What if we got rid of stocks?
-
Ive often seen individuals on the left talking about how billionares shouldnt exist etc., but when probed on how that could be accomplished the answer is usually just taxes or guillotines. I dont think either is great.
What if instead, corporations were made to be unable to be sold or owned. Initially theyre made to default to popular election for their board, and after that they can set up a charter or adopt a standard one, ratified by majority vote of their employees.
Bank collapse would probably follow, how could that be remedied? Maybe match the banks invalidated stocks with bonds?
How about no financial products, period. No loans, no mortgage, only rent-to-own or rent. Obfuscating financial products into more complex combined financial products is half of the economy crashes. Obfuscate the numbers, steal, grab, pillage while no one can understand what the frickel you are doing and BAM: profit on the backs of normies who are tOo dumb to understand what a margin call is or why CDO's are here to violate you. All financial products are a scam waiting in ambush, waiting for another bank-bro to think of a way they can leach from society without giving anything back.
-
People should be allowed to give their money and possessions to their children with NO tax whatsoever.
Power accumulation in families would be through the roof. I get that it feels crude when you can't pass on all your wealth to your children, but it would widen the wealth gap so so much in just a couple generations. Is there another reason you think it should be untaxable?
-
i think an easier way would be to limit stock trading to once per fiscal quarter.
stocks were invented as a way for people to invest in things they believe in, and get some money back as thanks. with the advent of rapid trading, the economy has become hopelessly slaved to the ticker; the business is no longer what makes value, value is what makes value.
it's all turned into speculation. eliminating that part would go a long way.
If I’m not mistaken, the US has the beginnings of this in place already in the form of taxes on short-term investments. I’m by no means a tax expert, but this could be a starting point, maybe.
-
i think an easier way would be to limit stock trading to once per fiscal quarter.
stocks were invented as a way for people to invest in things they believe in, and get some money back as thanks. with the advent of rapid trading, the economy has become hopelessly slaved to the ticker; the business is no longer what makes value, value is what makes value.
it's all turned into speculation. eliminating that part would go a long way.
Yeah make minimum holding periods.
-
The stock market isn’t the root of all evil - it’s just one way for companies to raise money and for regular people to invest in those companies. Without it, businesses would still need funding, but the money would come from a much smaller circle of the ultra-rich and private investors. That would make the system less democratic, not more.
If we got rid of the stock market, we wouldn't get rid of corporate greed or wealth inequality. We’d just move them into darker, less transparent places - behind closed doors instead of in public view. Ordinary people would lose what little access they have to ownership and wealth-building. Rich people would still get richer, just in ways even harder to regulate.
So if the goal is to make the system fairer, abolishing the stock market isn’t the answer. Reforming it might be - but killing it outright would probably just make things worse.
Agreed. Like so many things, I think law enforcement can help rein in the stock market. If there were a way to move the SEC under maybe the Fed(?) and require full funding of the agency as the cost of doing business on any stock market in the US (with similar institutions in other countries). Probably a flawed idea, but I think the goal is sensible: remove the SEC from political ambitions and whims and make the market directly fund its regulatory adherence.
Also more people need to suffer severe prison sentences for financial shenanigans. We also need to go back to separate deposit and investment banks.
-
So the state is responsible for everything sounds a lot like communism. We have seen how effective communism is throughout history I'd much prefer our current system to that.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]It is literally our current system where we pool taxes to pay for large projects like parks and sidewalks and plazas and public fountains and water utilities.
All the capatalist and socialist countries do it.
-
How about no financial products, period. No loans, no mortgage, only rent-to-own or rent. Obfuscating financial products into more complex combined financial products is half of the economy crashes. Obfuscate the numbers, steal, grab, pillage while no one can understand what the frickel you are doing and BAM: profit on the backs of normies who are tOo dumb to understand what a margin call is or why CDO's are here to violate you. All financial products are a scam waiting in ambush, waiting for another bank-bro to think of a way they can leach from society without giving anything back.
Let's abolish any money beyond gold coins and exchange trades.
Btw: No writing on a tab as that is a loan. -
The stock market shouldn't exist.
Fight me.where is the line between croud funding and a stock?
-
Had to read twice. My gut reaction was "Getting rid of socks? Why, you monster? Blisters and smelly shoes everywhere!"
