3 ms·

State ownership of business or heavy restrictions on the ability of owners to sell, dissolve, for take risks with business they own. I don't agree, but that se

State ownership of business or heavy restrictions on the ability of owners to sell, dissolve, for take risks with business they own. I don't agree, but that seems like the clear alternative. Some people might propose preventing debt backed private equity firms from defrauding investors, but those laws are already on the books. The banks that fund buyouts and sometimes get left holding the bag absolutely know the risks and have well funded legal teams capable of protecting them. Consumers don't get a say because they are not actual equity owners things like securing access to yarn or all you can eat shrimp do not supersede property rights in the view of the government.

alephnerd 2y ago
> State ownership of business Until they either collapse (LGFVs in China) or severely degrade in user quality (Air India), and it's the taxpayers on the hook. > heavy restrictions on the ability of owners to sell, dissolve, for take risks with business they own Then there's no incentive to start or scale a business, for example why business incorporation in Switzerland is preferred over France despite similar/same culture, but easier ability to incorporate, sell, or shut down businesses > Consumers don't get a say because they are not actual equity owners things like securing access to yarn or all you can eat shrimp do not supersede property rights in the view of the government I can still go to Michael's, Hobby Lobby, or my local crafts shop to buy the same products.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  This should be clear from my post, but you are preaching to the choir. In my opinion, if someone wants to gut their business, that is their choice. If someone doesn't like the options, they should start a competitor. basing a system on the idea that consumers shouldn't have to shop or businesses can never fail leads to all sorts perverse outcomes.

alephnerd 2y ago

> State ownership of business Until they either collapse (LGFVs in China) or severely degrade in user quality (Air India), and it's the taxpayers on the hook. > heavy restrictions on the ability of owners to sell, dissolve, for take risks with business they own Then there's no incentive to start or scale a business, for example why business incorporation in Switzerland is preferred over France despite similar/same culture, but easier ability to incorporate, sell, or shut down businesses > Consumers don't get a say because they are not actual equity owners things like securing access to yarn or all you can eat shrimp do not supersede property rights in the view of the government I can still go to Michael's, Hobby Lobby, or my local crafts shop to buy the same products.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
This should be clear from my post, but you are preaching to the choir. In my opinion, if someone wants to gut their business, that is their choice. If someone doesn't like the options, they should start a competitor. basing a system on the idea that consumers shouldn't have to shop or businesses can never fail leads to all sorts perverse outcomes.