremely taxed.

Want to invest your money? invest it in a company that creates real value.

Edited December 31, 2025 by pablo_aka_god

[Davino]

@Breakingthewall I agree China is going to be a big player 

[Davino]

On 31/12/2025 at 1:44 PM, pablo_aka_god said:

1- after 10M USD all inheritance is taxed at 95%

2-total income above 1M/year is taxed at 70% and income above 5M/year is taxed at 90%

These are ungrounded counterproductive measures. Who is gonna create wealth if you're putting such glass ceilings? You would be destroying ambitions and businesses that give job to the population. You'd end up having a massive capital migration to other countries, a reduction of external investment in your country and an economical isolation and stagnation.

Please research more the fundamentals of economics and politics. Ask ChatGPT for a detailed analysis on why these measures would fail when applied.

[Infinity16]

I personally think georgism will be more feasible than socialism, both for political reasons and for the geopolitical paradigm.

[Joseph Maynor]

On 12/24/2025 at 9:33 AM, Davino said:

The most plausible evolution of a post-capitalist economy is not the abolition of firms, not communism, not central planning, and not a stage green utopian shift in consumer ethics. It’s the rise of non-distributing enterprises: organizations that can compete in markets and generate surpluses, but cannot legally distribute those surpluses to private owners. Any excess is reinvested into developing their mission, strategic vision and value delivery.

This single constraint of 'no private extraction' changes everything and shifts money-centric capitalism to product-value-centric capitalism. It flips the organizing principle of the firm from “maximize profit for owners” to “maximize value delivered to stakeholders while remaining financially self-sustaining.”

Wouldn't this require law and compliance to enforce too?  

[Basman]

On 31/12/2025 at 1:44 PM, pablo_aka_god said:

Also the system must be simple otherwise implementing it at planet scale would be impossible.

I think these 3 changes would get us in the right direction:

1- after 10M USD all inheritance is taxed at 95%

2-total income above 1M/year is taxed at 70% and income above 5M/year is taxed at 90%

3-reinvest all this extra tax money into education.

just using the tax system we can get a long way

We need more people who are able to afford housing and quality education and much less billionaires who can get into politics. This is the fundamental flaw of capitalism today.

I'd add closing of loop holes that skirt around taxation by technicality. Like what Elon Musk is doing by being paid in stocks and borrowing money. 

Foodora left Australia without paying the workers the wages they where owed. Internationals shouldn't be barred from running their business in one country if they don't live up to their legal obligations in another country through an international coalition.

The government needs to have corporations under control and not the other way around. There's too much corruption politically and a lack of political will to regulate big corporations. One thing that China does right is that they are a sovereign power over their corporation.

[Lord of Darkness]

China sucks cos it doest have freedom to religions etc

America is awsome cos its an ocean of illusions

Europe? Whats that... bunch of petty half loosed kingdoms... political joke...

 

But seriously, best system would be when technocrats invent a gun that automatically would be shooting them in the foot... that would be true intelligence and not some artificial one

[LordFall]

@Davino I appreciate your post and your vision for a better future. I agree with @aurum that what you're describing is just a non-profit as they already exist today.

If you wanna really envision the economic model of the future you have to centralize AI agents into it. All of our civilization is based on labor and you can just say that wealth is how much labor you can make other people do on your behalf. Having artificial abundant labor is an insane revolution. Distributing AI globally is vision of seizing the means of production that Marx had 2 centuries ago.