AH Economics

What if a country (such as the US in the 70s) had wage controls, but not price controls? So there'd be limits on overpaid athletes and corporate officials.

What if the government taxed corporations, not individuals? Or vice versa?

Berkshire Hathaway is the holding company established by billionaire Warren Buffett 40 years ago. About 30 years ago, it traded at about 70 dollars per share; 20 years ago, 1000 dollars per share; 10 years ago, around 20,000 dollars per share; and now it's at over 90,000 dollars per share!

What if the number of current shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway was 300 million? That's more than the population of the US, but some shareholders would be in other countries.

What if, in the 70s, companies were more willing to sell shares to the public without brokers? What if, for example, McDonalds gave away individual shares with a Happy Meal, or Sears gave away shares as rebates? What if you could find shares of Kellogg in boxes of cereal? Or one of the prizes in a Cracker Jack box could be shares in the company that makes Cracker Jack?
 
None of your prepositions make much sense from an economic POV.

Wage controls don't work for the same reasons price controls don't work: They artificially distort market forces. In general, the outcome will be a much larger black market sector, combined with an increased police state to enforce it.

If BH's stock was distributed among 300 million people, everyone would have less than $1,000 each. I don't see that that would make a relevant difference.

Selling shares without a broker was illegal. Besides, in the 70's we didn't have an as efficient system to manage stock trades. The rise of 401(k) plans in the 80's has lead to the shareholder democracy we now have: over 50% own stock and over 70% of voters do.
 
Top