4 ms·

> So, what happens if person A is prohibited from selling their business? I actually made that thought experiment. Disallow selling businesses. Disallow sellin

by Xirdus 14d ago

> So, what happens if person A is prohibited from selling their business? I actually made that thought experiment. Disallow selling businesses. Disallow selling shares. Disallow stock market. Disallow mergers. The only way to acquire a business is to found it or to inherit it. The only way to quit a business is to shut it all down, with all assets liquidated, all liabilities settled, and all contracts terminated. The main downside is that it's harder for to make money. Otherwise... I only see positives. And no, it wouldn't kill innovation. The investors would just have to invest the old fashioned way - by founding companies or expanding their existing businesses. As for job security, we already don't have it in the current system.

tacostakohashi 14d ago
Private property is theft! Disallow eyeglasses. Abolish money. Any other good ideas?
- Xirdus 13d ago
  You can sell all your offices, desks, printers, laptops, machinery, land, inventory, intellectual property, and anything else you want to your heart's content, to anyone you want, for any price you want. The only thing you can't sell is the legal entity itself.
alex43578 14d ago
That's such an incredibly shortsighted view of the downsides. In your model, the only possible business owners would be those with major capital resources to begin with, encouraging the spread of existing businesses into a sprawl: Walmart is now your doctor, pharmacist, and pharma manufacturer. Nobody would start a small business because they'd have to carry all liability, any new ideas are limited to spread at a glacially slow pace, because companies can't be aquired or acqui-hired, but can instead only scale on their own revenues.
- bruce511 14d ago
  It's worse than that. When the owner retires, all staff lose their jobs. That's a fairly big bummer. I'm currently part of a "small" business/factory (around 50 employees). The owner is nearing retirement. Are all 50 of us gonna hit the streets tomorrow? Should our customers, many longstanding over 20 years get their contracts terminated? Do they get any warning? Can they easily switch to other suppliers? Is our offering somewhat unique? Frankly, I think the thought-experiment is very incomplete if you can't see major downsides.
  - Xirdus 13d ago
    Recently, the owner of the factory my grandfather worked for the last 30 years has retired and sold their business, as a single package, fully operational, with employees and pending orders. It was still shut down and all employees were let go without any severance. From what I know, this is the norm for retirement sales, not the exception. In this thought experiment, the result would be very similar to what happened, except with less wealth concentration, and with fewer Boeing-McDonnell Douglas mergers that ruin good companies in pursuit of short term profits (because short term profits are harder to realize by design). Lost jobs are also a lot less of a problem in countries with functioning safety net.
- Xirdus 13d ago
  > In your model, the only possible business owners would be those with major capital resources to begin with Or you get a loan. Or you get an investor on board. How is that different from the current situation? > encouraging the spread of existing businesses into a sprawl: Walmart is now your doctor, pharmacist, and pharma manufacturer. It's happening anyway. My last vaccination was done 100% at Walmart. > Nobody would start a small business because they'd have to carry all liability How is that different from the current situation? > any new ideas are limited to spread at a glacially slow pace, because companies can't be aquired or acqui-hired Acquisitions are a relatively recent inventions, acqui-hires even more so. People have been doing massive inventions at rapid pace for like 200 years before being bought out by FAANG was a viable business strategy. > but can instead only scale on their own revenues. And loans. Don't forget loans.
cyberax 14d ago
OK. Your job is from now is dung transport. Because you inherited it, whether you like it or not. Sure, you are allowed to start a new business. But where would you get money? You can't sell your dung transport business, and you don't have enough money of your own to just start a new business from scratch.
- AngryData 14d ago
  They can't sell "Xirdus's Dung Service", but they can still sell their assets like the dung cart, shovel, dung pit, etc.
  - cyberax 13d ago
    Sell it to whom? Who is going to be buying the assets? And what about employees? (never mind that "selling assets" is just a workaround for "selling business")
    - Xirdus 13d ago
      It makes it impossible to share part of a business, including stocks. It also massively increases the friction of takeover by killing all employee, vendor, and client contracts, so the buyer cannot benefit from any of these without arranging for it separately. It also invalidates the strategy of leveraged buyout. But yes, it can be done in principle. Which is especially important in the "who will take over the local dentist's office" scenario - this system would heavily favor small business owners who want to do the business personally over holding corporations and PE funds.
- Xirdus 13d ago
  It's crazy what some people will come up with just to have something to criticize instead of the actual contents of the thing they're replying to. Nobody said continuing an inherited business is mandatory, least of all me. I am all for serious discussion about shortcomings of my idea. But this isn't it.

by Xirdus 14d ago

tacostakohashi 14d ago

Private property is theft! Disallow eyeglasses. Abolish money. Any other good ideas?

