π³π±
Yup, they would be quite surprised after they destroy the biggest wealth producers in society and trigger massive starvation and death for everyone... good intentions dont get you very far, least of all when you do the exact opposite of whats best for society.
That isnt to say that there arent issues to address with the rich, there are, but if your going to eliminate rich people all together, you might as well just cover yourself in honey and go hug a bear, your chance of coming out of it with something positive to show would be much higher.
@freemo @admitsWrongIfProven Some of us prefer businesses that produce actual value, like cheeseburgers or houses, instead of just "wealth".
The people who actually create those things should be the wealthy in a just society, not the people who were born to it.
Cheese burgers and houses **are** wealth... Based on your wording you are confusing "wealth" (things that have utility and value) and money..
If you have profit alone, then you just are moving money around.. you arent generating wealth (or money)... in order to generate wealth you must increase the overall number of things in society with utility... So yes what i said already was in line with what your saying, you just are using wealth in the way of "collecting wealth" which is not the same as "generating wealth".
> The people who actually create those things should be the wealthy in a just society, not the people who were born to it.
Agreed, like the people who sacraficed decades to create the idea, get funding, investing in the building, getting the money to pay people to do the labour, etc... yes the owners who risk everything and actually create the wealth are the people who should be wealthy.
> If you have profit alone, then you just are moving money around
So then you would agree that most of the stock trading industry is not, by your definition, "generating wealth" despite the fact that they become fabulously wealthy by performing their jobs?
> yes the owners who risk everything and actually create the wealth are the people who should be wealthy.
The problem is that the guys who come in after the original owner sells are paid even more, usually just to ruin what the original owner built. Most businesses aren't owned by their founders, or even people who care about the long-term health of the business, but rather short-term investors who are only looking to cash out as soon as possible. That mindset of wealth extraction is what's wrong with so much of business today.
@undefined @admitsWrongIfProven @LouisIngenthron
So then you would agree that most of the stock trading industry is not, by your definition, “generating wealth” despite the fact that they become fabulously wealthy by performing their jobs?
Its a bit more complex than that… Stocks directly allow a company to aquire funding from the public.. If the company is a company that generates wealth (not all companies necceseraly do), and you buying their stock enabled them to have the liquid capital needed to invest in a project that accelerated their growth, and thus their ability to generate wealth… then no, you as an investor in their stock on the market directly helped wealth get generated as a result of your investment.
If you invest in companies that are all vapour ware and dont actually generate wealth themselves, then no you arent generating wealth, even if you get rich doing it…
As with most things, it depends ont he nuance and any pure ideological standpoint is just nonsense.
The problem is that the guys who come in after the original owner sells are paid even more, usually just to ruin what the original owner built
As with everything it is situational.. if a new owner comes in and tanks the company (or changes it froma wealth generator to non-wealth generator regardless of value)… then yea your right, they are destroying wealth not creating it… However if they enable the company to create more things which add utility to the world, tehn they may be continuing to generate new wealth… again it depends. It is situational
Most businesses aren’t owned by their founders, or even people who care about the long-term health of the business,
Being owned by the founders is completely irrelevant to if they are a wealth-generator.. even caring about the long-term heath is irrelevant to if they are wealth generators now or int he near future.. you can make choices which ensure your company is a wealth generator for 5 years to come but your plan is flawed and then by 10 years it may fail. This failure does not necceseeraly destroy its wealth previously generated thoughm but it may, it depends.
but rather short-term investors who are only looking to cash out as soon as possible.
Generating a lot of wealth in the short term, knowing the company will be destroyed int he long, still generates wealth, so long as its destruction doesnt destroy the previous utility it created.
A car company that sells cars and makes a profit for a year, then tanks, still generated wealth for a year, then stopped, even if the companies value goes to 0 the amount of utility added to the world is the same (those cars still exist) and thus overall still generated wealth.
“Generating a lot of wealth in the short term, knowing the company will be destroyed int he long, still generates wealth”
Sure, it “still generates wealth”. Burning cash for heat generates wealth if you’re cold, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good thing. Why would you look only at wealth in a single point of time? A company that lasts 100 years generates far more wealth than a company that closes after one. By seeking short-term profits over long, the investors are robbing the company of future wealth to pay themselves dividends now. And they enshittify the products and services as a result of their wealth extraction techniques. We see it happening over and over.
Investment is a good thing for business. But publicly-traded companies aren’t invested into; They’re bet on like ponies in a race, and the incentives that come from that rob all of us in the long run.
Sure, it βstill generates wealthβ. Burning cash for heat generates wealth if youβre cold, but that doesnβt mean itβs a good thing.
This analogy suggests you still dont understand the distinction between money, value, and wealth.
Short of literally burning money, companies dont burn money when they tank, even if they spend irresponsibly they arent burning money… All they are doing is moving the money out of their company and into other companies or peoples pockets.. the total wealth when a company tanks is the same, its just distributed different.
Why would you look only at wealth in a single point of time?
