• @Leg
    link
    17
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    $999,999,999

    no individual wealth

    I don’t think you have a strong enough concept of large numbers to be able to hold a respectable opinion here.

      • @Leg
        link
        88 months ago

        That’s fair. I chose violence.

    • @Cryophilia
      link
      -38 months ago

      You didn’t answer the question though.

      Who owns a factory or a datacenter? These are fantastically expensive things. A chip foundry cannot exist under these conditions.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        78 months ago

        It could be owned by, like, multiple people? Also, a lot of companies in the world, and especially the ones managing costly infrastructure assets, are owned by states (which are a form of “multiple people”).

          • @TengoDosVacas
            link
            28 months ago

            Yes, a company which shares the results of it’s efforts between all involved and not one person or family.

            • @Cryophilia
              link
              18 months ago

              So 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”?

              • @TengoDosVacas
                link
                38 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
                  link
                  08 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
                    link
                    18 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
                  link
                  -18 months ago

                  Leftist version of “I hate Obamacare, but don’t touch my ACA!” rofl

                  • @TengoDosVacas
                    link
                    18 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?

              • Cowbee [he/him]
                link
                fedilink
                18 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
                link
                18 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?