@wjmaggos @billblake2018 one radical policy that I advocate for is repealing all laws allowing the creation of limited liability corporations. If you own a company and they do something reprehensible, you should be personally responsible.
If you do that, watch these guys suddenly start acting like little angels.
If you do that, watch these guys suddenly start acting like little angels.
@billblake2018 @wjmaggos LLCs in name didn't exist, but corporations did, and they do shield shareholders from liability for the company's actions, whether they're called LLCs or not.
The first corporations were created by governments and were massive and amoral. Nothing changed over time. At the end of the day, someone needs to be responsible for the actions of the legal construct, and if nobody is then the legal construct will do irresponsible things, naturally.
The first corporations were created by governments and were massive and amoral. Nothing changed over time. At the end of the day, someone needs to be responsible for the actions of the legal construct, and if nobody is then the legal construct will do irresponsible things, naturally.
@billblake2018 @wjmaggos Good point. Replace LLCs with corporations in general. Businesses can continue to exist as something individuals own and control and must take responsibility for, but I think that would naturally limit the size of businesses because beyond a certain point the corruption of a business that the owner would be taking personal responsibility for would be such that you can't grow any further.
@billblake2018 @wjmaggos An owner of a sole proprietorship may not be held criminally responsible for the actions of his employees if he or she does due diligence, but when a business goes under and takes a bunch of the owner's personal assets with it, other business owners will take notice and strive to be more careful with their own assets. If we assume arguendo that public stock markets remain, if buying a stock in Lehman brothers or Enron meant that your personal assets might be seized to pay back creditors, then individual investors would be much more invested (ahem) in ensuring sustainable growth with managed risks.
The nudge towards more conservative operation of businesses would naturally limit the upper size of businesses because nobody would want to have their money in an Enron or a Lehman Brothers, and people would lay awake at night worrying that they are investing in a Theranos. The bigger the company, the bigger the fall. There'd be a gravity that pulls businesses downwards.
At the moment, there's no such gravity. Businesses make more money easier by being massive, and if they screw up the investors walk away with only their initial investment lost (and perhaps less than that if they can dump their shares quickly enough -- something that would be a lot more difficult if people who were buying shares cheap were also potentially taking on debt greater than the cost of the investment they made)
The nudge towards more conservative operation of businesses would naturally limit the upper size of businesses because nobody would want to have their money in an Enron or a Lehman Brothers, and people would lay awake at night worrying that they are investing in a Theranos. The bigger the company, the bigger the fall. There'd be a gravity that pulls businesses downwards.
At the moment, there's no such gravity. Businesses make more money easier by being massive, and if they screw up the investors walk away with only their initial investment lost (and perhaps less than that if they can dump their shares quickly enough -- something that would be a lot more difficult if people who were buying shares cheap were also potentially taking on debt greater than the cost of the investment they made)
- replies
- 1
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 0
@billblake2018 @wjmaggos Since corporations will never be abolished because they're too useful as effective agents of the government, we'll never know for sure.