memes

10651 readers

2435 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civil

No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politics

This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]

3. No recent reposts

Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No bots

No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads

No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

[email protected] : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
[email protected] : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
[email protected] : Linux themed memes
[email protected] : for those who love comic stories.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

867

The only good billionaire (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

131 comments fedilink hide all child comments

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Feeney

https://www.atlanticphilanthropies.org/news/former-billionaire-chuck-feeney-philanthropist-who-pioneered-giving-while-living-has-died-at-age-92

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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.