2 ms·

IMHO this should have been written “to the customers and employees”. To me, those are the people who compose a business enterprise.

JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
I’ve never seen that work. There is a fundamental tension between those groups. Hence, member-owned co-ops and employee-owned co-ops.
- throw0101c 5mo ago
  > I’ve never seen that work. There is a fundamental tension between those groups. Hence, member-owned co-ops and employee-owned co-ops. Focusing strictly on shareholders (value) has been en vogue since the 1970s: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine Before that the general thinking was along the lines of: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakeholder_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakeholder_theory Somehow companies managed to survive and grow before the 1970s.
  - JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
    > Focusing strictly on shareholders (value) has been en vogue since the 1970s It's been in vogue, in circles, since the 17th century. We're not talking about for-profit structures here.
    - throw0101c 5mo ago
      One needs to ask which "shareholder" are we talking about? The pension fund that wants steady cash flow for decades? The retirement-saver, who wants to grow a big bucket for retirement? The already-retired, who wants less growth and more wealth preservation? The hedge fund who wants a couple of quarters good numbers to raise their take of the 2-and-20? The options or day trader? "Investor heterogeneity" is a thing. There is no Platonic "shareholder" with one set of needs.
  - paulddraper 5mo ago
    Huh? Why did people buy stock then?
JackFr 5mo ago
But the customers and employees don’t actually put up the money for the enterprise. If you assume there is an airplane — great, run the airline for the customers and employees. But the cost of the airplane can’t be handwaved away.

JumpCrisscross 5mo ago

I’ve never seen that work. There is a fundamental tension between those groups. Hence, member-owned co-ops and employee-owned co-ops.

throw0101c 5mo ago
> I’ve never seen that work. There is a fundamental tension between those groups. Hence, member-owned co-ops and employee-owned co-ops. Focusing strictly on shareholders (value) has been en vogue since the 1970s: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine Before that the general thinking was along the lines of: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakeholder_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakeholder_theory Somehow companies managed to survive and grow before the 1970s.
- JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
  > Focusing strictly on shareholders (value) has been en vogue since the 1970s It's been in vogue, in circles, since the 17th century. We're not talking about for-profit structures here.
  - throw0101c 5mo ago
    One needs to ask which "shareholder" are we talking about? The pension fund that wants steady cash flow for decades? The retirement-saver, who wants to grow a big bucket for retirement? The already-retired, who wants less growth and more wealth preservation? The hedge fund who wants a couple of quarters good numbers to raise their take of the 2-and-20? The options or day trader? "Investor heterogeneity" is a thing. There is no Platonic "shareholder" with one set of needs.
- paulddraper 5mo ago
  Huh? Why did people buy stock then?

JackFr 5mo ago

But the customers and employees don’t actually put up the money for the enterprise. If you assume there is an airplane — great, run the airline for the customers and employees. But the cost of the airplane can’t be handwaved away.