John Oliver discusses how Boeing went from being a company known for quality craftsmanship to one synonymous with crashes, mishaps, and “quality escape.” Wha...
Nah, since they’re in the “too big to fail” category, nationalize them. Achieves the same outcome of removing the shareholders and board, without pouring money into a rich douchebag’s pocket
It’s a very natural way to identify which industries and companies should be nationalized. If it’s too big to fail, it’s too important to be privately (or publicly by investors) owned.
I don’t know that the second part would succeed. I feel like it’d end up with the same contractor structure, but now the contractors are whoever’s company bought the right senators.
There’s a bit of meme that private companies make better decisions because they don’t have the silly pressures that the stock market puts on companies. Valve is usually the prime example.
It’s not completely wrong, but needs to be more carefully considered. Being private makes it possible to make better decisions due to lack of stock market pressures. Whether companies actually do or not needs to be considered on a case by case basis. There are plenty of private companies that are still run by shitbags.
I know and disgree, imagine Elon Musk being CEO of Valve instead of gaven, the counter example being Twitter, Which Musk is running as a private company. IMO this idea that private companies are better is a giant falsehood and akin to an urban legend.
Arguably one of the most well run companies in the world is Apple which is public, from more personal knowledge, I’d say one of the most well run companies here, is Novo Nordisk which is also public.
They need to become a private company again. And fire the Douglas team.
Nah, since they’re in the “too big to fail” category, nationalize them. Achieves the same outcome of removing the shareholders and board, without pouring money into a rich douchebag’s pocket
It’s a very natural way to identify which industries and companies should be nationalized. If it’s too big to fail, it’s too important to be privately (or publicly by investors) owned.
I don’t know that the second part would succeed. I feel like it’d end up with the same contractor structure, but now the contractors are whoever’s company bought the right senators.
Why? So they can make the bad decisions in secret?
There’s a bit of meme that private companies make better decisions because they don’t have the silly pressures that the stock market puts on companies. Valve is usually the prime example.
It’s not completely wrong, but needs to be more carefully considered. Being private makes it possible to make better decisions due to lack of stock market pressures. Whether companies actually do or not needs to be considered on a case by case basis. There are plenty of private companies that are still run by shitbags.
I know and disgree, imagine Elon Musk being CEO of Valve instead of gaven, the counter example being Twitter, Which Musk is running as a private company. IMO this idea that private companies are better is a giant falsehood and akin to an urban legend.
Arguably one of the most well run companies in the world is Apple which is public, from more personal knowledge, I’d say one of the most well run companies here, is Novo Nordisk which is also public.