this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2023
1433 points (98.0% liked)

Technology

59582 readers
2808 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Ads upon ads upon ads

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ArchmageAzor@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We need more companies like that, then.

[–] TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world 49 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

[–] jmp242@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 2 points 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.

[–] jscummy@sh.itjust.works 7 points 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