This won't be a problem if companies don't lie. Incidentally, I used the 5-year model for sake of argument; I would be interested in hearing an economist's analysis of the most efficient way of setting up the basic structure - ie, at what point does the benefit of longer-term thinking get outweighed by the loss of investor interest in investing?
A real economist wouldn't even bother arguing with you because you obviously do not have any idea what the actual stock market is doing. All you seem to know is that one sexy infant stock that habitually gets a lot of press for its rogue-management style went down 7% one day and for some reason this outrages you.
The other reason a real economist wouldn't bother arguing with you is because I accepted the idea in the spirit it was intended and ignored a basic geographic reality. What would actually happen is that all investment would immediately move out of the territory in which you enforced your baby step towards communism. We live on a world stage where governments are trying to attract businesses not lose them; where they have to provide incentives for companies to relocate there and HQ there and report there. If you effected this law in Canada, for example, you have simply moved all new start-ups who require R&D capital from their IPOs to see this as the least attractive place to operate. You have made venture capitalists look elsewhere. So new companies don't open here, and existing companies begin moving out - to the US. Unemployment skyrockets at the same time that the dollar becomes less and less valuable, causing inflation, and at some point hopefully someone assassinates you and the new government rescinds your policy of hamstringing business all for the weird rationale of trying to prevent a small number of people from making money too quickly for your tastes.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dancing_serpent
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-01 08:04 pm (UTC)Part 3:
This won't be a problem if companies don't lie. Incidentally, I used the 5-year model for sake of argument; I would be interested in hearing an economist's analysis of the most efficient way of setting up the basic structure - ie, at what point does the benefit of longer-term thinking get outweighed by the loss of investor interest in investing?
A real economist wouldn't even bother arguing with you because you obviously do not have any idea what the actual stock market is doing. All you seem to know is that one sexy infant stock that habitually gets a lot of press for its rogue-management style went down 7% one day and for some reason this outrages you.
The other reason a real economist wouldn't bother arguing with you is because I accepted the idea in the spirit it was intended and ignored a basic geographic reality. What would actually happen is that all investment would immediately move out of the territory in which you enforced your baby step towards communism. We live on a world stage where governments are trying to attract businesses not lose them; where they have to provide incentives for companies to relocate there and HQ there and report there. If you effected this law in Canada, for example, you have simply moved all new start-ups who require R&D capital from their IPOs to see this as the least attractive place to operate. You have made venture capitalists look elsewhere. So new companies don't open here, and existing companies begin moving out - to the US. Unemployment skyrockets at the same time that the dollar becomes less and less valuable, causing inflation, and at some point hopefully someone assassinates you and the new government rescinds your policy of hamstringing business all for the weird rationale of trying to prevent a small number of people from making money too quickly for your tastes.