• Buffalox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Just because a company is public, doesn’t mean control suddenly is with some Capital company.

    Microsoft as an example was absolutely controlled by the founders for decades, before they left the company and handed control over. There is NOTHING different about that, compared to a private company, that can also be traded.

    • TWeaK@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      My point was that Valve could only be what it is without being a publicly traded company. Yes, it also requires Gabe or the business owner to direct the company properly, but there are a range of things that publicly traded companies are legally prohibited from doing.

      Just because a company is public, doesn’t mean control suddenly is with some Capital company.

      Control still primarily lies with the CEO, but the CEO of a publicly traded company is legally obligated to pursue profits above all else.

      • Buffalox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Control still primarily lies with the CEO

        No control lies with the owners, a public company can easily have a single or a small group of owners that control the company. Your entire premise is simply false.

        • TWeaK@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes you’re right, the control lies with the owner. The owner is quite often also the CEO with a private company, but the distinction is worth clarifying.

          Strictly speaking, the same is true of publicly traded companies. However with publicly traded companies there is also law that obligates the CEO to act on behalf of the shareholders. The shareholders are the owner, just like with private companies. However a private CEO would just be in breach of their employment contract, a public CEO would be in breach of the law.

          Ultimately the reality of publicly traded companies means that “the CEO works for the owner” in all practical purposes is “the CEO pursues profit above all else”. While it would technically be possible for all the shareholders to vote that the company do something else, in reality that almost never happens - there are too many ways for shareholders to buy into the company and say “no I want money”. Thus, privately owned businesses have the opportunity, under direction from the owner/CEO of behaving differently to publicly traded companies. That doesn’t mean they will, because many private business owners want to make money just the same as public shareholders, but the possibility is much higher.

          Your entire premise is simply false.

          No it isn’t, and the things I’m explaining to you are widely understood.