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Just like the kid who asserts that socks are a social construct.
-
Ive often seen individuals on the left talking about how billionares shouldnt exist etc., but when probed on how that could be accomplished the answer is usually just taxes or guillotines. I dont think either is great.
What if instead, corporations were made to be unable to be sold or owned. Initially theyre made to default to popular election for their board, and after that they can set up a charter or adopt a standard one, ratified by majority vote of their employees.
Bank collapse would probably follow, how could that be remedied? Maybe match the banks invalidated stocks with bonds?
I read this as "socks" and thought "What the hippy shit is this?"
Then I realized my error but still wondered the same thing.
-
Power accumulation in families would be through the roof. I get that it feels crude when you can't pass on all your wealth to your children, but it would widen the wealth gap so so much in just a couple generations. Is there another reason you think it should be untaxable?
It’s already been taxed.
-
It is literally our current system where we pool taxes to pay for large projects like parks and sidewalks and plazas and public fountains and water utilities.
All the capatalist and socialist countries do it.
Yeah but ur proposing the removal of all private equity so the government is responsible for everything ie communism. My point still stands.
Plus if the government does everything what incentive is there for anyone to improve anything, or to innovate? In our current system if anyone has an idea and can sell it to someone with equity they can go build it and get rich.
-
C’mon, surely we can find something to disagree over for some good ‘ol’ leftist infighting.
Maybe if you believe in woo woo shit like crystal healing.
-
Yeah but ur proposing the removal of all private equity so the government is responsible for everything ie communism. My point still stands.
Plus if the government does everything what incentive is there for anyone to improve anything, or to innovate? In our current system if anyone has an idea and can sell it to someone with equity they can go build it and get rich.
People can work together without requiring stocks or formal governments. The 'government doing everything' requires citizen involvement, which would be spread among the community when centralized wealth isn't overriding public influence. There are a ton of government agencies that improve things and innovate, have you not heard of the Large Hadron Collider that was built by the European Space Agency (ESA) and European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) which are both government agencies? NASA and other government agencies pioneered manned space flight. Government agencies improve and innovate all the time!
Honestly, the stock market is the real issue with stocks. The idea that people should get rich is another detriment to society, because accumulation of wealth to have wealth leads to negative outcomes.
-
I don't get how you can think Taxes aren't the answer but removing stocks are. Billionaires exist because they have a lot of money in some form and are able to reinvest that money to get more money. If you remove stocks, they will find another way to have a lot of money, whether that's owning a lot of business, buying up properties etc.
Start applying a sort of wealth tax, disallow financial influence in election (putting actual limits on spending), fix the loophole for passing on wealth to children with little to no tax, etc.
There really isn't a simple solution, but a wide range of changes that need to be done in my opinion.Well, if you want to tax billionares out of existance u need a wealth tax, aka unrealized gains.
taxing unrealized gains is just going to force individuals to sell their business to liquidate the cash to pay their taxes. Institutional traders will buy them up, so youre universally taking control out of the hands of people and giving it to banks and hedgefunds, which will just end up owning eachother.
I dont think any billionares exist that made their money in some other way than selling stocks in a business they acquired at a lower value, aside from inheritance or divorce.
Maybe you do implement a wealth tax anyway though, but you do it after abolishing stocks, just to catch the loopholes.
-
That's fair.
Didn't think about coops, I assume that if they went completely underwater their creditors would still own them though.
Could all still work, but could be clunky, would probably all get worked out in time.
if they went underwater
Bankruptcy would work the same as it does with a stock company. Since Bankruptcy is just liquidating all a companies assets then forming a queue of people with claims to that money, with secured debt holders at the front of the line and stock holders at the back, you'd just remove the stock holders at the back, maybe replace them with the employees to give them a sort of "severance"
-
But why would people take loans out to start businesses if there’s no way to pay the loan back? Where is any profit from the business going?
Without ownership of a company there’s no reason for anyone to start a company and take on all the risk.
why would anyone take out loans to start a business if there's no way to pay the loan back?
