Comment on Steve Ballmer is set to make $1 billion a year for doing nothing | CNN Business

• AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  If they didn’t hold the capital hostage from the doers of the world, laborers, as is the point of capitalism, it would be a lot easier.

  Instead the do nothing capitalists keep the vast majority of the value generated, and provide just enough for the people that made it to subsist. It’s a shame so many they would never let within 100 feet of their clubs, towers, or compounds defend their con.

  source

  • throwwyacc@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Sorry what’s your alternative? I’m guessing communism?

    In that system how do you efficiently allocate capital? Do you use a command economy?

    I’m not deifying anything, it just seems that capitalism is the most efficient economic system we can come up with. And combined with regulation seems to produce pretty good results, see most of the better parts of Europe for example

    source

    • jantin@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      A system which stores vast percentage of capital inert in the hands of a few entitled parasitic rapists is not “efficient”.

      source

      • throwwyacc@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Do you want to maybe suggest something practical? I’m not particularly interested in the relentless “capitalists are evil” meme. I am interested in hearing about alternatives with merit Also inert? Are these people really sitting on cash? Or are they investing in various parts of the economy?

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • ZombieTheZombieCat@lemm.ee ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Sorry what’s your alternative? I’m guessing communism?

      capitalism is the most efficient economic system we can come up with

      “Everything I don’t like is communism.” There’s always one of you morons in every thread. I’m sure this comment will change everyone’s mind.

      source

      • throwwyacc@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        By all means suggest something else. It feels like 90% of the time people that are anti capitalism either suggest communism or don’t understand that they just want capitalism with tighter regulation What’s your suggestion?

        source
• explodicle@local106.com ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Not GP, but I’d love to see them replaced entirely with crowdfunding. So the public would pay based on our expected benefit from new structures, instead of paying people who own structures. Much of the initial investment is just paying off someone else’s mature investment.

  Rather than just capping profits with a number, we should be addressing the problems that cause it to exist at all. We’re already voting on people who vote on bailouts; might as well just cut out the middlemen who “provide” capital.

  source

  • throwwyacc@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    How would you crowd fund a company that isn’t promising a specific set of products? Normally the way we do crowd funding is to offer essentially a pre sale of a product. Sure sometimes people just put forward cash because they really want the product to exist but it isn’t the norm But for a company that will be a service provider what incentive exists to fork over potentially millions of dollars? In a crowd funding scheme you expect no profit share so why would you invest in them?

    Compared to in this case buying a percentage of a company early on to provide them with capital on the basis that you may make money in the future

    Also those bailouts while somewhat distasteful were played back to the government with interest

    source

    • explodicle@local106.com ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      The initial cost would be significantly lower because there’d be no previous owner to pay. Property values right now include the net present value of all expected future rents. The incentive to participate in the crowdfund is that the increased likelihood of the event happening is worth more to you than your share of money invested (like any other assurance contract).

      Compared to buying a percentage of the company, it eliminates unearned rent; nobody is getting paid more than it costs to bring the factor into production.

      Not all of them, no. Especially in 2020 many were forgiven. If it was a profitable endeavor (counting opportunity cost vs just investing elsewhere), then the private sector would have done it using collateral. And we’re still paying for those bailouts today [gestures at prices].

      source

      • throwwyacc@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        I’m confused, you want to have people crowd fund R&D to increase the odds a product goes to market. And then expect no profit on the back of that investment? After the potentially huge initial cost does the company then sell the product at cost? Or do they make a profit now?

        Can you give an example of a bailout you disagree with? Pretty much all bailouts I’m aware of recoup their costs Also the reason private equity doesn’t bail out these companies is that unlike a government they may not be able to weather a significant period where they aren’t getting a large cash flow, as they need to stay afloat as well. A government on the other hand is better prepared to recoup costs over time, and will do so if it means that depositors funds are safe. They are much more likely to let a hedge fund just fold as the participants are capable of withstanding such losses

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• taladar@sh.itjust.works ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  The only things that warrant investors profiting off their investment at all are the risk of not getting the money back and the opportunity cost of not having the money for other things while it is tied up in the investment so I would say a reasonable profit would be somewhere in the order of magnitude of those and not in the current “infinitely for all time” order of magnitude.

  source

  • throwwyacc@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    How are you possibly measuring opportunity cost? This is the opportunity. All you can do is use it to buy goods and services or invest via lending in some form

    Say you could quantify that and cap profits. What should happen with corporate profits then? After you’ve “paid” the original investors? Does the owner of the company now reabsorb their shares? And if we instead allocate profits to the workers, do we also allocate losses? Do workers just straight up not get paid if the company loses money one year?

    source
• FlyingSquid@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  What amount of capital has Ballmer provided? Please give us a number in dollars. You can round it off.

  Also, what amount of capital would not be provided if Ballmer didn’t increase his wealth by $1 billion off of it? Again, you can round it off.

  source

  • throwwyacc@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Actually quite interesting in the case of Ballmer as he was an employee compensated via stock rather than straight up cash

    You’d consider that an investment as he was investing his time to be a business manager while being compensated probably less in cash that would be normal for the position

    So as early Microsoft didn’t have the cash on hand, or didn’t want to give up that cash they could use elsewhere they gave equity as compensation

    How do you suggest we should remove this situation? Should we not allow compensation in the form of equity? Or should ownership of equity not exist generally?

    source
  • Djtecha@lemm.ee ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Ballmer also got Microsoft their first major contract back in the day. He did contribute massively to what MS is today. To that dollar value? No, no one contributes THAT MUCH. But it’s not like he wasn’t extremely impactful.

    source