Fcking lol
Comment on Poignant post on the state of things
Cryophilia@lemmy.world 5 months agoSo a company whose ownership is open to the public, with that ownership divided into “shares”. And all the “share” holders can cooperate to decide the direction of the company…what would one call this novel form of organizing a venture…a “cooperation”?
Tankton@lemm.ee 5 months ago
TengoDosVacas@lemmy.world 5 months ago
And also, btw: abolish corporations.
Cryophilia@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Leftist version of “I hate Obamacare, but don’t touch my ACA!” rofl
TengoDosVacas@lemmy.world 5 months ago
My question to you then would be why would you continue to defend an entity that is controlling your government but is entirely immune of any consequences and answerable to no one?
Cryophilia@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I don’t think I want to know what conspiracy hole this weird statement crawled out of
TengoDosVacas@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Do you think shareholders want their money going to extravagent buildings, Italian desks, and billions in hoarded cash?
Your view of “shareholders” is that they are just cash cows to be milked and not financial participants. As a shareholder I gained fourteen cents this year; how much did the CEO gain?
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 months ago
Only open to the Workers, not the public, and it’s a Worker Co-operative. An existing Socialist organizational structure, not new.
TengoDosVacas@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Not open to the public. Open to those who actually contribute to it’s operations.
And in none of your objections can you justify the CEO pay and the political power they weild. 40x the lowest paid worker, and no more.
Cryophilia@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Ok so. Shares of ownership are open only to employees. How does this company get external investment? I suppose outside entities are allowed to invest with an expectation of a return on investment?
TengoDosVacas@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Stock is used to raise money for investment. When that investment has been covered and profit acheived, the stock should immediately drop in value or be bought back AS OPPOSED to being used for government manipulation and golden parachutes for CEOs who did very little work in making the company successful. If the CEO fails, the company fails. Paying multiple millions to CEOs who were not involved in the building of the company but were only brought in after the company failed is a gross misappropriation of shareholder funds. The new guy should get a salary of not more than 40 times what the lowest employee gets and then get stock options only after the stock and the company has been saved.
Cryophilia@lemmy.world 5 months ago
What do you mean by this?
Sorry, I swear I’m not doing that Just Asking Questions thing where I keep asking questions until you get tired and leave, I’m legitimately curious. Because the way stock works now is, there’s an initial offering of a company’s stock, at say $1 a share. Then anyone who has a share can re-sell it to people who think the value of the company is going to go up, say someone who thinks it will be worth $1.50 a share. Anyone who buys shares hopes to re-sell them at a greater value, so as a whole, this market of investors is, in aggregate, demanding ever-increasing value from every share of every company.
There’s no one particular target where a company can say “we did it!” and settle the permanent value at like $3 a share or something. So I’m wondering how you would define “profit achieved” in this context, and what should happen to those shares at that point. Does the company buy them back? If the company is buying them back at $3 a share and someone just bought a share for $3.10, why would they sell it back to the company for $3? Will they be forced to sell?