We arent, we are explicitly talking about how wealth that was generated (thing with utility, the cars) then a company going bankrupt later does not destroy that wealth at a later point in time… the company crashing doesnt destroy wealth because the amount of things it put into the world that had utility (which was earlier in the timeline, so we are looking at time here) still exists, so wealth was generated and not destroyed.
A company that lasts 100 years generates far more wealth than a company that closes after one
This is certainly true.. and if your argument was “the company that made short term wealth and then crash did not reach its full potential at making wealth, and if it had been managed with concern for its long term success then it could have generated more wealth”… this would be a correct statement yes, there was a lost potential for generating wealth that wasnt realized… that is not the same as saying that the company didnt over the court of its life have a net positive wealth generation, it did.
By seeking short-term profits over long, the investors are robbing the company of future wealth to pay themselves dividends now.
Its not always for dividends, and investors do not get to dictate day to day operations.. The only thing an investor can do is vote for board members and with some serious restrictions sometimes impeach them.. even the board cant control day to day operatiosn, they in turn need to hire a CEO.
So to think an investor in a company even can exhivit such fine level of control is a bit sketchy…
But all that aside, sure, they are generating wealth, which is good for the world, but they are generating perhaps less than they potentially could… ok.. so its less good than it could be, but still good… im ok with that analysis i suppose.
And they enshittify the products and services as a result of their wealth extraction techniques. We see it happening over and over.
Sure, i am willing to say they may build a shittier product to maxamize profits.. thats partly the consumers fault for buying a product that is a shitty deal though.. but yea, I mean i dont care enough to disagree with this per se… does change the fact that they generated wealth which was good for society and if you eliminated them all you wont achieve some paradise, youll just destroy what little imperfect wealth generation we have and create massive poverty… so while maybe they could build better products in theory, in practice they are still adding wealth to the world.
Investment is a good thing for business. But publicly-traded companies arenβt invested into; Theyβre bet on like ponies in a race, and the incentives that come from that rob all of us in the long run.
Yea this shows you have absolutely no clue how stocks work then… I just spent 2 years running a company merging with a public company (so I had to run it like a public company ont he stock market)… Yes when you buy stock we as a public company get operating money as a result of that. You probably dont realize it but the company itself is able to 1) take out loans on the value of its stock 2) holds some of its own stock so as the value of stock rises so does the asset holdings of hte company 3) can, and does, and is normal issue new stocks and sells it on the stock market regularly
Literally public companies get cash as a result of their stock price going up, and your gonna sit here pretending like its just a trading card game…I know you mean well but man you assert things like you know when clearly you dont know the basics… when talking to experts on subjects (in this case me as someone who literally just spent 2 years being the EVP of a public company)… Please please please… try to listen to people and recognize the areas you dont have knowledge in (like i did with you when talking about aviation)… it will go a long way for you, I say this as a friend not to be mean.
@freemo @admitsWrongIfProven All those things you claim I don’t know about the stock market… I did. I even own stock and profited off of Elon’s jackass purchase.
I would never claim that the stock market generates no value. My argument is simply that it generates more harm, and is therefore a net negative on society.
Ok so we are in agreement that this statement you made is wrong?
But publicly-traded companies arenβt invested into
And that in fact public traded companies, when you buy their stock, causes them to be “invested into”… in other words we agree that buying stock raises stock prices and ultimately results in money int he pockets of the company you invest in?
As long as we agree there then yea, seems we got the basics in line, and I apologize if i misunderstood
@freemo @admitsWrongIfProven Fair enough, yeah, that was meant as hyperbole, not a statement of fact.
Fair enough then.. doesnt always translate well ont he internet…
As a general rule i try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt around miscommunications. No worries then.
A company that lasts 100 years generates far more wealth than a company that closes after one
One small point about this… One company lasting 100 years will generate more wealth… But a company succeding and then failing over a 10 year period, but generates wealth over the ahort term puts more wealth into the world. So when it crashes that wealth has to move into some other place, a new company. So rolling that money into a new company that then generates wealth for 10 years, and repeat… may very well generate the same or even more wealth.
Generating wealth 10x with 10 seperate companies over 100 years, rather than one company generates the same wealth regardless.. The key is in understanding that a company crashing doesnt destroy wealth, so the fact that there is a “rebirth” cycle that bank rolls the society wealth every time means the overall picture is still wealth generation over the long term.
I mean for what its worth after spending 2 years dealing with running a more or less public company… on this we agree… I took over after we as a company were already commited to go public… I said when I joined to the day I left our decision to go public was the dumbest shit ever and the type of investor we had to deal with was far less desirable than a private investor…
So yea, in this regard we sort of agree.. i wouldnt be quite as bad as you in terms of how anti-public I am (like ill invest in public companies a bit but i would never take my own public company)… but we do agree public invesment is a lot shittier a deal than private
@freemo @admitsWrongIfProven If the companies were dying naturally, then I would agree with you. At some point, the stodgy Goliath must be beaten by the nimble and innovative David.
But they’re not dying naturally, or being beaten in open competition. They’re being sucked dry by vampires who claim an ownership percentage.
At this point, I legitimately treat an IPO as a death knell.