Xirdus 13d ago
You can sell all your offices, desks, printers, laptops, machinery, land, inventory, intellectual property, and anything else you want to your heart's content, to anyone you want, for any price you want. The only thing you can't sell is the legal entity itself.

alex43578 14d ago

That's such an incredibly shortsighted view of the downsides. In your model, the only possible business owners would be those with major capital resources to begin with, encouraging the spread of existing businesses into a sprawl: Walmart is now your doctor, pharmacist, and pharma manufacturer. Nobody would start a small business because they'd have to carry all liability, any new ideas are limited to spread at a glacially slow pace, because companies can't be aquired or acqui-hired, but can instead only scale on their own revenues.

bruce511 14d ago
It's worse than that. When the owner retires, all staff lose their jobs. That's a fairly big bummer. I'm currently part of a "small" business/factory (around 50 employees). The owner is nearing retirement. Are all 50 of us gonna hit the streets tomorrow? Should our customers, many longstanding over 20 years get their contracts terminated? Do they get any warning? Can they easily switch to other suppliers? Is our offering somewhat unique? Frankly, I think the thought-experiment is very incomplete if you can't see major downsides.
- Xirdus 13d ago
  Recently, the owner of the factory my grandfather worked for the last 30 years has retired and sold their business, as a single package, fully operational, with employees and pending orders. It was still shut down and all employees were let go without any severance. From what I know, this is the norm for retirement sales, not the exception. In this thought experiment, the result would be very similar to what happened, except with less wealth concentration, and with fewer Boeing-McDonnell Douglas mergers that ruin good companies in pursuit of short term profits (because short term profits are harder to realize by design). Lost jobs are also a lot less of a problem in countries with functioning safety net.
Xirdus 13d ago
> In your model, the only possible business owners would be those with major capital resources to begin with Or you get a loan. Or you get an investor on board. How is that different from the current situation? > encouraging the spread of existing businesses into a sprawl: Walmart is now your doctor, pharmacist, and pharma manufacturer. It's happening anyway. My last vaccination was done 100% at Walmart. > Nobody would start a small business because they'd have to carry all liability How is that different from the current situation? > any new ideas are limited to spread at a glacially slow pace, because companies can't be aquired or acqui-hired Acquisitions are a relatively recent inventions, acqui-hires even more so. People have been doing massive inventions at rapid pace for like 200 years before being bought out by FAANG was a viable business strategy. > but can instead only scale on their own revenues. And loans. Don't forget loans.

cyberax 14d ago

OK. Your job is from now is dung transport. Because you inherited it, whether you like it or not. Sure, you are allowed to start a new business. But where would you get money? You can't sell your dung transport business, and you don't have enough money of your own to just start a new business from scratch.

AngryData 14d ago
They can't sell "Xirdus's Dung Service", but they can still sell their assets like the dung cart, shovel, dung pit, etc.
- cyberax 13d ago
  Sell it to whom? Who is going to be buying the assets? And what about employees? (never mind that "selling assets" is just a workaround for "selling business")
  - Xirdus 13d ago
    It makes it impossible to share part of a business, including stocks. It also massively increases the friction of takeover by killing all employee, vendor, and client contracts, so the buyer cannot benefit from any of these without arranging for it separately. It also invalidates the strategy of leveraged buyout. But yes, it can be done in principle. Which is especially important in the "who will take over the local dentist's office" scenario - this system would heavily favor small business owners who want to do the business personally over holding corporations and PE funds.
Xirdus 13d ago
It's crazy what some people will come up with just to have something to criticize instead of the actual contents of the thing they're replying to. Nobody said continuing an inherited business is mandatory, least of all me. I am all for serious discussion about shortcomings of my idea. But this isn't it.