undefined

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.

by thenewnewguy6 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

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?

by Yoric6 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

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.

by r14c56 minutes ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

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.

by Balinares5 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

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.

by __MatrixMan__4 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

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.

by Tadpole91816 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

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.

by lotsofpulp5 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

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.

by __MatrixMan__4 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

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.

by 5 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

deleted

by ocd7 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Point well taken. Same issue as with shareholders since it's not like companies really belong to a family anymore with a reputation on the line, like their name being in the company name.

by HarHarVeryFunny5 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

I don't think the semiconductor business is so much like that - it's become more ingrained in them that you need to manage the business for long-term sustainability.

by a34729t4 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Yeah CAPEX for semiconductors is terrifying. They cannot just handwave away large fractions of a decade, especially with the lead time for equipment.

by aenis6 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Except that in this case it's no longer 'collect money, move on to the next one'. It's 'collect money, become dynastically-rich, retire in 3 quarters from now'. After that, who cares.

by pc866 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

This seems like a distinction without a difference. In the context of CEOs sacrificing the greater good for their bonus, [basically] nobody has done that for a $250k bonus. We're often talking 8 figures, tens of millions of dollars.

Is this really a categorically different thing if we're talking about $85 million vs. $12 million?

by aenis2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I've met dozens of ~$20M net worth people, they are just normal folks - in rich countries thats not even upper class money, thats "a nice home but thats it" kind of cash. $100M+ is "i can retire at will", while $500M are like a different species, surrounded by yes-men and usually quite damaged mentally from all the ass-kissing. So yeah, i think there is a meaningful distinction.

by raizer882 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Stop smoking the stash

by oblio6 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

It's worse, sometimes even governments fail due to overconfidence.

Brazil and the UK (well, technically Japan) caused 2 natural rubber price spikes that first led to the UK smuggling rubber tree seeds to be imported to Malaysia, where the UK took over global natural rubber production, marginalizing Brazil.

Then Japan conquered the Malaysia during WW2, at which point everyone started developing artificial rubber and natural rubber was reduced to a much smaller market.

by nickpp6 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

> They want to maximize their paychecks and bonuses in the short term before they leave to other companies.

You could say that about pretty much any employee - and you'd be completely wrong. What makes you right in the case of CEOs and boards?

by GuinansEyebrows5 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> You could say that about pretty much any employee - and you'd be completely wrong. What makes you right in the case of CEOs and boards?

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/04/30/us-ceo-pay-grew-20-times-fas...