3 ms·
To answer the last two questions, yes. The expectation for companies to continue to grow no matter what, even when they're already massively profitable, is one
by LordDragonfang 4y ago
To answer the last two questions, yes. The expectation for companies to continue to grow no matter what, even when they're already massively profitable, is one of the biggest issues with modern capitalism. It's how you get the world's most profitable (non-financial) company switching its focus to nickel-and-diming its customers for services because it's run out of new human beings to sell iPhones to, and how you get every video game company switching to scummy fomo and gambling to maximize shareholder revenue instead of mindshare, and how you get every company jumping over themselves to sell your data even if you're already paying for the product. Companies should be able to get to the point where leaving money on the table for the good of their customers, and society, is a valid move.
- smaddox 4y agoOkay, but this would disincentivize individuals from building multiple successful companies after a certain point of personal success.
- banannaise 4y agoNo it wouldn't. It would cease to further incentivize them. Once you have enough money to live comfortably for the rest of your life, maybe you don't need external incentives for your behavior? Maybe you should be encouraged to simply do whatever you find most fulfilling, without financial reward?
- smaddox 4y ago> dis·in·cen·tiv·ize > verb > discourage (a person or course of action) by removing an incentive. Regardless, though, how exactly would your proposal not prevent someone from building future companies? If stock is considered monetary wealth (the only viewpoint from which we have billionaires), they would be forced to... What? Give away their existing stock in order start a new successful company?