Originally Posted by
simla
No, I merely asked why we do not make it harder. I do not regard it as good that billions of dollars float offshore to the Australian banks every year because they basically own most of the houses in NZ in reality. I do not regard it as good that there are people sleeping on the streets while overseas owners prefer to own empty houses in the same city. Etc.
I merely ask why we have this sacred cow that access to ownership of assets should be a completely wide open and unimpeded to the people who have the biggest bank accounts. Why are we not even prepared to express doubt about that?
As an example, it is claimed that shareholders vote by selling their shares. But we all know that only very large shareholders feel that they will survive voting the wrong way. We could require a separate vote first on whether to sell the company rather than continue the current process whereby the weakest shareholders always get peeled off first because they cannot afford to resist and then pretend that the landslide of capitulation represents the will of the shareholders. In fact, has anyone EVER asked the shareholders what they want as an actual vote? I wouldn't know.