234
SpaceX stock drops to a new low and loses $1 trillion in value in a month
(www.businessinsider.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2026
234 points (99.2% liked)
Technology
43727 readers
175 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
its just absolutely crazy to buy shares in a company where special super shares where made to make sure anyone buying shares could never own or control the company.
Not really. I've never been to a shareholder meeting and never will. I buy stocks to turn a profit from dividends and appreciation not to get a chance to micromanage the company.
fair enough but if shareholders don't control the company then there might be to much of a need for the owners salary for dividends. which is why you don't buy that crap.
Their value is in ownership which includes say in how its run. I mean stocks have been nuts for a while P/E and P/B and D/E and D/A are things of the past.
Is it? That is, if i were to own a public company, the only way i would ever allow anyone else to own a part of it. It is my company, i don't want fucking shareholders pressure me for more profits and shortsighted decisions. If the vultures want a share of the profits they get just that, not a voice at the table.
No, by definition it is not, if you sell part of it to the public and make it a public company.
... If i had a company and it were successful, and i decided to go public, i would only issue that kind of voteless share or whatever they are called, so that i would be protected from shareholder pressure to some extent. Was that not clear somehow? Or did you just want to go for the snark
No I'm just pointing out that your view on who should morally control the company is wrong from the start.
How so? Shareholders are the worst cancer on the economy, but at the same time hard to eliminate without a revolution.
The proper order should be that people invest in a company they believe will do well, not because they seek to exert control over it. If you do not believe the company is operating in a profitable manner you should not buy, or sell your, shares.
You state this is wrong. Why? In my opinion, if we must have institutionalized gambling, we should seek to keep it from exerting undue influence, even in the shareholders own long term interest. Of course this would not allow the leadership to just do whatever with the money, reporting and oversight should if anything be improved upon.
Companies aren't required to go public in the first place so it’s a rather moot point. They actively choose to be in the situation where they are beholden to shareholders.
If you owned a company you could just, like, not go asking rich people for money to grow or whatever (what IPO is, basically) and grow naturally on your own merits. Then you don’t even have to worry about what kind of votes people might have.
Personally I think the stock market should just be banned outright. Go back to pensions or some sort of UBI or even have companies pay into universal pensions or something, whatever, but tying retirement to gambling needs to stop, and the entire gambling on the economy thing is clearly not working well overall what with it being pretty easy to manipulate, to the destruction of all, and all..
Non-voting common stock is a scam pulled by these fucking billionaire founders to reduce public participation, and concentrate their power, even as they use other's money for their pet projects.
If a company just needs to take up money for an investment, it can issue bonds. Then it gives up no control, but enters into a fair agreement with someone loaning them capital at fixed rates, with no pretense of ownership.
If they sell shares, that is supposed to represent partial ownership and allow all the owners to collectively decide on strategy. It also brings with it the right to recall board members who go insane, like Musk or Zuckerberg. To prevent that these scumbags issue non-voting stock, or stock that has such reduced voting rights as to be essentially useless. Like SpaceX recently, all the IPO shares (class A) carry a tenth of the voting rights compared to the ones they kept (class B).
That is literally the entire point of shares. You buy a percentage of the company and give them money so they can use that money to expand and develop.
Why would I give a company money if I don't get a percentage of that company? It's not a fuckin donation.
You give that money to the Corp to get profits in return. Not a say in how the company is run, at least youre not supposed to for healthy business operations. One of, if not the biggest reason that for example steam continues to win is just they are being not overtly greedy and shortsighted. That is obviously a much healthier business model.
Valve isn't public. That's the healthy business model.
Yes. I realize someone else explained it to you but you as the owner would love to sell it that way but others as a buyer would be nuts to buy your shares. Its not crazy to sell shares that way its crazy to buy them.
If you're in a position to dictate what shareholders get, you have no real reason to go public. Just keep it privately owned.
You go public to raise funds. The least reasonable thing to do to someone is ask them for money with a pinky promise that they might make a profit. Usually, those people are going to want something in return, like a say in how their money is spent.