You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Steemit: Showing Why We Need To Get Rid Of Private Companies
In my opinion private companies are an essential component of our economy.
Steemit is just a bad example for it.
Posted using Partiko Android
Do you want to say, that this economy is so great, that it should remain unchanged forever, and prevail for ages???
How are you reading this into it?
Posted using Partiko Android
I agree. At some point we will find a healthy mix between private and decentralized companies. There are advantages and disadvantages to both. There are no absolutes, and purity tests are BS.
If you think so, whats the reasoning you hold behind private companies being essential components to the economy?
Posted using Partiko Android
Most interesting ideas just can't be executed by committee.
At a later stage, when the business case has been proven, you can switch to a distributed ownership structure - a listed, public company.
Posted using Partiko Android
Entrepreneurs succeed because they go against the herd, not by joining a herd. Committees are not nimble. It's harder to get a committee to adopt a radical vision. Countless companies were started by one person with one idea. Is the suggestion that their companies get seized and distributed/collectivized? That smacks of communism. Which of course looks great on paper and appeals to idealogues, but in practice the result is the opposite of innovation.
Posted using Partiko Android
Not for companies, coops and shareholders everywhere attest to that.
Posted using Partiko Android
When they are formed voluntarily, not proscribed.
Posted using Partiko Android
What companies don't form voluntarily?
Posted using Partiko Android
None. That's the point, and HOW they form shouldn't be up to authoritarians as long as the participation is voluntary.
I disagree, if a company is found to be breaking antitrust laws they should be either broken up or outright taken over by the state if there are no other options, especially during times of war.
Posted using Partiko Android
What is one interesting idea that a board or committee cannot execute? If they cannot, why hand it out and switch?
Posted using Partiko Android
Tesla Model S or the iPhone are good examples of a profound idea pushed hard by a single person.
The committees made fun of them (Microsoft, Nokia, BlackBerry, auto manufacturers...)
Posted using Partiko Android
I don't know how else to phrase it, maybe: what stopped a committee or board from creating either of those things? Or why did it require "a single person"? Because other committees "made fun of them" isn't why those ideas required a single person VS a committee or why a committee isn't capable of bringing those products to market. I don't think you understood what exactly I asked and I don't know how to make it clearer.
Posted using Partiko Android
Committees go for the lowest common denominator. That's the opposite of interesting ideas.
Posted using Partiko Android
So the reasoning is "because committees go for the lowest common denominator, ergo they literally go for the opposite of interesting ideas".
So why does a committee go for the lowest common denominator? Is that your observation? Is that a consequence of any committee?
Posted using Partiko Android
We're on the same page @bluerobo