Privately owned vs. publicly traded

[Ilhan]

Which one is better for a laissez-fare free trade economy? Also, what's the logic behind it? I don't understand.

[6ap6apblckaAa]

Pub traded is less profit but a bit more people in the high strata

[TheGamingNot]

as 6ap said private owned has less capitalist so those capitalist get more of the profit compared to publicly traded where more capitalist get the same profit so they each get less

[TasteDasRainbow]

The more capitalists you have, the more investment fund you'll receive from them, as well as more industrialists political power for policy. That's the largest benefit of why you want publicly traded

[Alex]

Basically, you can increase the number of greedy capitalistic parasites, I mean your upper class citizens with a single click.

Each capitalist will now receive less profit share, but you get more of them. This system lets you create high-paying jobs out of nothing, the political clout will shift towards capitalists/industrialists, the demand for luxury goods will increase and laws which increase the capitalist's investment contribution really come to shine. It's also a good way to coax those damn nobles out of their subsistence manors.

[Das_Daw]

Originally posted by TheGamingNot:

as 6ap said private owned has less capitalist so those capitalist get more of the profit compared to publicly traded where more capitalist get the same profit so they each get less

If I understand you correctly that is not exactly right: The pie does not stay the same size and everybody is just cutting smaller pieces - the pie actually shrinks when switching from privately owned to publicly traded. In all my calculations it has been pretty much a 3% decrease (but it may well differ for specific industries or due to technology impact etc.)

The reason is that the capitalist "jobs" you create when switching from privately owned to publicly traded deduct extra wages before profit of the respective industry. This mild impact on the industries profit also shrinks the pie that is then divided between the capitalists as dividends. Thus the funnel to the investmentfond shrinks, since the capitalists (and other groups for that matter) reinvest x% of their DIVIDENDS into the investmentpool, but they keep their wages for themselves (or rather spend it on consume goods).

Like i said this was about 3% in all the samples I checked, but regardless if that number changes around a bit, there will always be a minor negative impact when switching ownership. The additional wages that have to be paid will always shrink the dividends a bit and thus the amount of money that can be reinvested via the fund.

Like everyone pointed out however this of course remains totally negligible, because of the immense upside that comes with creating wealthy pops by switching to publicly traded: Loyalists from increased standard of living, more demand for high quality / luxury goods that you now can cater to and profit from etc.

[-=EDF=- Kouta Seto]

Private -> the ♥♥♥♥ germany does with nearly anything... gets nothing done, is considered ♥♥♥♥, does not work at all.
Public Traded -> dont know ANY nation doing that, but then again, its better than private. Medium strata has a say in that too, not just the high one and capitalists like in private.