They own stock in the company they founded.
So, you force the founder to sell 95% of the stock they own in the company.
Is this a good idea for the stock price of that company as well as the for the ability of that company to raise cash?
So, you force the founder to sell 95% of the stock they own in the company.
Is this a good idea for the stock price of that company as well as the for the ability of that company to raise cash?
1. there's not a huge asshole controlling enormous companies (and then also buying all the media and ruining the public information)
2. we have more competition and lower prices (that's EXACTLY why capitalism was supposed to have anti-concentration laws)
3. you spread the wealth. Now there are more people owning less, but still a good chunk, it's much better to have 1000 millionaires building creative stuff, than 1 egoistical billionaire
Like, Tesla should not be valued the way it is, and I still can't understand what's going on here.
I think that both Tesla and SpaceX have been net good for the world, but do we really think that wealth taxation would've stopped Musk from doing anything post Paypal?
Apple did not need to be controlled by a majority shareholder in order to follow an ambitious, cohesive vision.
- by doing it through governments (that's how we went to the moon, BTW)
- by having a collection of smaller companies cooperating and acting together