Maritime law—commonly referred to as the law of the sea—had been dealing with trade between kingdoms for literal millennia, but the most notable effort in the Mediterranean was called the Rhodian Sea Law.
What if it was some kind of blend between feudal Japan and Victorian England, where you have all the sailors doing water seppuku and all the soldiers doing it on land? Maybe there's some kind of insane dystopian sci-fi novel there. You did not hear this idea from me.
Air travel would be a whole different ballgame otherwise.
"Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. If you look out of the window to your right, you'll see me plunging down to the ground with a parachute behind my back. Don't worry about me, I'll be fine. Also, good luck!"
"If the company loses money over a given period of time, all of the shareholders split this loss evenly, in proportion to their ownership stake."
So is this why shareholders behave like such greedy assholes? Half of the problems with these companies in all industries come about because these dickheads are never legally restrained.
When I say "shareholder" here, I'm thinking of regular investors who have a retirement account. Most Americans (and about half of Canadians) own stock.
I actually think the proportional loss thing helps those who are less wealthy, not the other way around. If anything, this should empower smaller investors, thereby taking some of the power away from the wealthiest. Without some kind of law like this, the barrier for entry would prohibit future generations from ever getting involved, creating a gatekeeping effect.
I get that. My parents set up a retirement account for me at our local bank, and we update the funding at least once a year.
The trouble is really the fact that there are unequal divisions in the shares- those who are at the top are allowed to own all of the "voting" shares (e.g. the ones that count) and those who you are talking about are left out, even if they outnumber the owners. The removal of privileging voting shares for the owners would remove this barrier and leave everyone with an equal voice.
These companies have f-ed up a lot of the entertainment industry as of late, and I tend not to like the managers. I only make exception for Warren Buffett, since his investing is based on logic rather than greed and he gives a great deal of what he earns back.
Yeah, Buffett is absolutely the exception to the rule. He's something else.
I hear what you're saying about voting shares. At the same time, I've founded a few companies myself, and I can actually completely sympathize with someone who wants to retain control over their vision, even if they don't make all the money from the venture.
I wonder if there is any reasonable way to reconcile these two (on their own, very sensible) ideas and desires. If not, it might necessitate some type of compromise, and if so, we've got to yank things back to the side of the smaller shareholders from where it currently sits: in the hands of the oligarchs.
I think you will find it quite relevant to your awesome article, my friend!
In my own books, the Terrans have a set of laws called Colonial Common Law or CCL. Included in this quite clean, efficient bundle of laws there is the "Rules of Salvage" which is actually the part that regulates what happens with spaceships and their cargo :D
Going down with the ship creates a strong incentive for the Captain to make sure it never goes down. Similarly, creating incentives aligned with business objectives can be really powerful if done right. For example, here on Substack you’ll see the founders cite the genius of their business model where they only make money when the writers make money. They only win when writers win - that’s good alignment, a powerful incentive to help writers grow. Is it enough to keep them in business? Unclear, but nobody dies.
I do think about that from time to time. That must be really tough, although maybe you kind of get used to it.
I just kind of thought about it, but I want to say there's something in the Code of Hammurabi stating that if you build a house and that roof falls one someone's kid and their kid dies, then your kid will also be put to death. Brutal, but you can imagine why this would have been useful along similar lines!
One reason I joined the army and not the navy.
What if it was some kind of blend between feudal Japan and Victorian England, where you have all the sailors doing water seppuku and all the soldiers doing it on land? Maybe there's some kind of insane dystopian sci-fi novel there. You did not hear this idea from me.
Lol. Interesting.
It's a solid rule for airplaine pilots, too.
Air travel would be a whole different ballgame otherwise.
"Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. If you look out of the window to your right, you'll see me plunging down to the ground with a parachute behind my back. Don't worry about me, I'll be fine. Also, good luck!"
"If the company loses money over a given period of time, all of the shareholders split this loss evenly, in proportion to their ownership stake."
So is this why shareholders behave like such greedy assholes? Half of the problems with these companies in all industries come about because these dickheads are never legally restrained.
When I say "shareholder" here, I'm thinking of regular investors who have a retirement account. Most Americans (and about half of Canadians) own stock.
I actually think the proportional loss thing helps those who are less wealthy, not the other way around. If anything, this should empower smaller investors, thereby taking some of the power away from the wealthiest. Without some kind of law like this, the barrier for entry would prohibit future generations from ever getting involved, creating a gatekeeping effect.
I get that. My parents set up a retirement account for me at our local bank, and we update the funding at least once a year.
The trouble is really the fact that there are unequal divisions in the shares- those who are at the top are allowed to own all of the "voting" shares (e.g. the ones that count) and those who you are talking about are left out, even if they outnumber the owners. The removal of privileging voting shares for the owners would remove this barrier and leave everyone with an equal voice.
These companies have f-ed up a lot of the entertainment industry as of late, and I tend not to like the managers. I only make exception for Warren Buffett, since his investing is based on logic rather than greed and he gives a great deal of what he earns back.
Yeah, Buffett is absolutely the exception to the rule. He's something else.
I hear what you're saying about voting shares. At the same time, I've founded a few companies myself, and I can actually completely sympathize with someone who wants to retain control over their vision, even if they don't make all the money from the venture.
I wonder if there is any reasonable way to reconcile these two (on their own, very sensible) ideas and desires. If not, it might necessitate some type of compromise, and if so, we've got to yank things back to the side of the smaller shareholders from where it currently sits: in the hands of the oligarchs.
Broligarchs?
I would love if you watch the video "The cost of Concordia" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh9KBwqGxTI
I think you will find it quite relevant to your awesome article, my friend!
In my own books, the Terrans have a set of laws called Colonial Common Law or CCL. Included in this quite clean, efficient bundle of laws there is the "Rules of Salvage" which is actually the part that regulates what happens with spaceships and their cargo :D
Going down with the ship creates a strong incentive for the Captain to make sure it never goes down. Similarly, creating incentives aligned with business objectives can be really powerful if done right. For example, here on Substack you’ll see the founders cite the genius of their business model where they only make money when the writers make money. They only win when writers win - that’s good alignment, a powerful incentive to help writers grow. Is it enough to keep them in business? Unclear, but nobody dies.
I love the "nobody dies" part of writing! It's probably my second favorite part, right after the coffee.
We are aligned in our career goals. But not for everyone - I have friend who is an ER doc and people die on him.
I do think about that from time to time. That must be really tough, although maybe you kind of get used to it.
I just kind of thought about it, but I want to say there's something in the Code of Hammurabi stating that if you build a house and that roof falls one someone's kid and their kid dies, then your kid will also be put to death. Brutal, but you can imagine why this would have been useful along similar lines!
Hammurabi got the incentive thing right! I think for Docs the upside is all the people they save.
Yeah, if I had one doctor in a small village who inadvertently allowed someone to die, I'd still want them on the payroll.