[ChrisGreenHeur]

They own stock in the company they founded.

So, you force the founder to sell 95% of the stock they own in the company.

Is this a good idea for the stock price of that company as well as the for the ability of that company to raise cash?

[nelsnelson]

Shares do not require sales to achieve more equitable distribution. They merely require dilution.

[oulipo2]

Who cares about the stock price. They should be forced to split their companies in smaller, competing companies, so that:

1. there's not a huge asshole controlling enormous companies (and then also buying all the media and ruining the public information)

2. we have more competition and lower prices (that's EXACTLY why capitalism was supposed to have anti-concentration laws)

3. you spread the wealth. Now there are more people owning less, but still a good chunk, it's much better to have 1000 millionaires building creative stuff, than 1 egoistical billionaire

[papaver-somnamb]

I feel this is closer, but still not equitable. More people owning less, but what about the vision that holds the ship together and leads the org to the goal? In the case of SpaceX, it's Elon and to a lesser extent Gwynn by way of osmosis that hold the light aloft. We force division of wealth, then what about the leadership and direction? SpaceX is what it is because the vision is much less tyranny of the masses, and much more damn the torpedoes no one can stop me.

[disgruntledphd2]

I think SpaceX is great, fwiw. However, the vast majority of Mr Musk's worth comes from Tesla (which again, made a great product back in the day), but his wealth appears to be driven by some kind of weird hypno-toad like power over the markets.

Like, Tesla should not be valued the way it is, and I still can't understand what's going on here.

I think that both Tesla and SpaceX have been net good for the world, but do we really think that wealth taxation would've stopped Musk from doing anything post Paypal?

[kd0amg]

> SpaceX is what it is because the vision is much less tyranny of the masses, and much more damn the torpedoes no one can stop me.

Apple did not need to be controlled by a majority shareholder in order to follow an ambitious, cohesive vision.

[oulipo2]

You can still build such great visions:

- by doing it through governments (that's how we went to the moon, BTW)

- by having a collection of smaller companies cooperating and acting together

[AlecSchueler]

Do they really need however many billions to encourage their vision?