5 ms·

> You can't outlaw buying and selling businesses. Sure you can, and I'll argue that we should. Competition is the only thing that keeps businesses honest, and

by kibwen 3y ago

> You can't outlaw buying and selling businesses. Sure you can, and I'll argue that we should. Competition is the only thing that keeps businesses honest, and acquisition is the antithesis of competition. Shut it down and force companies to compete rather than for the richest to snap up their competitors, and to force startups to dream of sustainability rather than a fat exit.

ribosometronome 3y ago
So companies should live and die with the founder? Or only be able to be transferred to their heirs? That's going to be amazingly unstable compared to a system that allows businesses to change ownership.
dehrmann 3y ago
You haven't thought about how bizarre this would be. All growth and declines would have to be organic, so rather than the obvious winner just buying the market loser and cutting 20% of staff, the loser would bleed-out over years. Companies also couldn't sell divisions they're not interested in, so rather than finding someone who cares, they'd have to go through the motions to not lose money while letting it slowly die. It'd be a lot of zombie companies.
- jjulius 3y ago
  I'm not necessarily onboard with what OP was proposing, but as a counterpoint to your hypothetical, what is stopping those losing businesses from simply closing rather than just bleeding out until death? The way this is phrased makes it sound like a company is obligated (required?) to slowly wither and die.
  - dehrmann 3y ago
    They'll close once they start losing money, but that might be drawn-out, and since you can't sell, the incentive is to draw it out as long as you can.
    - jbm 3y ago
      I don't know if this is something that is prevented by our current system. This is more or less what GM was doing before the 2008 bankruptcy (The vague story I remember from the time was that they knew they had to get rid of money losers like Pontiac and Oldsmobile, but decided dealing w/ the dealerships wasn't worth it)
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
this_user 3y ago
> Sure you can, and I'll argue that we should. That really makes no sense at all. That would mean you can't sell your stake in any company which not only makes IPOs, and having a stock market in general, impossible, it would also kill VC funding of start-ups. The only thing that would still be possible is bootstrapping your own company, because you also cannot get any bank loans as using the company as collateral is impossible. This idea is a guaranteed way of completely destroying your economy.
ruined 3y ago
it is probably easier to just put limits on the kind of ownership that is possible. like, a worker-owned business can't really do this kind of thing

by kibwen 3y ago

ribosometronome 3y ago

So companies should live and die with the founder? Or only be able to be transferred to their heirs? That's going to be amazingly unstable compared to a system that allows businesses to change ownership.

dehrmann 3y ago

You haven't thought about how bizarre this would be. All growth and declines would have to be organic, so rather than the obvious winner just buying the market loser and cutting 20% of staff, the loser would bleed-out over years. Companies also couldn't sell divisions they're not interested in, so rather than finding someone who cares, they'd have to go through the motions to not lose money while letting it slowly die. It'd be a lot of zombie companies.

jjulius 3y ago
I'm not necessarily onboard with what OP was proposing, but as a counterpoint to your hypothetical, what is stopping those losing businesses from simply closing rather than just bleeding out until death? The way this is phrased makes it sound like a company is obligated (required?) to slowly wither and die.
- dehrmann 3y ago
  They'll close once they start losing money, but that might be drawn-out, and since you can't sell, the incentive is to draw it out as long as you can.
  - jbm 3y ago
    I don't know if this is something that is prevented by our current system. This is more or less what GM was doing before the 2008 bankruptcy (The vague story I remember from the time was that they knew they had to get rid of money losers like Pontiac and Oldsmobile, but decided dealing w/ the dealerships wasn't worth it)

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

this_user 3y ago

> Sure you can, and I'll argue that we should. That really makes no sense at all. That would mean you can't sell your stake in any company which not only makes IPOs, and having a stock market in general, impossible, it would also kill VC funding of start-ups. The only thing that would still be possible is bootstrapping your own company, because you also cannot get any bank loans as using the company as collateral is impossible. This idea is a guaranteed way of completely destroying your economy.

ruined 3y ago

it is probably easier to just put limits on the kind of ownership that is possible. like, a worker-owned business can't really do this kind of thing