speculate in obvious ways (like, the powerful do not want to lose power), but I am not aware of any empirical models, so I would prefer not to. As to the mechanism to keep this model from degenerating, I don't think it would be necessary to use force. If the majority of the
But they still all invested is the point. You would have an argument that it was a factor if there were lots of similar democratically-run companies with investors clamoring to have them become undemocratic. But no such thing has happened.
-
-
You might be right, but in the case of Facebook, what exactly would have been or is the alternative to invest in? Twitter works completely differently, and Myspace has been dead since before Facebook even went public. No competition means no way to tell if the factor exists.
-
The point is very simple. There are hundreds (thousands?) of regular companies where investors very obviously invest heavily even though control is precluded by the company's share structure. So this simply isn't a compelling possibility for why "democratic" companies aren't big.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.