Post

Conversation

Hahah yes also worth saying — A corporate CEO is less like a monarch than like a prime minister in a system with few veto points. He’s got broad plenary power *as long as he enjoys the confidence of the board* but not otherwise.
Quote
Tiago Santos
@tribsantos
Absolutely, yes But also: COMPANIES ARE NOT LIKE MONARCHIES (which I know Matt agrees with, so I'm not shouting at him) x.com/mattyglesias/s…
David Watson 🥑
Post your reply

You’re over simplifying situations where this exists. Zuck owns enough shares in Meta to tell his board to fuck off. They can’t fire him. Hence, he took the tampons out of men’s rooms without fear of reprisal.
Square profile picture
There's not a lot of guys like Trump. Who can literally stand up under fire, and say "FIGHT." Stand with Trump and America First Republicans by joining Mammoth Nation TODAY.
0:16
Get a LIFETIME MEMBERSHIP today using Promo Code SAVEUSA
From mammothnation.com
I agree with everything said except that incompetent companies die. I think we’ve all been in one that still lives.
Moldbug/Yarvin seems to mix a bit the concepts of monarchy and what could be called "bonapartism" (an all-powerful elected leader), changing from one meaning to another if they are the same thing.
Private companies where the ceo is also the sole/majority owner, MIGHT be analogous to monarchies. But we’re really limiting the pool there. Especially after a few generations where multiple people in the family inherit portions of the company
Or, as we recently saw with Mark Zuckerberg, as long as he didn't hire a bunch of 24 year old DEI jerk offs who can then tell him what to do. Because employees have real needs, can call you names, and can quit any time they want, there's a certain amount of working for them.
Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content