3 ms·

> just a means of concentrating power It's a means of retaining power that was already concentrated in the hands of the founders. You've failed to explain why

> just a means of concentrating power It's a means of retaining power that was already concentrated in the hands of the founders. You've failed to explain why the are obligated to give it up simply by listing on a public exchange (hint: they're not). "publicly traded" doesn't mean anything besides the fact that shares are available on public exchanges. The fact that they're available on a public exchange is no guarantee that you'll be able to use them to influence the way the company is managed, or that the company owes you any accountability at all beyond what is strictly legally required. > If you want to trade ownership for access to deeper capital pools, then you have to govern through merit rather than clever structures What if you want to trade a share of future profits for capital? Why is that "wrong"? It seems like in your world non-voting shares are immoral. > Don't think Laypeople are poorly equipped to speculate about highly specialized work (such as executive management). Dunning Kruger applies here. You didn't actually answer my question though: assuming you're not a Netflix shareholder, why does it matter to you what Netflix pays their executives? Haven't Netflix earned their money? Doesn't that give them the right to distribute it as they see fit? What is the basis for your claim otherwise?

anigbrowl 3y ago
They're not obligated to give up that control under existing securities laws. I'm saying they should be. It seems like in your world non-voting shares are immoral. Yes. It promotes unaccountable rentier capitalism, and I do not consider market price signals alone a sufficient check on human greed to yield optimal outcomes. The oft-stated benefits of price theory depend on a market in which perfect competition obtains (total transparency, zero cost to entry or exit of the market, completely fungible commodities), and most markets are not that simple. Laypeople are poorly equipped to speculate about highly specialized work (such as executive management). Dunning Kruger applies here. You didn't actually answer my question though: assuming you're not a Netflix shareholder, why does it matter to you what Netflix pays their executives? Haven't Netflix earned their money? Doesn't that give them the right to distribute it as they see fit? What is the basis for your claim otherwise? I don't owe you an answer, especially not with this rude hectoring behavior. Work on your manners. It matters because corporations enjoy great legal protections by being able to operate within a wealthy and highly developed polity, and by accumulating wealth are also able to shape that polity by lobbying for favorable tax, regulatory treatment and so on. So in that sense, executive compensation is a topic of general public interest because executives have an outside impact on social norms and future policy. As far as Netflix is concerned, the company has earned its money but some of that money has been earned on the backs of writers, who have offered a good argument for why they are underpaid relative to historical standards. As a writer and WGA member myself, I'm in favor of Netflix giving writers a better deal rather than merely exploiting their market dominance. And while the shareholder resolution is not binding, apparently a majority of the owners of Netflix also feel that writers' contributions to the firm's success has been undervalued and expressing their opinion on how that wealth should be distributed. As I said earlier, if you don't want to be accountable to a large group of owners, don't become a publicly traded company. Stay private, govern the corporation by fiat, and and do what you want within the law. It might take a little longer to achieve market dominance in your industrial sector, but if the world is truly meritocratic then success is presumably assured.
- thegrimmest 3y ago
  > to yield optimal outcomes Optimal for who? By whose measure? Your position seems to be based on an assumption that you know what's optimal for all of us, and that you're willing to impose that on others. Pardon my disagreement. "Rentier" capitalism also assumes that you can distinguish which economic activity contributes to society and which does not. What criteria or principles do you use to make that distinction? Honest question. > corporations enjoy great legal protections by being able to operate within a wealthy and highly developed polity It is the liberal economic policy that birthed the wealthy and highly developed polity, not the other way around. Corporations enjoy great legal protections because otherwise we would not benefit from their existence. And benefit tremendously we do. My whole point is that we should leave them well enough alone because we all reap incalculable wealth from their marketable innovations. We already have a golden goose, and you seem to be suggesting that we smother it with governance. > executives have an outside impact on social norms and future policy How would this impact be curtailed by a more stingy compensation package? Executives wield their influence via the corporations they control, not their private bank accounts. > the company has earned its money but some of that money has been earned on the backs of writers On the backs of writers who were compensated for their services at a rate agreed by both parties? Seems like a pretty fair deal to me. I don't see why anyone should be paid more than they can freely negotiate for their services from people who are interested in retaining them. In a free society, people are inescapably paid according to how expensive they are to hire, train, and replace. It's the same reason why writers are paid more than agricultural labourers, and executives are paid more than writers. If you can devise a scheme to hire 10 people at $10/hour and generate $1,000 in value, I'm having a hard time understanding why the remaining $900 isn't entirely yours. I see this sentiment a lot and honestly hope you'd be so kind as to explain the calculus here.

