SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : View from the Center and Left

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: TigerPaw who wrote (10510)2/1/2006 2:59:52 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) of 541842
 
I don't think its an accurate representation to say the wealth is taken. The owner is compensated.

Then perhaps wealth isn't taken but property is. Just like eminent domain which I gave as an example of something similar, earlier in the conversation.

Those who receive stock as compensation would likely sell some or all for new cars or sending their kid to beauty school.

The fact that they might choose to do something is not a good reason for forcing the choice on them.

The point is the assets and the resulting control would not become tied up in a purely passive multigenerational clique.

I don't think that is an accurate assessment of how our economy works.

To the extent that there is any truth at all in that characterization (and I think its relatively minimal) your plan would not eliminate it and would create many other distortions, including the pressure to not take companies public, or for rich individuals who want to own/control the companies to try to buy them out completely and take them private rather than having to give ownership to the workers. I have no problem with the idea of privately held non-tradable companies. No problem at all. But I don't think the government should systematically favor them over public corporations.

Tim
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext