Comment by seibelj | Hacker News Reader

Comment by seibelj | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

If you believe in private ownership of property, then it should extend from an apple to a $100 billion corporation. Someone owns it, they own it. I’ve yet to hear a cogent argument that logically explains the line below which private property is fine, and above which owning something is immoral, other than some fuzzy “it feels like $50mil is too much”. I want to know logically the exact metric where some amount of wealth crosses into evil world.

So if you agree private ownership is not the devil, then nothing stops a private group from acquiring a majority stake in a company and running it the way they see fit. And if what they want to do is to fire everyone skilled and run it into the ground - so what? If the need is still there, a new company will arise. If they were too bloated, then cost cutting is good. And if they just middle along doing poorly, then they can’t spin it back out to the public markets and earn a huge pay day (unless the public markets are irrationally exuberant from free money printed by the government, but this is a 2020 phenomena).

This is an over simplification and no one here is saying private ownership is bad. It would be mind boggling if someone were allowed to buy your home with a mortgage in your name, kick you out of it and then sell the home for pure profit. Yet that is exactly what LBO's do. They buy companies using debt which they then transfer to that company, sell off anything of value, fire most of the workers, show some level of profit and sell the company to someone else.

But the house is privately owned by me. The company is public, anyone can buy, and if they have enough of it (or enough of the elected board representation), then they can do that.

If I was a shareholder in a company that underperformed the market, and a professional turnaround firm decided to take drastic action to improve the value of my ownership stake, I would approve.

My preference is to work for and invest in companies that try to make me the most money possible. I donate to non-profits that try hardest to improve the world. For-profit companies and non-profit organizations have different goals.

Unless there is a robust social safety net, it doesn't take much to go from "fire everyone skilled" to serious effects on the most vulnerable: children, elderly dependents, etc. often reaching far beyond the employee.

Maybe the previous owner should've known better, but they made a conscious decision after evaluating the situation. Maybe the new owner should've acted more responsibly, but they made a conscious decision after evaluating the situation.

Can you say the same for the people who are told they're fired? They made no conscious decision but are the ones who will have to pick up the slack (until such time that a new company arises, if ever). And, funnily enough, the people who are all for private ownership tend not to be the same people advocating for better social safety nets.

If the company was in decline before the purchase, then the end effect could end up being the same. But willfully creating the situation is hardly fuzzy morally.

There is almost no way to affect another person's life by what you choose to do with an apple.

Society is made stronger when businesses fail and workers get reallocated to more productive companies. Short term pain is necessary for long term benefits.

This logic is anathema to some people, who wish that the same stodgy old conglomerates exist in perpetuity like a government agency. But this would be suicidal.

Yes, but ending lemon socialism should only happen when a society is able to handle the effects of businesses failing gracefully.

Going back to your apple - the requirements for society to gracefully handle an apple's owner allowing it to rot are nothing. For handling a large company failing gracefully, they are very significant.

A society that is happy to let this happen should recognise this difference and set aside resources to prepare for it - on a scale that recognises the relative difference.

You have every legal right to cheat on your girlfriend. That doesn't make it the right thing to do.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com