3 ms·
I said "seems" because I didn't want to make the statement absolute and spend a bunch of time debating the point. Regardless of what is theoretically possible,
by ytinas 17y ago
I said "seems" because I didn't want to make the statement absolute and spend a bunch of time debating the point. Regardless of what is theoretically possible, what appears to happen in practice is a (terminal imo) short term focus.
The most important contributors to a company are said to be the share holders, but investment via stock is a very temporal affair. Just get in, try to enforce policy that will quickly generate increase stock value, then dump it before it crashes and move to the next.
And no, I don't think any random control is a help, just that no control what-so-ever is just as bad as all the wrong controls.
- anamax 17y ago>I said "seems" because I didn't want to make the statement absolute and spend a bunch of time debating the point. Since your argument depends on whether the statement is true and relevant, trying to avoid discussing it is "interesting". You're assuming that the current stock system is the only way one can do things without regulation. You're wrong. You can set up a company in other ways, with almost any restriction on buying and selling by its owners that you'd like. All you have to do is get them to go along. If you're making them rich, they will. (For example, there are at least two classes of Google stock. The favored few own shares that are weighted differently when it comes to corporate decisions. One can also implement restrictions on buying and selling. IIRC, UPS has them.) >And no, I don't think any random control is a help, just that no control what-so-ever is just as bad as all the wrong controls. (1) The current situation is not "no controls". (2) There's no reason to believe that "no controls" is anywhere near as bad as the wrong controls.