if I’m understanding you correctly, what you’re saying is this man has a billion dollars in assets but he needs them to do his work which is beneficial for people.
I’m not sure this is really the correct description of the situation. I’m not trying to be pedantic, but the fact that his company is valued at 1 billion doesn’t mean the assets are worth 1 billion.
People have assigned this value to the company based on assets, yes, and on the workforce and etc. But they are also assigning value to the company based on what direction they think the company will be lead. Ask yourself this - if their CEO is a genius who has proven time and again that he can make magic happen with very little worth of value, wouldn’t you invest in him? Wouldn’t you say his company, while maybe poor and shit today, will probably be worth a billion dollars soon thanks to its leadership?
Two issues come from this, both that I don’t think you account for - because you argue for workers owning the company in a co-op-like situation, or the CEO selling assets the company doesn’t need in order to put that billion to good use:
If the CEO starts dumping stock - so will everyone else. Selling stock means you don’t think the company is that valuable. If you don’t trust it, why should I? The company’s price would tank, and so would any potential it has
If workers are the decision makers, not the genius CEO that everyone trusts to lead - guess how much I’m investing in a company ran by faceless dudes that I don’t trust. Exactly $0. You make this company a co-op and you guarantee the main attraction about it is no longer attractive. And at that point if I’m the CEO I’m out anyway - you obviously don’t trust my leadership enough to let me run the company, why would I ever want to stay? But good luck competing against the face of rockets with your cute little co-op that gets no funding and can’t pay it’s employees.
My point is - you want to reap the benefits of capitalism and investments in the stock market, while living in a socialist utopia where your actions on the market don’t have consequences. I’m not sure that’ll work.
I’m not sure this is really the correct description of the situation. I’m not trying to be pedantic, but the fact that his company is valued at 1 billion doesn’t mean the assets are worth 1 billion.
People have assigned this value to the company based on assets, yes, and on the workforce and etc. But they are also assigning value to the company based on what direction they think the company will be lead. Ask yourself this - if their CEO is a genius who has proven time and again that he can make magic happen with very little worth of value, wouldn’t you invest in him? Wouldn’t you say his company, while maybe poor and shit today, will probably be worth a billion dollars soon thanks to its leadership?
Two issues come from this, both that I don’t think you account for - because you argue for workers owning the company in a co-op-like situation, or the CEO selling assets the company doesn’t need in order to put that billion to good use:
If the CEO starts dumping stock - so will everyone else. Selling stock means you don’t think the company is that valuable. If you don’t trust it, why should I? The company’s price would tank, and so would any potential it has
If workers are the decision makers, not the genius CEO that everyone trusts to lead - guess how much I’m investing in a company ran by faceless dudes that I don’t trust. Exactly $0. You make this company a co-op and you guarantee the main attraction about it is no longer attractive. And at that point if I’m the CEO I’m out anyway - you obviously don’t trust my leadership enough to let me run the company, why would I ever want to stay? But good luck competing against the face of rockets with your cute little co-op that gets no funding and can’t pay it’s employees.
My point is - you want to reap the benefits of capitalism and investments in the stock market, while living in a socialist utopia where your actions on the market don’t have consequences. I’m not sure that’ll work.