6 ms·

> It leads to deviant behavior by public companies From my experience, having majority shareholders don't lead to "deviant behavior" any more than companies wi

> It leads to deviant behavior by public companies From my experience, having majority shareholders don't lead to "deviant behavior" any more than companies with no majority shareholder. In fact, one could argue that many of the ugly collective action problems facing the world today stem from organizations in which nobody has the power to veto unethical policies. I think the problem here is that Zuck can veto. I think it's that Zuck is unethical.

mempko 7y ago
What horrible 'collective action' policies are you talking about ? Seems entirely made up.
pm90 7y ago
It’s both. You can take financial resources of the public or you can have veto power. If you have both, you’re not a “Public Company” anymore and your stocks should be immediately delisted from public markets.
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  To do that, you would need to change the law first, and then go after FB. Given the fact that what happens appears to be us going after tech firms under current law, I wouldn't hold out much hope for needed changes in the legal environment. For some reason, (money), people just don't want to do that.
Ill_ban_myself 7y ago
I've never understood why rank and file employees don't get a vote despite not owning stock. Arguably, they are the ones most affected with the most to lose. A salaried employee with no stock options likely depends more on their continued paycheck and the continued success of the company than any large shareholder or even the class of employees who hold stock. Their vote should count MORE than the board.
- testvox 7y ago
  Because they don't own the company... You say they have the most to lose, but I would say the investors who put 100s of millions of dollars into the company have more.
  - skinnymuch 7y ago
    Only through one perspective. If you have a billion dollars, losing a few 100 million dollars isn’t as bad as losing a job or a black mark on your resume if you’re living paycheck to paycheck.
  - Frondo 7y ago
    They're giving their time -- literally the one non-fungible resource any human being has -- in exchange for money. Money comes and goes. You never get your 20s or 30s back.
    - AstralStorm 7y ago
      Literally everyone does, it's the definition of work, and you may or may not have to give more of it to get a desired standard of living. (Unless you don't have to work because you're filthy rich or connected.) The question is, how well can you sell it and whether the conditions are otherwise acceptable.
      - Frondo 7y ago
        Anyone who draws income via rent-seeking does not trade time for money. Your landlord, most of the time (i.e. when they're not repairing or maintaining their properties), is not trading money for time; they are charging you for access to materials which, moment to moment, costs them nothing. Patent trolls make money without trading away their time -- you work to pay for access to an idea, which costs them nothing to maintain. One could go on and on with examples of widespread rent-seeking fields of work and industry; but in general, no, it isn't literally everyone who trades time for money.
  - Ill_ban_myself 7y ago

mempko 7y ago

What horrible 'collective action' policies are you talking about ? Seems entirely made up.

pm90 7y ago

It’s both. You can take financial resources of the public or you can have veto power. If you have both, you’re not a “Public Company” anymore and your stocks should be immediately delisted from public markets.

bilbo0s 7y ago
To do that, you would need to change the law first, and then go after FB. Given the fact that what happens appears to be us going after tech firms under current law, I wouldn't hold out much hope for needed changes in the legal environment. For some reason, (money), people just don't want to do that.

Ill_ban_myself 7y ago

I've never understood why rank and file employees don't get a vote despite not owning stock. Arguably, they are the ones most affected with the most to lose. A salaried employee with no stock options likely depends more on their continued paycheck and the continued success of the company than any large shareholder or even the class of employees who hold stock. Their vote should count MORE than the board.

testvox 7y ago
Because they don't own the company... You say they have the most to lose, but I would say the investors who put 100s of millions of dollars into the company have more.
- skinnymuch 7y ago
  Only through one perspective. If you have a billion dollars, losing a few 100 million dollars isn’t as bad as losing a job or a black mark on your resume if you’re living paycheck to paycheck.
- Frondo 7y ago
  They're giving their time -- literally the one non-fungible resource any human being has -- in exchange for money. Money comes and goes. You never get your 20s or 30s back.
  - AstralStorm 7y ago
    Literally everyone does, it's the definition of work, and you may or may not have to give more of it to get a desired standard of living. (Unless you don't have to work because you're filthy rich or connected.) The question is, how well can you sell it and whether the conditions are otherwise acceptable.
    - Frondo 7y ago
      Anyone who draws income via rent-seeking does not trade time for money. Your landlord, most of the time (i.e. when they're not repairing or maintaining their properties), is not trading money for time; they are charging you for access to materials which, moment to moment, costs them nothing. Patent trolls make money without trading away their time -- you work to pay for access to an idea, which costs them nothing to maintain. One could go on and on with examples of widespread rent-seeking fields of work and industry; but in general, no, it isn't literally everyone who trades time for money.
- Ill_ban_myself 7y ago