11–20 of 25 posts
A simpler solution is to implement progressive taxes to counteract the natural Pareto distribution of wealth accumulation. Society should come to some consensus on an ‘I win at life in this society’ amount of income, after which it should just level off like a ceiling function in a feedback loop.
Block megacorps from acquisitions of smaller companies as well. When a corporation is large enough to wield significant political influence, allowing them to buy up and coming disruptors makes it even easier for them to, as the article writes, make a mockery of democratic norms. And thus, by the same token argument, the acquisition of smaller entities should similarly be blocked.
This would have a lot of unintended consequences.
Why do we think it's ok for one company to own another?
Why do we think it's ok for one company to own another?
Because a company is an asset, not a person.
Company is an asset, can be a liability, consists of people, is basic unit of economy that the whole strength of capitalism is funded on. It's so many things more than just an asset.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This would have a lot of unintended consequences.
Everything has unintended consequences. That shouldn't stop change. Especially considering that the current situation is flawed and already has many unintended consequences.
Block megacorps from acquisitions of smaller companies as well. When a corporation is large enough to wield significant political influence, allowing them to buy up and coming disruptors makes it even easier for them to, as the article writes, make a mockery of democratic norms. And thus, by the same token argument, the acquisition of smaller entities should similarly be blocked.
This is a very controversial opinion in a startup forum :) But that aside, how would you handle public trading companies, where you can simply buy an influential part of a company? It is not the same as owning or merging but having board influence can also be detrimental.
And short selling. Plus, companies should pay taxes fair and square.
Short selling is necessary to counteract hype. Only naked short selling is a problem.
Remember, the purpose of the market is as a funding mechanism for companies to pursue growth and innovation, not to allow a bunch of "banksters" to game the system. That means that investment should always be longish-term. So let's make their stupid games not worth playing.
FWIW, If you do allow intra-day trading, applying a random delay of up to, say, four hours would eliminate most of the problems...