The co-op would pay the loan back and treat it like any other cost of doing business, like buying components / ingredients or paying rent.
where is any profit from the business going
It would go to the employees. There would be no profit in the typical sense of revenue - costs - payroll, any excess after costs just goes to payroll
without ownership of the company there's no reason for anyone to start a company and take on all the risk.
People start companies / organizations all the time where there main motivation isn't profit. Your average restauranter is not doing it for the money, if they are they're delusional. They do it because they like cooking / food or want to create a space for people to gather. Sure some people are motivated by making a profit and we'd miss out on there businesses, that's the cost of a more equitable society. Marx himself praised the dynamism and creativity of capitalism but didn't think it was worth it for the working class who could get far more of the pie if they weren't giving a cut to the owners. This is becoming more true as that dynamism and creativity is going towards AI garbage and crypto and financial schemes
As for the risk, most of the financial risk of owning a business is shed when you create an LLC. The other risk of making no income while the business is getting off the ground can be mitigated by a social safety net that allows people to pursue these enterprises without worrying how they're gonna eat or pay rent.
-
People can work together without requiring stocks or formal governments. The 'government doing everything' requires citizen involvement, which would be spread among the community when centralized wealth isn't overriding public influence. There are a ton of government agencies that improve things and innovate, have you not heard of the Large Hadron Collider that was built by the European Space Agency (ESA) and European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) which are both government agencies? NASA and other government agencies pioneered manned space flight. Government agencies improve and innovate all the time!
Honestly, the stock market is the real issue with stocks. The idea that people should get rich is another detriment to society, because accumulation of wealth to have wealth leads to negative outcomes.
OK so let's say a bunch of people decide to work together without stocks or formal government. Each of these people can provide a certain amount of "critical resource" but each person only has so much and some more than others. So these people working together decide that they all put in what they can and whatever they build together will be distributed among the people according to how much "critical resource" they put in. Congratulations u have reinvented stocks.
The 'government doing everything' requires citizen involvement, which would be spread among the community when centralized wealth isn't overriding public influence.
What are u saying here? The government dictates what the people do to achieve some outcome dictated by the government? That's literally how the soviet union was run.
I'm not denying the government cannot do things (if they couldn't why would they exist) just that the free market optimises and improves. For example the cost mass per kg to space.
SpaceX Falcon Heavy: Around $1,500 per kg.
SpaceX Falcon 9: Approximately $2,720 per kg.
NASA Space Shuttle (retired): $54,500 per kg.
NASA Vanguard (early rocket): $1,000,000 per kg.Who did it better?
But ur idea is also fundamentally flawed from a logical point as well. The ingenuity and creative problem solving capacity of the entire population is far greater than that of some inner circle of party members. Government agencies improve and innovate until some private company comes along optimises and improves till it is a market viable solution.
Ownership implies control of it if u own it you control it and thus can sell it hence a marketplace. Having wealth isn't about having the wealth its about what u can do with the wealth. If u don't get rich off doing something innovative what's the point? For the good of the peoole? If it has no material benefit to you why do it? This is the foundational reason the USSR collapsed Ohh and all the starving dead people cos the government solutions where overpriced uncompetitive and not subject to free market pressures.
I do need to ask are you intentionally saying some of the dumbest shit I ever heard to troll or do u genuinely believe that communism would work? Please read a critical thinking book, a history book, an economics book, and a phycology book. Then u will understand how utterly untenable these ideas are.
-
OK so let's say a bunch of people decide to work together without stocks or formal government. Each of these people can provide a certain amount of "critical resource" but each person only has so much and some more than others. So these people working together decide that they all put in what they can and whatever they build together will be distributed among the people according to how much "critical resource" they put in. Congratulations u have reinvented stocks.
The 'government doing everything' requires citizen involvement, which would be spread among the community when centralized wealth isn't overriding public influence.
What are u saying here? The government dictates what the people do to achieve some outcome dictated by the government? That's literally how the soviet union was run.
I'm not denying the government cannot do things (if they couldn't why would they exist) just that the free market optimises and improves. For example the cost mass per kg to space.
SpaceX Falcon Heavy: Around $1,500 per kg.
SpaceX Falcon 9: Approximately $2,720 per kg.
NASA Space Shuttle (retired): $54,500 per kg.
NASA Vanguard (early rocket): $1,000,000 per kg.Who did it better?
