Post AS4EnFto2jWZ4fS3Ga by d3cline@opalstack.social
(DIR) More posts by d3cline@opalstack.social
(DIR) Post #AS4EgeO6b296zuTSZU by john@sauropods.win
2023-01-27T11:44:52Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
What economically bad effects could there be if companies couldn't own other companies?#economics #capitalism
(DIR) Post #AS4EnFto2jWZ4fS3Ga by d3cline@opalstack.social
2023-01-27T11:46:03Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@john It would make the gray area that is required to make things actually happen not exist. I have ran many startups, and those layers of deniability matter. Its hard to get people to do the work they agreed to in the first place. Sometimes you need to move HR around.
(DIR) Post #AS4ExVS94LIYD3OwS0 by af@dataare.cool
2023-01-27T11:47:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@john I don’t strictly have a problem with companies owning companies. The problem is liability limitation. And getting rid of that probably gives you more of the benefits you’re trying to achieve by getting rid of corporate ownership.Plenty of adverse impacts, including pooling R&D, or shared services.
(DIR) Post #AS4FRwZUo7Ot0ILxOC by AggroBoy@mastodon.social
2023-01-27T11:53:27Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@john being acquired is often a way of saving a lot of jobs that would be lost if the company just folded.Plus the standard argument that without the potential benefit of an “exit” most startups simply won’t happen. Would that be a “bad effect”? I’m not sure it’s a slam-dunk, but a lot of innovation and … financial activity is driven by that machine.
(DIR) Post #AS4H4lRqCKVnkjqboW by john@sauropods.win
2023-01-27T12:11:41Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@AggroBoy Yeah, I can see both those points. I suppose the counter argument is that companies that aren't profitable *should* fold, and that the kind of exit a lot of startups take is economically perverse (it often seems to be about killing competition). Seems that the current startup culture is big companies outsourcing their R&D. Not saying that's bad, just that maybe they'd do more in-house if acquisition wasn't an option.
(DIR) Post #AS4IR4Hcwv8MUiGl5E by AggroBoy@mastodon.social
2023-01-27T12:26:50Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@john I think that’s definitely true, and it affects the sort of research that gets done. The pure-R&D facilities that big tech companies used to finance (bell-labs, xerox parc, etc) are (for the most part) things of the past, and I think that’s a real loss.OTOH, the startup model attracts venture money and keeps the R&D more insulated form big-company politics and inertia, which arguably increases the pace of the work it does achieve.
(DIR) Post #AS4IjCznIOKAjBZtya by john@sauropods.win
2023-01-27T12:30:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@af So shareholders would be personally liable for company debts? What benefits does that have?
(DIR) Post #AS4MRGuKPdN5SqiwnQ by af@dataare.cool
2023-01-27T13:11:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@john billionaires who own Exxon Mobile are responsible for their spills, Boeing owners are responsible for making safety equipment optional in their 737-Max. Passive investors will cease to exist, making owners of companies concerned with law breaking of the company as the liability could exceed the value of the company itself.
(DIR) Post #AS4MhUTVjjfSAzujfE by john@sauropods.win
2023-01-27T13:14:41Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@af So pension funds and stuff like that would probably have to go away? Or would all that be side-stepped with insurance, like professional liability?
(DIR) Post #AS4OqP9b5dOeBgyhGK by dan@brvt.telent.net
2023-01-27T13:35:16.192291Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@john wholly own, or own shares in? I'm thinking of pension funds here
(DIR) Post #AS4OqPhd36cPtEtsJ6 by john@sauropods.win
2023-01-27T13:38:40Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@dan No ownership at all. I suppose pension schemes could be run more like stock brokers or something, they invest your money for you and take a cut, but you're legally the owner of the things they chose to invest in.