anigbrowl 3y ago

They're not obligated to give up that control under existing securities laws. I'm saying they should be. It seems like in your world non-voting shares are immoral. Yes. It promotes unaccountable rentier capitalism, and I do not consider market price signals alone a sufficient check on human greed to yield optimal outcomes. The oft-stated benefits of price theory depend on a market in which perfect competition obtains (total transparency, zero cost to entry or exit of the market, completely fungible commodities), and most markets are not that simple. Laypeople are poorly equipped to speculate about highly specialized work (such as executive management). Dunning Kruger applies here. You didn't actually answer my question though: assuming you're not a Netflix shareholder, why does it matter to you what Netflix pays their executives? Haven't Netflix earned their money? Doesn't that give them the right to distribute it as they see fit? What is the basis for your claim otherwise? I don't owe you an answer, especially not with this rude hectoring behavior. Work on your manners. It matters because corporations enjoy great legal protections by being able to operate within a wealthy and highly developed polity, and by accumulating wealth are also able to shape that polity by lobbying for favorable tax, regulatory treatment and so on. So in that sense, executive compensation is a topic of general public interest because executives have an outside impact on social norms and future policy. As far as Netflix is concerned, the company has earned its money but some of that money has been earned on the backs of writers, who have offered a good argument for why they are underpaid relative to historical standards. As a writer and WGA member myself, I'm in favor of Netflix giving writers a better deal rather than merely exploiting their market dominance. And while the shareholder resolution is not binding, apparently a majority of the owners of Netflix also feel that writers' contributions to the firm's success has been undervalued and expressing their opinion on how that wealth should be distributed. As I said earlier, if you don't want to be accountable to a large group of owners, don't become a publicly traded company. Stay private, govern the corporation by fiat, and and do what you want within the law. It might take a little longer to achieve market dominance in your industrial sector, but if the world is truly meritocratic then success is presumably assured.

thegrimmest 3y ago
> to yield optimal outcomes Optimal for who? By whose measure? Your position seems to be based on an assumption that you know what's optimal for all of us, and that you're willing to impose that on others. Pardon my disagreement. "Rentier" capitalism also assumes that you can distinguish which economic activity contributes to society and which does not. What criteria or principles do you use to make that distinction? Honest question. > corporations enjoy great legal protections by being able to operate within a wealthy and highly developed polity It is the liberal economic policy that birthed the wealthy and highly developed polity, not the other way around. Corporations enjoy great legal protections because otherwise we would not benefit from their existence. And benefit tremendously we do. My whole point is that we should leave them well enough alone because we all reap incalculable wealth from their marketable innovations. We already have a golden goose, and you seem to be suggesting that we smother it with governance. > executives have an outside impact on social norms and future policy How would this impact be curtailed by a more stingy compensation package? Executives wield their influence via the corporations they control, not their private bank accounts. > the company has earned its money but some of that money has been earned on the backs of writers On the backs of writers who were compensated for their services at a rate agreed by both parties? Seems like a pretty fair deal to me. I don't see why anyone should be paid more than they can freely negotiate for their services from people who are interested in retaining them. In a free society, people are inescapably paid according to how expensive they are to hire, train, and replace. It's the same reason why writers are paid more than agricultural labourers, and executives are paid more than writers. If you can devise a scheme to hire 10 people at $10/hour and generate $1,000 in value, I'm having a hard time understanding why the remaining $900 isn't entirely yours. I see this sentiment a lot and honestly hope you'd be so kind as to explain the calculus here.