^
Yes. If we assume (possibly fallaciously) that there are inherently three different possibilities for the efficiency of syndicates
-
They are generally more efficient than hierarchical firms
-
They are generally as efficient as hierarchical firms
-
They are generally less efficient than hierarchical firms
If 1 or 2 was the case then Syndicates, once formed, could naturally out-compete hierarchical firms because they could offer higher wages by forwarding interest income (the minimum rate of profit) on to the salaries of workers.
Therefore two possibilities for why syndicates haven’t arisen exist:
-
Workers are not wise
-
They have a very high time preference which means that they will not save
If worker’s were “wise” enough to make good decisions and see the advantages of communal savings, and if they were “selfless” enough to make good decisions even in a democratic system, then possibilities 1 or 2 would have to predominate.
Therefore “wisdom” here serves the role of helping to bring about savings and of making syndicates superior to the traditional firm structure. Because this has not happened and syndicates are practically unheard of outside of theory and relatively distant past, we can determine that either workers are not “wise” or they have a very high time preference.