ie if a company gets above $x marketcap, its either nationalised or mutualised

see thats where youre wrong

point to a single example where thats been true

(i can point to a million examples of private ownership going wrong)

I´ll give you an example: lets say you put the nationalisation cap to 10 billion in revenue. Now tell me, why tf should I develope my company to reach that 10 billion revenue mark? I´ll just keep it in the 9 billion mark.

Companies will basically be told "DONT FUCKING GROW OR WE NATIONALISE U"

well i personally advocate for discretion

rather than particular number

BUT

that just promotes insecurity

i know

so if we did have to use a number

we dont have to mandate nationalisation

it can be mutualisation

ie the workers all get a slice of the revenues

but you know what we can do to keep the incentives in place?

we allow the original owner to have the same piece he had before

so there is still inequality generated by successful entrepreneurship

but its capped

it doeswent work like that

yea so then debunk it bud

owner has 100% of the shares

now you give the company to the people

but he still has the same amount of shares?

does not compute

no omfg

GG @Green Syndicalism, you just advanced to level 2!

okay let me make it clearer

say you hold 100 shares

and your net revenues are say $100

each share is worth about $1 in net revenue

if $100 was the mutualisation or nationalisation mark

we hand everyone in the company 1 share each, but each share is divided amongst the net profits *above the $100 in net revenue*

so the owner's shares are fundamentally worth a different amount to the newly issued shares

and they are left untouched

you know how in capitalism we have different classes of shares?

preference shares

class A shares

class B shares

similar concept

so your practice still doesent change anything. People have nothing to gain