3 ms·

So you think that companies would be better if the shareholders were not a check on CEO power? Basically that would make all companies like tech companies with

So you think that companies would be better if the shareholders were not a check on CEO power? Basically that would make all companies like tech companies with dual class shares that give the CEO perpetual absolute power.

mistercheph 3y ago
The problem with shareholders as the ruling class of an organization is that they are prima facie incapable of having a vision, projecting it, and marshalling the resources to make it a reality. Because they act as a crowd, they can only converge on their common interest, which is profit. When the shareholders have their way, a profitable venture and it's customers are min-maxed for share values until the enterprise is left a pile of rubble
- Terr_ 3y ago
  I sometimes wonder if future civilizations will look back on this as a kind of socio-technological inadequacy: "See, this is what people had to deal with before we invented Zlormian Goal Contracts!" This kinda-relates to other legal theories, such the rule against perpetuities [0], since it's hard to assemble a framework that can survive 50.0001% of the shareholders deciding to loot it. The closest I can think of actually involves legal-statute and tax law, where a company incorporates for an explicitly-charitable or non-profit purpose and then the government enforces that status indefinitely. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities
- fallingknife 3y ago
  I feel like having a CEO with a grand vision beyond profitability would be good 5% of the time and an ego driven mess / financial disaster 95% of the time.
ClumsyPilot 3y ago
I would agree if shareholders were stuck owning the stock for a while, but currently average stock ownership duration is measures in weeks or days. How much interest do these people have in the future of the company?

mistercheph 3y ago

The problem with shareholders as the ruling class of an organization is that they are prima facie incapable of having a vision, projecting it, and marshalling the resources to make it a reality. Because they act as a crowd, they can only converge on their common interest, which is profit. When the shareholders have their way, a profitable venture and it's customers are min-maxed for share values until the enterprise is left a pile of rubble

Terr_ 3y ago
I sometimes wonder if future civilizations will look back on this as a kind of socio-technological inadequacy: "See, this is what people had to deal with before we invented Zlormian Goal Contracts!" This kinda-relates to other legal theories, such the rule against perpetuities [0], since it's hard to assemble a framework that can survive 50.0001% of the shareholders deciding to loot it. The closest I can think of actually involves legal-statute and tax law, where a company incorporates for an explicitly-charitable or non-profit purpose and then the government enforces that status indefinitely. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities
fallingknife 3y ago
I feel like having a CEO with a grand vision beyond profitability would be good 5% of the time and an ego driven mess / financial disaster 95% of the time.

ClumsyPilot 3y ago

I would agree if shareholders were stuck owning the stock for a while, but currently average stock ownership duration is measures in weeks or days. How much interest do these people have in the future of the company?