🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@LouisIngenthron

It seemed you were saying by "not invested into" that companies didnt get the money from buying stocks or their stock price rising...

Seems that may not have been what you meant, so again, sorry if I assumed or misunderstoof what you meant to say.

@admitsWrongIfProven

@LouisIngenthron

Ok so we are in agreement that this statement you made is wrong?

> But publicly-traded companies aren’t invested into

And that in fact public traded companies, when you buy their stock, causes them to be "invested into"... in other words we agree that buying stock raises stock prices and ultimately results in money int he pockets of the company you invest in?

As long as we agree there then yea, seems we got the basics in line, and I apologize if i misunderstood

@admitsWrongIfProven

@LouisIngenthron

Just to be clear despite my strong opposition to ideas on economy. I like and respect you as a person. So please dont take my harsh criticism personally in any way.

@admitsWrongIfProven

@LouisIngenthron

> Sure, it “still generates wealth”. Burning cash for heat generates wealth if you’re cold, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good thing.

This analogy suggests you still dont understand the distinction between money, value, and wealth.

Short of literally burning money, companies dont burn money when they tank, even if they spend irresponsibly they arent burning money... All they are doing is moving the money out of their company and into other companies or peoples pockets.. the total wealth when a company tanks is the same, its just distributed different.

> Why would you look only at wealth in a single point of time?

We arent, we are explicitly talking about how wealth that was generated (thing with utility, the cars) then a company going bankrupt later does not destroy that wealth **at a later point in time**... the company crashing doesnt destroy wealth because the amount of things it put into the world that had utility (which was earlier in the timeline, so we are looking at time here) still exists, so wealth was generated and not destroyed.

> A company that lasts 100 years generates far more wealth than a company that closes after one

This is certainly true.. and if your argument was "the company that made short term wealth and then crash did not reach its full potential at making wealth, and if it had been managed with concern for its long term success then it could have generated **more** wealth"... this would be a correct statement yes, there was a lost potential for generating wealth that wasnt realized... that is **not** the same as saying that the company didnt over the court of its life have a net positive wealth generation, it did.

> By seeking short-term profits over long, the investors are robbing the company of future wealth to pay themselves dividends now.

Its not always for dividends, and investors do not get to dictate day to day operations.. The only thing an investor can do is vote for board members and with some serious restrictions sometimes impeach them.. even the board cant control day to day operatiosn, they in turn need to hire a CEO.

So to think an investor in a company even can exhivit such fine level of control is a bit sketchy...

But all that aside, sure, they are generating wealth, which is good for the world, but they are generating perhaps less than they potentially could... ok.. so its less good than it could be, but still good... im ok with that analysis i suppose.

> And they enshittify the products and services as a result of their wealth extraction techniques. We see it happening over and over.

Sure, i am willing to say they may build a shittier product to maxamize profits.. thats partly the consumers fault for buying a product that is a shitty deal though.. but yea, I mean i dont care enough to disagree with this per se... does change the fact that they generated wealth which was good for society and if you eliminated them all you wont achieve some paradise, youll just destroy what little imperfect wealth generation we have and create massive poverty... so while maybe they could build better products in theory, in practice they are still adding wealth to the world.

> Investment is a good thing for business. But publicly-traded companies aren’t invested into; They’re bet on like ponies in a race, and the incentives that come from that rob all of us in the long run.

Yea this shows you have absolutely no clue how stocks work then... I just spent 2 years running a company merging with a public company (so I had to run it like a public company ont he stock market)... Yes when you buy stock we as a public company get operating money as a result of that. You probably dont realize it but the company itself is able to 1) take out loans on the value of its stock 2) holds some of its own stock so as the value of stock rises so does the asset holdings of hte company 3) can, and does, and is normal issue new stocks and sells it on the stock market regularly

Literally public companies get cash as a result of their stock price going up, and your gonna sit here pretending like its just a trading card game...I know you mean well but man you assert things like you know when clearly you dont know the basics... when talking to experts on subjects (in this case me as someone who literally just spent 2 years being the EVP of a public company)... Please please please... try to listen to people and recognize the areas you dont have knowledge in (like i did with you when talking about aviation)... it will go a long way for you, I say this as a friend not to be mean.

@admitsWrongIfProven

@admitsWrongIfProven

Funny, I thought the exact same thing about you :)

@LouisIngenthron

@admitsWrongIfProven

I said nothing of the sort.

@LouisIngenthron

@admitsWrongIfProven

That statement shows you have no idea what these terms mean in any technical sense.. if wealth cant be generated we would still be in caves by definition.

@LouisIngenthron

@admitsWrongIfProven

Weve been generating wealth since the first human existed... its something that started with the cavemen,.. If it didnt we would still be in caves, by definition. The first time someone built a tent they generated wealth, the first time they built a fire pit, the first time they painted on a wall, these were all examples of early wealth generation.

@LouisIngenthron

@admitsWrongIfProven

you literally just described generating wealth when you said "improve themselfs and their surroundings" and then went on to say its an antithesis... this makes no sense.

Most people confuse "generate wealth" with "aquire money"... these are totally different things with very little related to eachother... You can move wealth around, you can aquire wealth... but unless you provide a utility to the world you arent generating wealth.

@LouisIngenthron

@admitsWrongIfProven

Glad all three of us agree then.

@LouisIngenthron

@LouisIngenthron

Cheese burgers and houses **are** wealth... Based on your wording you are confusing "wealth" (things that have utility and value) and money..

If you have profit alone, then you just are moving money around.. you arent generating wealth (or money)... in order to generate wealth you must increase the overall number of things in society with utility... So yes what i said already was in line with what your saying, you just are using wealth in the way of "collecting wealth" which is not the same as "generating wealth".

> The people who actually create those things should be the wealthy in a just society, not the people who were born to it.

Agreed, like the people who sacraficed decades to create the idea, get funding, investing in the building, getting the money to pay people to do the labour, etc... yes the owners who risk everything and actually create the wealth are the people who should be wealthy.

@admitsWrongIfProven

@admitsWrongIfProven

I think a lot of people disconnect and stop caring to remain sane... nothing wrong with that.

@LouisIngenthron

@admitsWrongIfProven

Yup, they would be quite surprised after they destroy the biggest wealth producers in society and trigger massive starvation and death for everyone... good intentions dont get you very far, least of all when you do the exact opposite of whats best for society.

That isnt to say that there arent issues to address with the rich, there are, but if your going to eliminate rich people all together, you might as well just cover yourself in honey and go hug a bear, your chance of coming out of it with something positive to show would be much higher.

@LouisIngenthron

@admitsWrongIfProven

I want everyone to have the easiest life possible... the problem is a lot of people dont know how to achieve that and the way they think they can accomplish that often does the opposite.

@LouisIngenthron