3 ms·
Obviously it's better for you to take money from shareholders if you don't ever give it back. That's not a foundation for a long term stable ecosystem.
by sukilot 6y ago
Obviously it's better for you to take money from shareholders if you don't ever give it back. That's not a foundation for a long term stable ecosystem.
- rocqua 6y agoWhat about, if you keep the money from shareholders. And instead of burning the money, or letting the shareholders 'efficiently reallocate capital'. You try and redirect the company to stay relevant. It might be a less efficient allocation of capital. But it could reduce a lot of friction in the labor economy, and incurs less overhead from building an organization from scratch.
- eru 6y agoThe whole point of investing in a company is that eventually you get more money out than you put in. And, for example, I don't want coal companies try to stay relevant. They have coal managers and coal workers who know how to run coal mining. I'd rather they give the money to shareholders, so that the shareholders can invest it in a different venture, or consume it.