4 ms·
I think that it would be pretty easy to solve with 2 rules: 1) Private companies can have a maximum of, say, $1m in revenue per employee before they have to li
by dools 4y ago
I think that it would be pretty easy to solve with 2 rules:
1) Private companies can have a maximum of, say, $1m in revenue per employee before they have to list
2) One individual or entity can own a maximum of, say, 5% of any publicly listed company
So when your company goes well, you have to IPO, and when you IPO, you have to sell most of your shares.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- cinntaile 4y agoSo certain solo entrepreneurs now need to be publicly listed and then they have to give away 95% of their company? Defining rules like these is far from trivial.
- dools 4y agoNot that hard if you have access to all the stats, but yeah not far off. Make it $5m then.
- MerelyMortal 4y agoI think that would stifle a lot of innovation. Some people are not going to take risks if you cap the reward. Others just won't put in the work if they know that it will be taken/forced away from them.
- dools 4y agoI don’t think so. Selling 95% (or whatever) percent of a company with $5m revenue per employee is not exactly a bad result. It might stifle the type of megalomania that passes for innovation these days though, and would prevent concentration of wealth that stifles innovation through anti competitive behaviour.