Ads upon ads upon ads

    • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      For that you need passionate people who are wealthy and not primarily driven to acquire more wealth. That seems to be very rare in large scale businesses.

      • gjghkk@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It isn’t wealth that breaks or makes it. The system, and in this case the shareholding system makes it or breaks it. Valve owner Gabe is insanely rich (in the billions I assume) yet, because the system he put up, it is consumer friendly.

        The system is the one, not the people.

        • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes, the problem is when shareholders only want profit at any cost. These are the wealthy people I was talking about.

          • jscummy@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’d have to think Newell has a lot more skin in the game or passion for his platform. He actually believes in the business and what they do, instead of just viewing it as a way to make money

          • jmp242@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            I mean, the other thing that’s kind of stupid is - lets say a companies stock once issued goes to 0 and is delisted. So what? That’s not the company going bankrupt. The stock market valuation has no direct application to a company once the shares are issued and bought the first time. But ignoring shareholder demands that would destroy the company wouldn’t likely tank the stock of a otherwise good company - because there’s someone out there who just wants value to hold and preferably dividends vs infinite growth (that doesn’t exist). Now, you could buy enough stock to throw out the CEO and whatever, but that’s likely to be expensive and a PITA. So while there’s going to be some high profile examples, A) that gets close to taking a company private anyway, and doing a shitty job and B) generally limited numbers of companies will have people going to these lengths.

            I think the bigger issue isn’t wanting companies to be profitable - that’s kind of the point of companies. The issue is shareholders trying to make capital gains on everything. This isn’t possible long term because infinite growth isn’t possible. I would argue what people and decent investors should want is the steady dividends and not worry about if the stock is up or down.

            • cottonmon@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              This isn’t possible long term because infinite growth isn’t possible.

              I could never grasp why the growth needs to be constantly growing instead of the business just consistently being able to generate profits. It’s not sustainable.