NotMyOldRedditName comments on Canadians overwhelmingly demand wealth tax after Kevin O’Leary says it will make him move away

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

And now you've stolen the company he founded and self funded with a hundred million dollars and given it to venture capitalists and hedge funds, because of some perceived and unrealized gain.

It'd be the same for any person with a meaningful stake in a company.

Your basically advocating that once a company reaches a certain size, the founders and possibly the early investors have to give up their ownership and the influence that offers.

Edit: a company like SpaceX and countless others simply wouldn't exist under rules like that.

Edit: and that size is literally at the whim of the markets since stock values dont represent the current day value. Imagine a company being led by a founder and hedge funds scheme a plot to raise the stock price through something like a gamma squeeze to force the founder to sell shares from that temporary gain, so they can do a hostile takeover. If thats possible, itll happen.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] RamenJunkie@midwest.social 2 points 1 month ago* (3 children)

Yeah, thats kind of the idea, they sell to others, it spreads the interest of the company out so it better represents societies needs and not the whims of one asshole. You don't want that to happen, you run it privately off its own profits without the shareholder parasite class involved.

And we don't need Space X. We fucking HAD NASA. Space was fun and hopeful but now Space is stupid because its all under the umbrella of this single Nazi asshole.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Founders often run their companies better

https://hbr.org/2016/03/founder-led-companies-outperform-the-rest-heres-why

Specifically, the study found that S&P 500 companies where the founder is still CEO are more innovative, generate 31% more patents, create patents that are more valuable, and are more likely to make bold investments to renew and adapt the business model — demonstrating a willingness to take risk to invent the future.

The "spread it out" doesn't get spread out to society, it will get spread out to other venture capitalists and hedge funds, and they are never as interested in the long term vision and plans for the company as its founders are.

Saying, sorry, you can't run the company the way you want after a certain size (edit: within the law obviously), is just plain shortsighted.

I'm not saying don't tax them when they try to realize those gains via selling or borrowing, and it can even be at incredibly high rates, but stealing the company from them is not the right decision. Make them choose, their company or the wealth it generated.

Edit: And just to be clear - yes you can be a CEO without any shares, but without your founding shares giving you influence, you won't have the same kind of influence within the company, ultimately neutering your ability to function the way you'd like and stiffling whatever vision / passion you might have.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

I somewhat agree with you, but the overwhelming valuations of the companies give me some concern too.

At this point, whether I like it or not, a handful of tech bros control the fate of my retirement account even if I have nothing to do with them. If someone has a bunch of VOO, then at this point half their value is in the hands of a few tech companies. On top of direct potential impact from messing up, the companies know they have the economy at large as a hostage, and government has proven it's happy to recognize "too big to fail" and socialize the losses while letting the gains be private.

So an institution passing a certain size broadly gives me concerns.

Now on the other hand, the other "capitalist" outcome outside of founder mindset is usually ruining the company faster, selling it for parts or otherwise exploiting previous success for short term gains. I totally get that the only thing more risky for a business than founder-aligned capitalism is the "capitalist for the sake of capitalism" that will drive great things into the ground if it means a few more percent wealth right now.

So I think you either somehow limit the relative value of such companies to the broader market (no idea how, but somehow), or accept some societal governance over these 'too big to fail' companies. If society is going to be on the hook for bailouts, then society should have some say in governance ahead of the bad outcome that demands a bailout.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago*

So I think you either somehow limit the relative value of such companies

If things like anti-trust, monopoly, anti-consumer laws were properly enforced that would at least help. Meta shouldn't have been able to buy Instagram or Whatsapp for example. The Paramount + Warner Brothers merger should never happen. Its not an entire solution to the problem, but it's a start, and there are already existing laws to make it work, but the regulators (edit and courts) have all been captured (which itself is a side effect of capitalism)

There could also be something about big companies getting split into smaller ones in ways that make sense as a company gets too large. Like maybe Starlink is eventually required to be spun out from SpaceX even though that was done internally. You could maybe even keep some of that 'founder' mindset by having someone internal that worked on the project from the start take it over in the split. Maybe the original founder could still have some input as well, but you'd make them divest to a certain level so it's not just 2 companies, but still being owned by the same person.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent