Thread

1. ocd · 1790861971 · focus · HN ↗

   I'm not a business guy, but I think I would be very worried if I created any opening (even on the very long term) for competition to justify itself being built up to meet demand (or national security requirements of other countries) on an industry I mostly control, because I prioritized extremely high prices for a few years that might have the effect of changing the arithmetic for potential competitors that wouldn't have done it before.

   It makes me consider whether there would be retaliation in later years against the US intellectual property system in countries other than China. While RAM is a tangible product, the areas it serves aren't really.

   1. pllbnk · 1790862558 · focus · HN ↗

      I think neither CEOs nor boards of the public companies care. They want to maximize their paychecks and bonuses in the short term before they leave to other companies.

      1. __MatrixMan__ · 1790862614 · focus · HN ↗

         Like termites, moving on to the next tree. One day we'll figure out how to be rid of these parasites, then we'll have healthier trees.

         1. r14c · 1790864562 · focus · HN ↗

            [dead]

            1. thenewnewguy · 1790864939 · focus · HN ↗

               Which is what? Because if your solution is "get rid of all C-suite executives", obviously some new person (or some new group) has to be given the final say on decisions in the company and what's to stop them from becoming corrupt or otherwise problematic?

               1. Yoric · 1790865269 · focus · HN ↗

                  I assume that GP speaks of reducing the salaries for C-suite to the levels they had before Reaganism? I personally suspect that this would be pretty good for companies.

                  Or perhaps they're thinking of nationalization, which leaves me a bit more skeptical.

               2. Tadpole9181 · 1790865843 · focus · HN ↗

                  I believe they're insinuating that if we were to punish these people publicly and harshly for their crimes against the rest of humanity, then the rest of them would get a much needed reminder that they are subject to the rule of law and/or that they are made of meat.

                  1. lotsofpulp · 1790867975 · focus · HN ↗

                     The crime against humanity of commenting on the supply and demand curve movements of a product so complicated and with such a long production lead-time that a handful of nations can even produce it.

                     1. __MatrixMan__ · 1790871601 · focus · HN ↗

                        Markets exist to meet the needs of the people who use them. Subverting them such that it's a negative sum game where profits improve marginally while material conditions deteriorate rapidly is in fact antisocial behavior.

                        It's probably not time to build a guillotine for the memory company CEO's and top shareholders but their behavior does resemble other more problematic moves. Consider United Healthcare denying claims in contradiction with their own policies just because they've realized they can get away with it. It has the same shape relative to the adjacent incentives.

               3. Balinares · 1790867380 · focus · HN ↗

                  100% wealth tax rate past e.g. $999M -- capping wealth like a Zelda wallet -- would address a certain number of issues around the many externalities of unbounded, bottomless greed.

                  Mind you, I don't think that's ever happening, considering that one such issue is there's currently nothing to keep a dishonest actor who ended up beyond that threshold from spending mountains of cash (still a small fraction of the total there) toward convincing those susceptible to such that a system which permits such dishonest actors is good akshyually.

                  1. __MatrixMan__ · 1790872003 · focus · HN ↗

                     Not sure why you're being downvoted. This is a very reasonable proposal. Once you're beyond a certain level of rich, you should be constrained by whether the people around you consent to your behavior, not how much money you have.
                  2. Yoric · 1790932125 · focus · HN ↗

                     Worth investigating, but I suspect that it's more complicated: as far as I understand, many billionaires are billionaires in valuation, but own relatively little currency.
               4. r14c · 1790885010 · focus · HN ↗

                  The short version is Chinese style socialism. Most of our problems stem from the fact that we are historically unable to consistently lay down the law when it comes to large business interests and very wealthy individuals.

                  I'm not opposed to markets, but this radical market based domination shit is getting old and it isn't benefiting anyone except the already wealthy.

                  Its pretty obvious that corporations are either unwilling or unable to reign themselves in or regulate their behavior in a way that benefits the majority of society. So we need to make the economy more democratic so it can actually benefit the majority of people.

            2. Ekaros · 1790865973 · focus · HN ↗

               Much lighter options would be say ban stock based compensation. Or if given in lieu of money treat it as income taxed under income tax. Second one is to fully ban stock buybacks.

               Simple and easy moves to start with.

            3. [deleted] · 1790869133 · focus · HN ↗

               [deleted]

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.