3 ms·

There's no reason they can't be sold off again. And well, we're living through a period where we're rapidly accruing evidence every day of how bad the alternat

by hkt 3y ago

There's no reason they can't be sold off again. And well, we're living through a period where we're rapidly accruing evidence every day of how bad the alternative is. For what it is worth, I'd like to see companies like Meta, Alphabet, and Amazon turned into global cooperatives governed by their employees and users. These would be the largest democracies the world has ever seen and would almost certainly be governed more sensibly than they are today.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> no reason they can't be sold off again Just levy a fine. From the corporate death penalty to this stuff, it’s all just fines with financial engineering. Cut out the bankers and lawyers and just levy a bloody fine. Every problem you think you’re solving by adding extra steps simply compounds the complexity of levying massive fines while distracting from them.
robertlagrant 3y ago
> There's no reason they can't be sold off again. Of course there is: who would buy shares that can be stolen by the state? This is why moralisers shouldn't design systems: they miss even the most glaringly obvious consequences of their OTT punishments.
- hkt 3y ago
  "Stolen". Do you think taxes are theft? The idea of property is a legal one. It has no other basis in the world - if a democracy decides that property is forfeit if the law is broken, that is perfectly fine. See also, wealth taxes. People already buy shares in these companies because they are profitable, and likely to remain so in the future. The problem is passive investment (which is forced on most people as pension funds don't "pass through" the right to vote) means people don't have to govern these organisations to protect the value of their investments. Fines are the cost of doing business. If the stakes were "use it lawfully or lose it" the shareholders might realistically become more inclined to take action against boards who allow mismanagement. That's what this is, by the way: mismanagement with global consequences. Investment won't go anywhere because people will always seek a return on their capital. The idea that they would rather see that capital inactive and atrophying over time rather than complying with simple and clear rules around corporate conduct is absurd.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > "Stolen". Do you think taxes are theft? I mean, it doesn't matter. The people with the jails are the people who write the rules that say how much of my effort I keep. The difference is: we have a well-defined separation between money (a tool to communicate relative value) and ownership. Moving the government into the taking things you own business is a bad idea.

by hkt 3y ago

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> no reason they can't be sold off again Just levy a fine. From the corporate death penalty to this stuff, it’s all just fines with financial engineering. Cut out the bankers and lawyers and just levy a bloody fine. Every problem you think you’re solving by adding extra steps simply compounds the complexity of levying massive fines while distracting from them.

robertlagrant 3y ago

> There's no reason they can't be sold off again. Of course there is: who would buy shares that can be stolen by the state? This is why moralisers shouldn't design systems: they miss even the most glaringly obvious consequences of their OTT punishments.

hkt 3y ago
"Stolen". Do you think taxes are theft? The idea of property is a legal one. It has no other basis in the world - if a democracy decides that property is forfeit if the law is broken, that is perfectly fine. See also, wealth taxes. People already buy shares in these companies because they are profitable, and likely to remain so in the future. The problem is passive investment (which is forced on most people as pension funds don't "pass through" the right to vote) means people don't have to govern these organisations to protect the value of their investments. Fines are the cost of doing business. If the stakes were "use it lawfully or lose it" the shareholders might realistically become more inclined to take action against boards who allow mismanagement. That's what this is, by the way: mismanagement with global consequences. Investment won't go anywhere because people will always seek a return on their capital. The idea that they would rather see that capital inactive and atrophying over time rather than complying with simple and clear rules around corporate conduct is absurd.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > "Stolen". Do you think taxes are theft? I mean, it doesn't matter. The people with the jails are the people who write the rules that say how much of my effort I keep. The difference is: we have a well-defined separation between money (a tool to communicate relative value) and ownership. Moving the government into the taking things you own business is a bad idea.