> The lesson is that if you do the right, non-authoritarian thing, you get punished

Cheating on your wife and betraying your country is the right, non authoritarian thing? We arent having this discussion for any other reason than those two events happening. Its an insane lens of entitlement to view the situation as if he should indefinitely retain ownership due to ... what? Existing? But never have any of his actions have consequences. That's the promise you make by positioning the board shares in that manner: you promise to have accountability. Finding it a weakness to answer to others for your actions is definitely a popular style of thinking amongst the current group of wanna-be authoritarians in the presidential cabinet, "strange" how your first two examples of CEOs unwaveringly align with that political faction huh?

▲

augment_me 11 hours ago | parent [-]

In neoliberalism, there is no such thing as society (Thatcher). When there is no society, you can't be held accountable for previously non-acceptable moral transgressions.

If you are competing in a neoliberal environment where other companies play by these rules, you are at a disadvantage if you are following some superset of them.

I am not saying that he has done 100% right things, I am just saying that if he set himself up in the same way as his competitors, he would have been fine. Maybe he would have to pay some fine/bribe, similar to what the prior 2 have done for their infractions against the people.

▲

Starman_Jones 9 hours ago | parent [-]

History has actually tested this question quite extensively, and the overwhelming result is that, on aggregate, an entity where power is distributed is more successful than an entity where power is concentrated. Setting up Nvidia like Meta or Tesla might have been the best thing for Jensen, but clearly wouldn’t have been the best thing for Nvidia. And, quite frankly, over the past few years those other two are pretty good examples of why.

▲

calf 8 hours ago | parent [-]

You're missing the point of the commenter which is that neoliberal social order confounds the empirical evidence. The framing of "x approach is better for a company's success" is a non-question, it is beside the point. Distribution of power "under neoliberalism" is a self contradictory model.

You don't have to agree with leftists but ignoring the premise just lets you talk past the point.

	▲	Starman_Jones 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> if he set himself up in the same way as his competitors, he would have been fine. Jensen chose to set up his company in such a way that he had to follow a superset of the rules that his competitors did. My point is that was a competitive advantage; even though it unmade him, that superset was a necessary tradeoff to be the head of a $4T company. We can see this because those other companies have started to be held financially accountable; the same lack of accountability that lets those leaders get away with affairs also lets them “get away with” withholding evidence (and the resulting $243M punitive damages). Unaccountable power (which is what parent is arguing for) is brittle and fragile.