4 ms·

> leaving only the benefits. Well.. those and the liabilities and risk.

Gud 3y ago
Such as? It seems to me that whatever risk the owning class has can be easily controlled by diversifying. And what liabilities do they have?
- sandspar 3y ago
  The fact that you call them the "owning class" makes it seem like you're not interested in fair handed analysis.
  - jjj123 3y ago
    Is that not what they are? It’s not like it’s a pejorative term.
- akira2501 3y ago
  > And what liabilities do they have? All of them associated with operating their business. The most pertinent to this discussion would obviously be workers compensation in cases of work related injury or illness.
  - Wool2662 3y ago
    That's what insurance is for. And if it gets really bad, there is the corporate veil for that. Just declare bankruptcy and start over. Not like you are losing the money you extracted from the company.
    - akira2501 3y ago
      > That's what insurance is for. Is insurance that offers unlimited coverage free? No? That's a liability, then. You will have to pay this insurance whether you are profitable or not. That's a risk, you see? > there is the corporate veil for that. Very few business actually structure themselves in such a way to receive this benefit. It's not automatic either, you'll still need lawyers to make this argument for you in court should you be sued. > Just declare bankruptcy and start over. You do realize there are multiple different types of bankruptcies and not all of them allow you walk away and "start over." > Not like you are losing the money you extracted from the company. Yes, those are called "profits" and they are taxed. Most companies are not entirely liquid and the majority of the value is in the operation not in past "extracted" money.
      - Wool2662 3y ago
        So what you are saying is you need sufficient money to do whatever you want in the guise of "business" without having to fear any consequences whatsoever?
- gizmo 3y ago
  You can be dragged into lawsuits that never end. You have to mediate employee drama. You are responsible for paychecks which is stressful when the business is deteriorating. Owning a $100 million business is not at all like having $100 million in the stock market.
  - Gud 3y ago
    I specifically mentioned diversifying as a means to limit risk. My post is not targeted to the people who have started a lifestyle business or someone who has built a $100M enterprise from the ground up. Much of the worlds wealth is concentrated through inheritance and the effect of compounding interest. A person of normal intelligence with a large inheritance can easily live off other peoples work by a diverse portfolio, accumulated by previous generations. Large wealth inheritance creates obvious power imbalances in any economic system, unless every participant(or most, anyway) in the system has themselves large amounts of inherited economic wealth. My (skilled) labour is valued somewhere at $50-$250/h. Yet, the offspring of the ultra rich("the owning class") receive x10-x100 of what i receive without lifting a finger.

Gud 3y ago

Such as? It seems to me that whatever risk the owning class has can be easily controlled by diversifying. And what liabilities do they have?

sandspar 3y ago
The fact that you call them the "owning class" makes it seem like you're not interested in fair handed analysis.
- jjj123 3y ago
  Is that not what they are? It’s not like it’s a pejorative term.
akira2501 3y ago
> And what liabilities do they have? All of them associated with operating their business. The most pertinent to this discussion would obviously be workers compensation in cases of work related injury or illness.
- Wool2662 3y ago
  That's what insurance is for. And if it gets really bad, there is the corporate veil for that. Just declare bankruptcy and start over. Not like you are losing the money you extracted from the company.
  - akira2501 3y ago
    > That's what insurance is for. Is insurance that offers unlimited coverage free? No? That's a liability, then. You will have to pay this insurance whether you are profitable or not. That's a risk, you see? > there is the corporate veil for that. Very few business actually structure themselves in such a way to receive this benefit. It's not automatic either, you'll still need lawyers to make this argument for you in court should you be sued. > Just declare bankruptcy and start over. You do realize there are multiple different types of bankruptcies and not all of them allow you walk away and "start over." > Not like you are losing the money you extracted from the company. Yes, those are called "profits" and they are taxed. Most companies are not entirely liquid and the majority of the value is in the operation not in past "extracted" money.
    - Wool2662 3y ago
      So what you are saying is you need sufficient money to do whatever you want in the guise of "business" without having to fear any consequences whatsoever?
gizmo 3y ago
You can be dragged into lawsuits that never end. You have to mediate employee drama. You are responsible for paychecks which is stressful when the business is deteriorating. Owning a $100 million business is not at all like having $100 million in the stock market.
- Gud 3y ago
  I specifically mentioned diversifying as a means to limit risk. My post is not targeted to the people who have started a lifestyle business or someone who has built a $100M enterprise from the ground up. Much of the worlds wealth is concentrated through inheritance and the effect of compounding interest. A person of normal intelligence with a large inheritance can easily live off other peoples work by a diverse portfolio, accumulated by previous generations. Large wealth inheritance creates obvious power imbalances in any economic system, unless every participant(or most, anyway) in the system has themselves large amounts of inherited economic wealth. My (skilled) labour is valued somewhere at $50-$250/h. Yet, the offspring of the ultra rich("the owning class") receive x10-x100 of what i receive without lifting a finger.