4 ms·

I mean, everything you said is true, but only because we have deliberately set up the system as such. Shareholder Primacy is a choice we have made as a society.

I mean, everything you said is true, but only because we have deliberately set up the system as such. Shareholder Primacy is a choice we have made as a society. It's not some natural law or something carved by god into stone tablets. It's not hard to imagine alternatives, but obviously the shareholding class is going to work hard to ensure that only their preferred rules have traction. Whether or not alternatives are workable given human nature is another thread altogether.

astrange 2y ago
Shareholders don't have "primacy", eg they're last in bankruptcy. If you're asking for them to never get anything, then they're not going to participate, and this is supposedly a forum about startups. In tech the employees also tend to be shareholders which I think is healthier.
Out_of_Characte 2y ago
>only because we have deliberately set up the system as such. No one can sell at a loss all the time. That's just stupidity. Either I get a return on money invested later or I get a return on my balance sheet now in the form of profit. Shareholders primacy is because they can only be cut trough a buyout.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deviantbit 2y ago
No, it's not a choice we made as a society. It was a choice the shareholders made. You didn't make that choice, you were not part of it.
- ryandrake 2y ago
  That's a good point! I never got the chance to vote on whether or not shareholders should get all the votes.
  - throwaway3572 2y ago
    Why should you get a vote? You don’t get a vote on what groceries I buy. What entitles you to a vote on this purchase decision? (In this case “all the votes” means when making decisions on actions a particular corporation is considering, not any vote on anything)
    - heeen2 2y ago
      Lots of places take vote on what you can buy, eg weed, alcohol, which additives are allowed and so on
      - throwaway3572 2y ago
        The creation and transacting of corporate shares is also highly regulated. But it doesn’t address the question of why a third party should get a vote that helps decide a particular corporate action. Votes that limit the possible actions of all corporations equally are a different thing.
        int_19h 2y ago
        OP was talking about the overall social arrangement. One possibility would be to give employees (of all corporations!) some collective power over the company, as a fundamental requirement of incorporation.
        ryandrake 2y ago
        Ultimately, the corporation is operating (and gets legal support like corporate personhood and limited liability) because the public permits it through the state approving its corporate charter. The public allows the company to exist, and in exchange, the company is supposed to serve at least some vague public good. Technically, the public has the power to revoke the company's charter if that's in people's best interest. The general public are all stakeholders that are affected by the actions of the corporations they allow to exist. They ought to have a say. In practice, we as a people have pretty much given up that say, and the world as it exists today is the result: Corporations running amok doing whatever they want, answering only to shareholders.
wilg 2y ago
Nobody is stopping anyone from running a non-profit tech company, or a PBC or co-op or various other structures. It's not even true that a US company has to prioritize "shareholder value" or whatever over anything else. You can kinda just do whatever you want. So the interesting question to me is, why don't more people try to operate companies/workplaces in the way they think would be more ethical and better for business?

astrange 2y ago

Shareholders don't have "primacy", eg they're last in bankruptcy. If you're asking for them to never get anything, then they're not going to participate, and this is supposedly a forum about startups. In tech the employees also tend to be shareholders which I think is healthier.

Out_of_Characte 2y ago

>only because we have deliberately set up the system as such. No one can sell at a loss all the time. That's just stupidity. Either I get a return on money invested later or I get a return on my balance sheet now in the form of profit. Shareholders primacy is because they can only be cut trough a buyout.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

deviantbit 2y ago

No, it's not a choice we made as a society. It was a choice the shareholders made. You didn't make that choice, you were not part of it.

ryandrake 2y ago
That's a good point! I never got the chance to vote on whether or not shareholders should get all the votes.
- throwaway3572 2y ago
  Why should you get a vote? You don’t get a vote on what groceries I buy. What entitles you to a vote on this purchase decision? (In this case “all the votes” means when making decisions on actions a particular corporation is considering, not any vote on anything)
  - heeen2 2y ago
    Lots of places take vote on what you can buy, eg weed, alcohol, which additives are allowed and so on
    - throwaway3572 2y ago
      The creation and transacting of corporate shares is also highly regulated. But it doesn’t address the question of why a third party should get a vote that helps decide a particular corporate action. Votes that limit the possible actions of all corporations equally are a different thing.
      - int_19h 2y ago
        OP was talking about the overall social arrangement. One possibility would be to give employees (of all corporations!) some collective power over the company, as a fundamental requirement of incorporation.
      - ryandrake 2y ago
        Ultimately, the corporation is operating (and gets legal support like corporate personhood and limited liability) because the public permits it through the state approving its corporate charter. The public allows the company to exist, and in exchange, the company is supposed to serve at least some vague public good. Technically, the public has the power to revoke the company's charter if that's in people's best interest. The general public are all stakeholders that are affected by the actions of the corporations they allow to exist. They ought to have a say. In practice, we as a people have pretty much given up that say, and the world as it exists today is the result: Corporations running amok doing whatever they want, answering only to shareholders.

wilg 2y ago

Nobody is stopping anyone from running a non-profit tech company, or a PBC or co-op or various other structures. It's not even true that a US company has to prioritize "shareholder value" or whatever over anything else. You can kinda just do whatever you want. So the interesting question to me is, why don't more people try to operate companies/workplaces in the way they think would be more ethical and better for business?