261–270 of 373 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This scheme is backdoor nationalization. OF COURSE the company would flee the country to prevent it.
If you don't want to lose control of your company, don't issue public stock. Once you do, and it is bought by someone else, it's not your company anymore. Why does it matter if it was bought by Berkshire-Hathaway, Vanguard, or by the government of Sweeden?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Labor running the company? This fails more often than it succeeds. Bread and circuses are the result, then bankruptcy. Indeed obvious without the use of hindsight.
There are lots of successful co-ops though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have citations to back that up? A quick search turned up a couple of hits (one old, one relatively recent) that both said that Employee owned businesses performed reasonably well. Certainly not conclusive, but a first stab. https://www.forbes.com/sites/darrendahl/2016/07/19/are-emplo... https://hbr.org/1987/09/how-well-is-employee-ownership-worki...
Employee-owned is very different from employee-managed. I recall VW put a single member of labor on their board; it broke the company as other members courted the vote of the uninformed labor rep, giving up perks until labor costs were bankrupting the place. Companies operating in a competitive environment have to be pretty efficient. Optimizing a company for employee benefits is pretty much at odds with that. I know…
Of course, since labor representation on boards is widespread in Germany, most medium to large German businesses are a good example. I assume the German economy is in tatters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Version that was introduced in 1982 was a water downed version of the original plan, the Social democrats lost an election because of the original plan in 1976 against the popular opposition leader and farmer Thorbjörn Fälldin. Fälldin broke a 40 year long social democratic rule. Fälldin described the plan as DDR style economics with the subsequent removing of personal freedoms. Original plan was to create funds to w…
Is buying stock always taking other people's work, or just when the state does it?
When, say, the Koch brothers concentrate political and economic power in themselves, it's just markets and capitalism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you don't want to lose control of your company, don't issue public stock. Once you do, and it is bought by someone else, it's not your company anymore. Why does it matter if it was bought by Berkshire-Hathaway, Vanguard, or by the government of Sweeden?
That's missing the point...
Why is a government buying a majority of a company's shares on the public markets bad? Why is one man, or an investment firm buying a majority of shares of a company any better?
An attack on this is an attack on the concept of public markets.
'Public markets' does a lot of work in this claim. There's an obvious difference between shotgun nationalization, and a hostile stock takeover. It's the difference between armed robbery of a grocery store, and buying a loaf of bread at posted prices.
This seems to be a common reaction when market proponents see their own system used against them. (See also: collective baragining on the side of employees vs collective bargaining on the side of management. For some reason, one is bad, but the other one is just the way things are. Management bargains collectively, but we have to bargain against them independently.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Version that was introduced in 1982 was a water downed version of the original plan, the Social democrats lost an election because of the original plan in 1976 against the popular opposition leader and farmer Thorbjörn Fälldin. Fälldin broke a 40 year long social democratic rule. Fälldin described the plan as DDR style economics with the subsequent removing of personal freedoms. Original plan was to create funds to w…
"Taxing profits in moderation is not breach against democratic principles, but using the companies own money to take ownership over it is." It's not the companies own money after it's been taxed. From then on it's actually the government's money.
Intent here was to take control over the ownership of the companies, that would have been same as 100% tax, they where just using a more complicated scheme but the end result would been the same.
> The foundation owns itself, so no Kamprad family members hold shares. Late stage capitalism... Anyway, I don't really get why the article claims he didn't care about money. It's known for a while that IKEA avoids taxes in many dodgy ways. If he really didn't care, the connected companies could pay a reasonable amount.
He didn't really care about money personally, or at least not the material things money can buy. At least that's the image he worked very hard to portray by driving an old Volvo, living in a modest house and wearing clothes bought in a second hand store etc. He obviously cared a lot about his companies making as much money as possible. Although if you asked him he'd probably say that all that tax avoidance was just h…
> The foundation owns itself, so no Kamprad family members hold shares. Late stage capitalism... Anyway, I don't really get why the article claims he didn't care about money. It's known for a while that IKEA avoids taxes in many dodgy ways. If he really didn't care, the connected companies could pay a reasonable amount.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Taxing profits in moderation is not breach against democratic principles, but using the companies own money to take ownership over it is." It's not the companies own money after it's been taxed. From then on it's actually the government's money.
Reason why I wrote in moderation, e.g. 100% tax is not moderation and therefore theft. Intent here was to take control over the ownership of the companies, that would have been same as 100% tax, they where just using a more complicated scheme but the end result would been the same.