There are a couple possibilities: The empirical evidence might be wrong - not unheard of in economics. Another one might be bias - there is some anecdotal evidence for this, but it is not overwhelming. Another one is that they are winning, but the number of companies organized
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
Replying to @WEED__WIZARD420 @Jonathan_Blow and
like this is simply too low, so the one out of god knows how many companies that get really big simply didn't get founded yet in the U.S. (As I said, they exist in other countries)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @WEED__WIZARD420 @Jonathan_Blow and
Oh, and of course there is the "problem" that workers always own at least 51% of the company, so investment is limited to some degree.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @Jonathan_Blow @cmuratori and
But this means that when some investor wants to either invest in company A or B, and A only has second-class shares, then all other things being equal, he will invest in B, meaning investment is crippled to some degree.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @WEED__WIZARD420 @Jonathan_Blow and
Many tech companies already have this exact situation (Facebook, Snap, etc.) due to share classes, yet it manifestly did not prevent them from becoming popular investments, so this is not a plausible argument for why democratic companies do not appear at the top.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cmuratori @Jonathan_Blow and
About a year ago, 83% of outside investors voted to get rid of Facebook's dual-class share structure. I do believe it is a factor; however, it clearly is not the only one, and almost certainly not the strongest one. Again, I'm not aware of empirical studies on this, so it's hard.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @WEED__WIZARD420 @Jonathan_Blow and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @Jonathan_Blow and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
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.
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.