Sincere question: what do you believe should happen when a company becomes successful?
You make excellent criticisms and I've had similar thoughts. But I never really understood what people want to do other than confiscate companies once they become successful. Not saying that is what you want to do - you specifically say not that.
You mention "let’s engineer a network of trust and monitoring and a culture of transparency". I'm not sure what that means.
In the post, I say private individuals can own assets in two ways, as individuals (up to a cap) or through a personal corporation (no cap).
So, if you start a company that becomes huge and your slice is worth $100 billion, or even $10 trillion, you can still own all of that via the personal corporation. And you can invest or spend all of it [almost] however you want.
The difference is that the personal corporation has oversight; I only specify there will be a "board" I don't have anything concrete beyond that.
But the idea is in extreme circumstances, the board can over-rule your money-related decisions. The intent is they will only step in if you are going nuts, but the devil is in the details of how exactly to do that. It might be impossible, but I'd rather see us at least try rather have brain-damaged trillionaires causing unchecked mayhem.
When I make this argument, people assume I want to tax or seize the billionaire's wealth, but no, I'm saying they can keep every penny. Although to be fair, if you did cleave apart people's finances like this, taxing the "personal corporation" higher than the individual portion would be tempting.
The board can and should be friendly with the p-corp owner. Almost all the time they are going to be green light everything. They are really just a "sanity check" (literally).
Now you could say how do we "make sure" the board acts when the time comes? Stands up to the owner? Maybe we don't. We put the mechanism in place, and if the board fails to stop the owner, then it didn't work in that specific case. And the world will know that. But as long as it works "most" of the time maybe that's enough.
Also I forgot, apart from a board a big thing might be reporting. Your p-corp activities would have much more stringent reporting requirements compared to a private individual. You can do anything you want with your $300M in private funds, including get it as small bills and roll around in it, but the p-corp funds need to be much more closely monitored. That alone, even without a board, would be big.
Why does anyone think the goal is a place for billionaires to flee to? Where does this come form? All initial efforts in the solar system will be extremely arduous. No one serious thinks otherwise.
Permutation City's dust theory was the first idea that made me think: oh maybe something like that. It ties in with the whole "why isn't there just nothing" - total nothingness is a state as well. Probable, coherent states "exist" (maybe).
I think a better question than "who made us" is "where are we?"
The idea of lamenting climate change by having nostalgia for the days when piling into a car and driving across the countryside would guarantee a handful of smashed insects on the windscreen is funny to me.
> Bands don't generally want to maximize revenue from any given gig
They do more nowadays. The old model of touring to drive demand for record sales has been turned upside-down. It is now sell music to drive demand for concert ticket sales.
Most (not all) artists now make much more of their overall revenue from touring and want to maximize the revenue there - without seeming too much like they are.
As well artists can sometimes have a narrow window of time to cash in.
I never even mentioned record sales. I'm just saying that bands want fans who keep coming back over and over. They Might Be Giants are a good example of a band with a very 'sticky' fanbase.
I did not say you did. I mentioned record sales because the balance of from where artists revenue is coming is pushing artists to get more of their money from their gigs as other revenue sources have declined.
The motivation to keep fans coming back and not seem "too greedy" keep things in check but the balance of motivations has definitely shifted towards: we want more money from live events.
Decades ago concert ticket sales might have been considered almost a loss leader.
OK but I am talking exclusively about getting people to keep coming back to future concerts, although clearly I have done a poor job of communicating this to you.
That is not correct. Some artists sign deals guaranteeing them more than 100% of total face value. Others put tickets on the secondary markets themselves.
If any system does not funnel a huge amount of cash to the artists it would be changed immediately.
The UK and Canada are not republics. There's no need to clarify "pure democracy"as no one thinks any modern democratic country is a pure democracy. All modern democracies are representative democracies.
Since there is, more or less, no other type of democracy around when a colloquial English speaker says "democracy" they mean representative democracy. Everything else is a pointless annoying semantic game.
Representative democracy is a perfectly acceptable term. Trying to shoehorn monarchies into the term "republic" is absurd.
It's a monarchy in name only. They're both constitutional monarchies which are really strictly parliamentary systems. The actual monarch is head of state, not head of government, and the Queen has almost nothing to do with the actual running of the Government, especially in Canada (and Australia, and so on). In reality, a parliamentary system such as the modern UK and Canada acts as a republic, despite what it's named.
At this point, the Queen is nothing more than a vestigial organ. (as an example, did the Queen come out for or against the Brexit vote? Have you ever seen a head of government remain so quiet about such an important event?)
The name is exactly the thing that distinguishes monarchies from republics. Modern monarchies are democracies, as are modern republics, though some monarchies and many republics in the world are still undemocratic.
Well, I would hope the move is towards more democracy, but it seems people everywhere are eager to vote against democratic freedoms these days.
I disagree with little of the above, but I wonder how much of it is due to 'Liz 2 in particular. I can imagine a different monarch exerting a great deal more influence. They'd be perfectly able to do so. The UK's armed forces are loyal only to the monarch and not the government, for example.
You make excellent criticisms and I've had similar thoughts. But I never really understood what people want to do other than confiscate companies once they become successful. Not saying that is what you want to do - you specifically say not that.
You mention "let’s engineer a network of trust and monitoring and a culture of transparency". I'm not sure what that means.