4 ms·

First of all, it is extremely difficult to say whether certain actions are good for society. I think there are some things that you can say are clearly good or

First of all, it is extremely difficult to say whether certain actions are good for society. I think there are some things that you can say are clearly good or bad for society, but what about all the stuff in the middle? Would the Coca-Cola company be allowed to exist in this world? Are professional sports team good for society?

__MatrixMan__ 2y ago
Requiring benefit is a huge step from where we are. Perhaps it would be easier periodically determine the n most harmful and dissolve them. Predation is known to make an ecosystem healthier. This would sidestep the problem of: > but what about all the stuff in the middle
- waldohatesyou 2y ago
  What do you think the top 10 worst companies are? How likely do you think it is that your list matches mine or anyone else’s?
  - __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
    Exact match? Unlikely. But suppose that with each tax return, everybody had the option of listing 5 corporations which they believed were doing more harm than good. It would be simple statistics to determine if the signal was strong enough to warrant action. As for mine, well I'd have to do a bit of research but they'd likely come be in defense, oil, or adtech. Perhaps we also could list 5 which we think are having a positive impact. The assets of the bad ones could be auctioned off to the good ones, the money made from that auction could go towards severance for anyone whose job was dissolved.
- notJim 2y ago
  > Requiring benefit is a huge step from where we are. The phrase "requiring benefit" is doing a huge amount of heavy lifting in this statement by assuming benefit is something that can easily be agreed upon, or that it's not already taken into account. Since it will obviously be difficult to agree on this, what if we just vote? I'd propose a system where each of us gets a certain amount of tokens, and then we use our tokens to vote on which products are beneficial. Those companies that make beneficial products will receive the most tokens. They can distribute some of them to their employees and shareholders. The companies that don't provide enough benefit will naturally go under as they fail to accumulate enough tokens to attract employees. We can also set up systems to ensure that everyone receives a minimum number of tokens, and also so that certain people don't accumulate so many tokens as to give them too much control over society. I believe this system will work well for rewarding companies which produce benefits and punishing those who don't and look forward to it being implemented.
  - __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
    Something along those lines is what I would propose, although once the tokens were used to decide which companies get dissolved (and maybe which ones get tax breaks) I'd zero-out all balances rather than creating a secondary economy around their circulation. By that point they'd have done their job. But I'm not really enough of a game theorist/economist/evolutionary biologist to be coming up with the details. My point is just that we should try something like this.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
mullingitover 2y ago
Sure, it's hard to say exactly what's good for society, it's a broad aim. However, being a PBC also insulates you from extremely short-sighted shareholders. It's different than being a charity. Coca-Cola could easily be a PBC, so could pro sports teams. It just gives you the freedom to shut down short-sighted activist shareholders who can't see past next quarter. It doesn't require you to be Mother Teresa, it just doesn't let anyone punish you if you decide that's what you want to be.
vintermann 2y ago
As I recall, Kickstarter was a very early Public Benefit Corporation. If nothing else, it probably gives a card to activist employees who think the corporation is hurting the public in some particular way.
anticensor 2y ago
Because Coca Cola is more than gaseous sugar water.

__MatrixMan__ 2y ago

Requiring benefit is a huge step from where we are. Perhaps it would be easier periodically determine the n most harmful and dissolve them. Predation is known to make an ecosystem healthier. This would sidestep the problem of: > but what about all the stuff in the middle

waldohatesyou 2y ago
What do you think the top 10 worst companies are? How likely do you think it is that your list matches mine or anyone else’s?
- __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
  Exact match? Unlikely. But suppose that with each tax return, everybody had the option of listing 5 corporations which they believed were doing more harm than good. It would be simple statistics to determine if the signal was strong enough to warrant action. As for mine, well I'd have to do a bit of research but they'd likely come be in defense, oil, or adtech. Perhaps we also could list 5 which we think are having a positive impact. The assets of the bad ones could be auctioned off to the good ones, the money made from that auction could go towards severance for anyone whose job was dissolved.
notJim 2y ago
> Requiring benefit is a huge step from where we are. The phrase "requiring benefit" is doing a huge amount of heavy lifting in this statement by assuming benefit is something that can easily be agreed upon, or that it's not already taken into account. Since it will obviously be difficult to agree on this, what if we just vote? I'd propose a system where each of us gets a certain amount of tokens, and then we use our tokens to vote on which products are beneficial. Those companies that make beneficial products will receive the most tokens. They can distribute some of them to their employees and shareholders. The companies that don't provide enough benefit will naturally go under as they fail to accumulate enough tokens to attract employees. We can also set up systems to ensure that everyone receives a minimum number of tokens, and also so that certain people don't accumulate so many tokens as to give them too much control over society. I believe this system will work well for rewarding companies which produce benefits and punishing those who don't and look forward to it being implemented.
- __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
  Something along those lines is what I would propose, although once the tokens were used to decide which companies get dissolved (and maybe which ones get tax breaks) I'd zero-out all balances rather than creating a secondary economy around their circulation. By that point they'd have done their job. But I'm not really enough of a game theorist/economist/evolutionary biologist to be coming up with the details. My point is just that we should try something like this.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

mullingitover 2y ago

Sure, it's hard to say exactly what's good for society, it's a broad aim. However, being a PBC also insulates you from extremely short-sighted shareholders. It's different than being a charity. Coca-Cola could easily be a PBC, so could pro sports teams. It just gives you the freedom to shut down short-sighted activist shareholders who can't see past next quarter. It doesn't require you to be Mother Teresa, it just doesn't let anyone punish you if you decide that's what you want to be.

vintermann 2y ago

As I recall, Kickstarter was a very early Public Benefit Corporation. If nothing else, it probably gives a card to activist employees who think the corporation is hurting the public in some particular way.

anticensor 2y ago

Because Coca Cola is more than gaseous sugar water.