5 ms·

The first line itself struck me as amazing! What is the purpose of a company? Do you think a company would exist/ be funded if the company did not pay back the

The first line itself struck me as amazing! What is the purpose of a company? Do you think a company would exist/ be funded if the company did not pay back the investor in some way? We may argue that this particular buyback was ill timed, but still, banning all buybacks is a very very strange idea

medvezhenok 4y ago
You might be surprised to learn that companies still existed/exist under communism, with not a single investor around ;)
- nradov 4y ago
  Those were not actual companies that existed. They were just another part of the government with a different name.
  - pas 4y ago
    no, there were worker owned coops. starting a company allowed some pricing power, plus individuals could start their own entrepreneurship (but weren't able to hire anyone)
    - mejutoco 4y ago
      Do you have a specific example of country and company? I am curious about how worker-owned they were.
      - YuriNiyazov 4y ago
        https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1985-2/cooperatives/ https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1985-2/cooperatives/ This is not secret knowledge
        mejutoco 4y ago
        I did not claim it was secret, and you provide no explanation. The example you provide is 1985 Soviet economy, no coop names (for other readers). I wanted to ask instead of assuming before making the following argument to the previous claims: > You might be surprised to learn that companies still existed/exist under communism, with not a single investor around ;) > Those were not actual companies that existed. They were just another part of the government with a different name. > no, there were worker owned coops. As I suspected, these "worker owned" cooperatives are completely dependent on the party (unlike current cooperatives). That is not my idea of "owning", since party members that are "workers" of the cooperative only in name would be deciding a lot of things in how the cooperative is run. > Many cooperatives were vulnerable to exorbitant taxation by local officials, high interest rates on loans, and protection rackets run by criminals, the cost of which inevitably were passed onto consumers in the form of mark-ups. “Kooperativshchiki” (cooperative owners) thus became a term of abuse in ordinary Soviet speech. So I agree with user nradov here: "Those were not actual companies that existed. They were just another part of the government with a different name. " I must concede, at some point the lines can become blurred.
      - pas 4y ago
        Hungary. No specific companies. These were always small. Think like 5-6 people. The obvious problem with USSR-style communism was/is the authoritarian dictatorship, so everything had to be integrated into the power structure, so only very small companies were allowed to be independent. If you became successful without the Party? That's a no-no, so thanks and the Party will take it from here. If you became successful with the Party? Great, now here's a bunch of chinovniks to help you.
    - kolinko 4y ago
      What pricing power? Under communism it was not about pricing at all - getting supply materials required hustling more than money. Buying things in bulk gave no discount at all - sometimes quite the opposite. As for individuals starting their own entrepreneurship - only in certain specific, government allowed situations. And even then it was frowned upon both by the government and by the society. Also, being entrepepreneur didn't make much sense anyway, because money didn't matter as much as talons for items. That's why used cars (not requiring talons) cost way more than new ones -- as in, the taxi corp could buy new cabs, drive them for a few years, and then sell with a profit. Worker-owned coops were nothing like what we know under capitalism. They were huge semi-governmental structures filled with bureaucracy.
- cuteboy19 4y ago
  Even govt owned companies pay out dividends
yunohn 4y ago
Profit sharing or dividends - the concept that SV companies hate!
- gumby 4y ago
  Profit sharing is pretty common among SV companies except the newest SaaS era. Chip companies and other tech businesses do pay out that way. Dividends aren’t great tax wise but some big SV companies like Intel pay them out.
  - yunohn 4y ago
    > Dividends aren’t great tax wise Tax code can always be fixed if the gov wanted. For some reason, they don’t like profit sharing, only speculation. More tax payout I guess!
    - bradknowles 4y ago
      Blame regulatory capture. The companies want it that way, so they buy the politicians who will want it that way.

medvezhenok 4y ago

You might be surprised to learn that companies still existed/exist under communism, with not a single investor around ;)

nradov 4y ago
Those were not actual companies that existed. They were just another part of the government with a different name.
- pas 4y ago
  no, there were worker owned coops. starting a company allowed some pricing power, plus individuals could start their own entrepreneurship (but weren't able to hire anyone)
  - mejutoco 4y ago
    Do you have a specific example of country and company? I am curious about how worker-owned they were.
    - YuriNiyazov 4y ago
      https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1985-2/cooperatives/ https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1985-2/cooperatives/ This is not secret knowledge
      - mejutoco 4y ago
        I did not claim it was secret, and you provide no explanation. The example you provide is 1985 Soviet economy, no coop names (for other readers). I wanted to ask instead of assuming before making the following argument to the previous claims: > You might be surprised to learn that companies still existed/exist under communism, with not a single investor around ;) > Those were not actual companies that existed. They were just another part of the government with a different name. > no, there were worker owned coops. As I suspected, these "worker owned" cooperatives are completely dependent on the party (unlike current cooperatives). That is not my idea of "owning", since party members that are "workers" of the cooperative only in name would be deciding a lot of things in how the cooperative is run. > Many cooperatives were vulnerable to exorbitant taxation by local officials, high interest rates on loans, and protection rackets run by criminals, the cost of which inevitably were passed onto consumers in the form of mark-ups. “Kooperativshchiki” (cooperative owners) thus became a term of abuse in ordinary Soviet speech. So I agree with user nradov here: "Those were not actual companies that existed. They were just another part of the government with a different name. " I must concede, at some point the lines can become blurred.
    - pas 4y ago
      Hungary. No specific companies. These were always small. Think like 5-6 people. The obvious problem with USSR-style communism was/is the authoritarian dictatorship, so everything had to be integrated into the power structure, so only very small companies were allowed to be independent. If you became successful without the Party? That's a no-no, so thanks and the Party will take it from here. If you became successful with the Party? Great, now here's a bunch of chinovniks to help you.
  - kolinko 4y ago
    What pricing power? Under communism it was not about pricing at all - getting supply materials required hustling more than money. Buying things in bulk gave no discount at all - sometimes quite the opposite. As for individuals starting their own entrepreneurship - only in certain specific, government allowed situations. And even then it was frowned upon both by the government and by the society. Also, being entrepepreneur didn't make much sense anyway, because money didn't matter as much as talons for items. That's why used cars (not requiring talons) cost way more than new ones -- as in, the taxi corp could buy new cabs, drive them for a few years, and then sell with a profit. Worker-owned coops were nothing like what we know under capitalism. They were huge semi-governmental structures filled with bureaucracy.
cuteboy19 4y ago
Even govt owned companies pay out dividends

yunohn 4y ago

Profit sharing or dividends - the concept that SV companies hate!

gumby 4y ago
Profit sharing is pretty common among SV companies except the newest SaaS era. Chip companies and other tech businesses do pay out that way. Dividends aren’t great tax wise but some big SV companies like Intel pay them out.
- yunohn 4y ago
  > Dividends aren’t great tax wise Tax code can always be fixed if the gov wanted. For some reason, they don’t like profit sharing, only speculation. More tax payout I guess!
  - bradknowles 4y ago
    Blame regulatory capture. The companies want it that way, so they buy the politicians who will want it that way.