3 ms·

Such legal changes would also need to address selling the company and / or its assets lest someone scheme to get around the length of life limit.

lifeisstillgood 4y ago
I am not so sure - if you owned a million shares of IBM plc and suddenly the CEO moved all the assets into JBM plc and you owned a million shares of f'all it looks a lot like fraud. If you get handed a million shares of JBM you will want to be really sure they are equivalent or it's fraud. Does JBM have the same reputation? The same goodwill? Not if IBM is getting shutdown ... fraud again I suspect. I take your point that there are ways around it. But imagine a slightly different scenario - every twenty years each marriage was dissolved and you had to sign a new contract to remain married - else divorce. Most people will just have an excuse to throw a party but ... What do you think will happen to the divorce rate? And will those people find better partners afterwards? Will the mean happiness increase ?
- lifeisstillgood 4y ago
  Ok, I am probably going to go back on my original idea - it's highly likely that regulatory effort into ensuring open transparent competition will get better outcomes than end of life cut offs. Always go for the hard work option not the easy to administer option
- samus 4y ago
  This is not possible because it goes against the very basics of double-entry bookkeeping. IBM's assets cannot be moved. They can only be sold, where assets are exchanged for other assets (most often cash or equivalents). What you mean is either petty theft or embezzlement, which are (white collar) crimes. In the event of an obviously and intentionally unfavourable sale, the shareholders (a.k.a. owners) can hold the CEO liable for damages. If the assets become impossible to recover, they are written off, which is a kind of expense in bookkeeping term. If this event is not recorded as such, there would be other crimes. Double-entry bookkeeping ensures that assets can only appear on JBM's balance sheet if their source is documented. In practice, this meanr that they were lawfully acquired. Otherwise, the auditor would be on the hook. Of course, it can always be that illicit activities are creatively hidden on the balance sheet and that the auditor didn't spot them. In that case, it could indeed be that JBM would have to either fix the reported budget or suddenly write off the amount that was found they don't really own. Things like these are always a risk. Shares on the stock market are only worth their resale value and what dividends they can be expected to yield. This is hopefully basic knowledge to anyone who engages in stock trading, and it's the reason why public companies are tightly regulated and have to regularly undergo audits and report to the shareholders. The stock market does the rest. I'd love to get educated, but I guess most divorces happen either within the first five years or after ~twenty years when the things that kept a bad marriage together (kids or physical appearances) go away. Limiting any marriage to 20 years would only get rid of the latter. I also guess that a lot less people would marry because marriage is a way to ensure the economic existence of the party who sacrificed their career to take care of children.

lifeisstillgood 4y ago

I am not so sure - if you owned a million shares of IBM plc and suddenly the CEO moved all the assets into JBM plc and you owned a million shares of f'all it looks a lot like fraud. If you get handed a million shares of JBM you will want to be really sure they are equivalent or it's fraud. Does JBM have the same reputation? The same goodwill? Not if IBM is getting shutdown ... fraud again I suspect. I take your point that there are ways around it. But imagine a slightly different scenario - every twenty years each marriage was dissolved and you had to sign a new contract to remain married - else divorce. Most people will just have an excuse to throw a party but ... What do you think will happen to the divorce rate? And will those people find better partners afterwards? Will the mean happiness increase ?

lifeisstillgood 4y ago
Ok, I am probably going to go back on my original idea - it's highly likely that regulatory effort into ensuring open transparent competition will get better outcomes than end of life cut offs. Always go for the hard work option not the easy to administer option
samus 4y ago
This is not possible because it goes against the very basics of double-entry bookkeeping. IBM's assets cannot be moved. They can only be sold, where assets are exchanged for other assets (most often cash or equivalents). What you mean is either petty theft or embezzlement, which are (white collar) crimes. In the event of an obviously and intentionally unfavourable sale, the shareholders (a.k.a. owners) can hold the CEO liable for damages. If the assets become impossible to recover, they are written off, which is a kind of expense in bookkeeping term. If this event is not recorded as such, there would be other crimes. Double-entry bookkeeping ensures that assets can only appear on JBM's balance sheet if their source is documented. In practice, this meanr that they were lawfully acquired. Otherwise, the auditor would be on the hook. Of course, it can always be that illicit activities are creatively hidden on the balance sheet and that the auditor didn't spot them. In that case, it could indeed be that JBM would have to either fix the reported budget or suddenly write off the amount that was found they don't really own. Things like these are always a risk. Shares on the stock market are only worth their resale value and what dividends they can be expected to yield. This is hopefully basic knowledge to anyone who engages in stock trading, and it's the reason why public companies are tightly regulated and have to regularly undergo audits and report to the shareholders. The stock market does the rest. I'd love to get educated, but I guess most divorces happen either within the first five years or after ~twenty years when the things that kept a bad marriage together (kids or physical appearances) go away. Limiting any marriage to 20 years would only get rid of the latter. I also guess that a lot less people would marry because marriage is a way to ensure the economic existence of the party who sacrificed their career to take care of children.