Same way it makes this negative thing more inconvenient - there are legit reasons for a company to own another one, because it basically just helps organisation and accounting.
What legit reasons? Seriously. What real world situations are there where allowing companies to own companies promotes a healthy society/economy/etc.? (Not just benefitting the shareholders, and not just the accountants. That’s not enough.)
Well not allowing it is just an inconvenience, as I said, so it’s really a benefit for the accountants in this comparison. But if you’re saying that has a big effect on discouraging the harmful form of ownership, the innocuous forms would be discouraged as well. That means also companies would be less likely to merge at all (regardless of resulting struxture) which would be unhealthy for the economy as it prevents synergising. But for the record I don’t think it would have a massive effect on either case.
Same way it makes this negative thing more inconvenient - there are legit reasons for a company to own another one, because it basically just helps organisation and accounting.
What legit reasons? Seriously. What real world situations are there where allowing companies to own companies promotes a healthy society/economy/etc.? (Not just benefitting the shareholders, and not just the accountants. That’s not enough.)
Well not allowing it is just an inconvenience, as I said, so it’s really a benefit for the accountants in this comparison. But if you’re saying that has a big effect on discouraging the harmful form of ownership, the innocuous forms would be discouraged as well. That means also companies would be less likely to merge at all (regardless of resulting struxture) which would be unhealthy for the economy as it prevents synergising. But for the record I don’t think it would have a massive effect on either case.