But ur idea is also fundamentally flawed from a logical point as well. The ingenuity and creative problem solving capacity of the entire population is far greater than that of some inner circle of party members. Government agencies improve and innovate until some private company comes along optimises and improves till it is a market viable solution.
Ownership implies control of it if u own it you control it and thus can sell it hence a marketplace. Having wealth isn't about having the wealth its about what u can do with the wealth. If u don't get rich off doing something innovative what's the point? For the good of the peoole? If it has no material benefit to you why do it? This is the foundational reason the USSR collapsed Ohh and all the starving dead people cos the government solutions where overpriced uncompetitive and not subject to free market pressures.
I do need to ask are you intentionally saying some of the dumbest shit I ever heard to troll or do u genuinely believe that communism would work? Please read a critical thinking book, a history book, an economics book, and a phycology book. Then u will understand how utterly untenable these ideas are.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Who did it better?
NASA did all the work to establish the concept of space flight. NASA is also held to more stringent safety requirements because they are a government agency, which drives up costs. NASA blowing up a rocket on takeoff is seen differently than a private company, which just costs more. Same as medical equipment vs similar non-medical equipment, getting from 99.99% reliable to 99.9999% is a cost multiplier.
Not to mention the cost to send stuff to space via private companies is subsidized by investors. It is a made up number, like all the cab 2.0 company pricing when they first started ignoring laws that applied to cabs.
It isn't more efficient to do everything privately. It just looks that way if you ignore all the government funded research and investments hiding costs.
Also I'm not talking about communism. I'm just talking about government vs private, and if you can't wrap your head around that then call it socialist.
-
why would anyone take out loans to start a business if there's no way to pay the loan back?
The co-op would pay the loan back and treat it like any other cost of doing business, like buying components / ingredients or paying rent.
where is any profit from the business going
It would go to the employees. There would be no profit in the typical sense of revenue - costs - payroll, any excess after costs just goes to payroll
without ownership of the company there's no reason for anyone to start a company and take on all the risk.
People start companies / organizations all the time where there main motivation isn't profit. Your average restauranter is not doing it for the money, if they are they're delusional. They do it because they like cooking / food or want to create a space for people to gather. Sure some people are motivated by making a profit and we'd miss out on there businesses, that's the cost of a more equitable society. Marx himself praised the dynamism and creativity of capitalism but didn't think it was worth it for the working class who could get far more of the pie if they weren't giving a cut to the owners. This is becoming more true as that dynamism and creativity is going towards AI garbage and crypto and financial schemes
As for the risk, most of the financial risk of owning a business is shed when you create an LLC. The other risk of making no income while the business is getting off the ground can be mitigated by a social safety net that allows people to pursue these enterprises without worrying how they're gonna eat or pay rent.
So every business is a co-op, but only one person takes out the loan to start the business? So only 1 person is on the hook if it fails, but everyone benefits if it succeeds?
It would go to the employees. There would be no profit in the typical sense of revenue - costs - payroll, any excess after costs just goes to payroll
But this is the same as all of the employees having stock in the business. It means if the business turns into the next amazon, all these employees will be - get this - billionaires! Isn't that precisely what OP is saying they don't want?
Your average restauranter is not doing it for the money, if they are they’re delusional.
They absolutely are, because they want the restaurant to provide for them. They don't open a restaurant with the dream of working another full time job as well as running the restaurant so they can pay their bills.
The reason people start businesses is so they can be their own boss and be financially independent. It is always about money, unless they already don't need the money.
Marx himself praised the dynamism and creativity of capitalism but didn’t think it was worth it for the working class who could get far more of the pie if they weren’t giving a cut to the owners.
Cool, now show me the communist countries where everyone is equally wealthy and there is no poor underclass and no super rich upper class rulers.
As for the risk, most of the financial risk of owning a business is shed when you create an LLC.
It absolutely is not lol.
by a social safety net that allows people to pursue these enterprises without worrying how they’re gonna eat or pay rent.
Ok so now you're talking about a UBI, correct? That's fine, I think a UBI absolutely needs to be trialled and explored - but that's got nothing to do with the absurd notion of getting rid of stocks. Even with a UBI, loans from failed business startups would bankrupt you and make you lose everything.
