jheapsandClaude Opus 5.5
037e29055a
Add "Making It Last": how public programs get killed (Ex-Im, CDFI Fund, GGRF, NCCB) and survive (Bank of North Dakota, electric co-ops, Farm Credit), and rules that assume any president can replace the board after Trump v. Slaughter. Lending standards fixed in law, a "not tested" verdict if good applicants are turned away, no freeze from board vacancies, honest limits on where the money sits, and federal test with state copies. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <[email protected]> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01QWPs69B8nQZjtPEUXMKzZx
37 lines
7.5 KiB
Markdown
37 lines
7.5 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
title: Open Problems
|
|
section: Guardrails
|
|
order: 140
|
|
summary: An honest list of what isn't solved yet.
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Open Problems
|
|
|
|
An honest list of what the model hasn't solved yet, most dangerous first.
|
|
|
|
1. **Adverse selection on founders.** *(The most dangerous.)* The lock removes the exit, and profits are shared with every member. In the success case a co-op founder ends up with somewhere between a fifth and a twentieth of what a conventional owner of the same firm would ([The Founder Problem](founder-problem.md)). For founders without wealth the gap in what the bet is *worth* is smaller, but at the top it's decisive. If the strongest founders go conventional, the bank's portfolio is the rejected pool, and the test fails for reasons that say nothing about co-ops. The pilot publishes founders' backgrounds so this can at least be seen.
|
|
|
|
2. **The horizon problem.** *(Mostly answered.)* Members near retirement have little reason to vote for investments whose payoff arrives after they leave. The evidence from France and Italy finds no underinvestment where co-ops must keep a reserve, and [Investing for the Long Run](the-long-run.md) closes the main routes around this model's reserve: pay above the going rate, sales of assets, and development spending. Still open: nothing forces a co-op to maintain its equipment once its loan is repaid, reserve money could be wasted on bad expansion, and it's unsettled whether 30% is enough and whether the account rate is right. Letting members sell their places to incoming workers was rejected, because that is how the plywood co-ops ended up sold.
|
|
|
|
3. **Members' savings sit inside their employer.** *(Partly answered.)* [Member capital accounts](capital-accounts.md) are capped at a year's pay, protected by a solvency test, and now insured by a pool the co-ops pay for ([Protecting Members' Savings](savings-guarantee.md)). It covers final wages, former members' payouts and a protected slice of current accounts. Still open: the pool has no government backing, so a wave of failures in one recession could outrun it. Nobody knows yet what the premiums really need to be. And its legal form, probably insurance under state law, isn't settled.
|
|
|
|
4. **Is the lock too rigid?** A co-op that should be sold (a better operator exists, the members want out) can only go to another co-op. If the co-op sector is small, that buyer pool is tiny, and viable firms may be liquidated instead of rescued. The federation as buyer of last resort is a partial answer. Critics on the right add a sharper version: a lock that outlasts a repaid loan by generations is a permanent restriction on selling property, bought with one loan, and it binds members who never agreed to it. The lock is now built to hold in layers, including an independent lock share and rules against selling the business piece by piece ([The Lock](the-lock.md#how-the-lock-is-made-to-hold)). Its biggest legal gap is bankruptcy: federal bankruptcy law generally overrides limits on selling a bankrupt company's property, so the lock only holds in bankruptcy if Congress amends that law. Italy offers a softer model: a co-op there can convert into an ordinary company, but its accumulated reserves go to the co-op development fund, not to the members ([Has This Been Tried?](precedents.md#italys-co-op-funds-coopfond-and-the-marcora-law)). That would keep the part of the lock that stops members cashing out what earlier generations built, and drop the part that stops a firm from ever changing hands.
|
|
|
|
5. **Scale.** Even a total success at pilot scale leaves most workers in conventional firms. The labor-market effect needs a sector large enough to move wages, and nobody knows how long growth to that size takes, if it happens at all. That's the price of not forcing it.
|
|
|
|
6. **Political durability.** *(Partly answered.)* Gradual construction invites gradual repeal. [Making It Last](durability.md) builds the bank to survive a hostile government: the lending standards and the test are fixed in law, board vacancies can't freeze lending, the verdict says "not tested" rather than "failed" if the bank turns away applicants who meet its own standards, and repeal can't unlock the co-ops. Still open: after the Supreme Court's 2026 ruling any president can replace the bank's board; money not yet lent can be taken back in a budget bill; the lock's bankruptcy protection depends on a federal law that can be repealed; and at pilot scale the sector has no real constituency.
|
|
|
|
7. **Growth and dilution.** Softened by the tenure ramp, not eliminated. In steady state, an equal split per head still means a marginal hire must generate the average surplus to break even for incumbents. Capital-intensive expansion into lower-margin lines will face internal resistance conventional firms don't have.
|
|
|
|
8. **Who decides which sectors are "essential"?** Subsidy authority is price-setting power over a large chunk of the labor market, and every low-margin industry will suddenly discover it is Essential.
|
|
|
|
9. **The 1/N problem.** *(Mostly answered.)* Peer monitoring works at 30 people; at 10,000 your extra effort raises the pool by a rounding error. The answer is culture and structure: co-ops really do push out free riders, and the federation model keeps units small enough for monitoring to bite while pooling risk above them.
|
|
|
|
10. **The pilot's own weak points.** [The pilot](pilot-spec.md) puts the burden of proof on the co-ops, which means roughly a 1-in-10 chance of shutting down a pilot that was actually working. It tests individual co-ops, not the [federation](federation.md) support network Mondragon relied on. Its [support lottery](pilot-spec.md#the-support-lottery) tests hands-on help after the loan, but not help *before* a co-op exists, which is where Mondragon started and which might matter most for getting enough good co-ops founded. And unlike Mondragon and Italy's Marcora Law, it doesn't require members to put in money of their own. That's a real trade-off: a stake from members screens out people who only want the loan, but it also shuts out workers with no savings. Its comparison group (small businesses with government-backed loans) is biased in directions that partly cancel out, by amounts nobody knows. And market-rate lending based on collateral may mostly reach founders who already have some wealth. Approval rates by race, gender and wealth are published so that shows up, but publishing a gap doesn't close it.
|
|
|
|
11. **Federal or state?** *(Mostly answered.)* The test stays federal, because one bank with one plan makes one clean experiment. Any state can copy the bank under the same published rules, reported separately, and a model state law protects the lock ([Making It Last](durability.md#federal-test-state-copies)). Still open: whether a few state lenders sharing one plan would have been the stronger experiment after all, since the most durable public bank in America, North Dakota's, is a state bank.
|
|
|
|
12. **Voluntary buyouts: in or out?** *(Open question.)* Should the bank also finance existing owners who *choose* to sell to their workers at market price, the way the UK's employee-ownership trusts work? It would grow the sector faster without forcing anyone. But it would mix two different experiments, and conversions carry different risks than startups.
|
|
|
|
*Not problems here, because nobody's company is forcibly bought:* valuing every firm in the economy, owners stripping value before a takeover, foreign capital flight, and years of payouts to former owners. The contractor boundary isn't an economy-wide problem either. Its co-op version, hiring non-members to dodge membership, is handled by [the lock](the-lock.md)'s membership requirement.
|