Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Aaron_Hamm t1_j1zu0dw wrote

Reply to comment by carloselunicornio in Historic first launch of Chinese private methane-fueled rocket ends in failure by returnofjuju

Why doesn't it?

3

carloselunicornio t1_j1zv4w9 wrote

Because "people at large" means "most people", and most people aren't shareholders.

1

Aaron_Hamm t1_j1zw4q3 wrote

Most people actually are shareholders...

2

carloselunicornio t1_j1zxce8 wrote

You believe that most of the world's population are shareholders?

Can you substantiate that claim? Because I find it hard to believe.

1

Aaron_Hamm t1_j1zy1l6 wrote

By your logic there has never been a company owned by "people at large" in all of history... cool bro. Have fun with that no true scotsman type silliness.

Most people in Europe, America, and probably other places in the world, are shareholders; what currently existing "collective ownership" modeled countries do a better job of involving the general public in business ownership?

1

carloselunicornio t1_j1zzpg3 wrote

>By your logic there has never been a company owned by "people at large" in all of history... cool bro.

It is cool indeed but I didn't say that. I challenged your claim that most people are shareholders, which I'm pretty sure is not true.

The initial commenter was obviosly hinting at communal ownership/worker collective type of ownership when he said "people at large", but that's beside the point since you've clearly chosen this hill to die on.

2

Aaron_Hamm t1_j206riz wrote

>The initial commenter was obviosly hinting at communal ownership/worker collective type of ownership when he said "people at large"

And my point is how are the "people at large" ownership type companies functionally different from publicly traded companies?

Like, I don't know what to tell you; you're the one delving into irrelevant "gotchas"...

>It is cool indeed but I didn't say that.

I never said you did; I drew a logical inference from the assertion in your challenge.

1

carloselunicornio t1_j21suhv wrote

>And my point is how are the "people at large" ownership type companies functionally different from publicly traded companies?

You can't see the difference between a workers colective and a joint stock company?

>Like, I don't know what to tell you; you're the one delving into irrelevant "gotchas"...

Yeah, sure...

>I never said you did; I drew a logical inference from the assertion in your challenge.

Yes, you extrapolated to the extreme to prop up your argument.

2

Aaron_Hamm t1_j21u8wb wrote

A worker's collective isn't the public at large.

Lol dude, that's how you find out if someone's using good logic: find out where it takes you.

1

carloselunicornio t1_j21umpz wrote

>A worker's collective isn't the public at large.

And a joint stock company is?

>Lol dude, I didn't at all, but ok, have fun building straw men to feel good I guess

Have fun with your logical fallacy check list buddy.

2

Aaron_Hamm t1_j21ut6u wrote

Yes, it is... Anyone can be a shareholder. That's the whole point...

Being able to put a name to your behavior isn't an insult.

1

carloselunicornio t1_j21v65p wrote

>Yes, it is... Anyone can be a shareholder. That's the whole point...

Anyone can, but are most people shareholders? You know, the public at large? That is the point.

>Being able to put a name to your behavior isn't an insult.

Waiting for the next one.

1

Aaron_Hamm t1_j21vef8 wrote

Yes, most people are shareholders in the western world.

Sorry you didn't know that?

1

carloselunicornio t1_j21w4wn wrote

>Yes, most people are shareholders in the western world.

Can you back that up? With numbers?

>Sorry you didn't know that?

I'm loving the snark, keep it up.

1