Digging it up since I didn't answer anymore:

Quote from: crumbs on July 02, 2013, 02:55:29 PM

Quote

Whether the person at the top owns or just controls something -- and what ownership even means -- is a question of control structure optimization, not reality in terms of power accumulation.[/i]

If the difference is simply rhetorical, why is actual ownership (and not merely control) important to you? I assume the 99-percenters are fine with the control part, it's the ownership that rubs them the wrong way.

I did not say the difference is rhetorical. It is a difference of control structure optimization: ownership optimizes because the owner has an incentive to optimize. Plain control lacks this optimization and thus requires an actual optimizer on top to prevent corruption.

It might fail at times but this is part of the competition -- and thus evolution -- amongst investors. If they have others conduct their business their job becomes ensuring the productivity of these executives. If they close one company to strengthen another in excess of the loss, this is still a net benefit.

Not quoting more than this since the answers would either boil down to the same argument or dilute the discussion.

Quote from: Rassah on July 02, 2013, 08:19:18 PM

When you said a ski resort in the desert, were you referring to the ski resort in Dubai?

Heh, I guess that's where the thought came from. I admit I don't know much about it and whether it's profitable, if it's a bad example take excessive personal cruise ships or jets instead.