Quote from: Vandroiy on July 18, 2013, 04:48:03 PM

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.

"Control structure optimization"? You start with the dubious assumption that since [partial] ownership increases a party's interest, and thus work performance (a doubly dubious notion: Surgeons do not do surgeries on their family members, actors get stage fright during performances (in which they're fully invested), not rehearsals (in which they're not), etc., etc.). As i pointed out earlier, incentivising work (oh, let's say a salary) improves performance, but the law of diminishing returns kicks in early, and, as i've pointed out, .1% of Google would be enough to keep me *riveted* -- at 50% my ego might get the better of me & i'd start treating the company as a toy (i wouldn't be able to spend that much money in my lifetime anyhow, so why not?)

Quote

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.

Net benefit? To whom?

[...]