What if we got rid of stocks?
-
So to answer your questions
- Depends on how they have their business registered. I once worked at a company that had 7 people total working there, but because it was legally a corporation it had a "board", which was just the 3 guys who owned the company.
- Not necessarily, going back to my previous answer, but there is no legal requirement to sell your stocks when you hire someone. And if you decide to sell stocks you can do a private sale of any amount of the company that you want.
Just because a company is a registered corporation doesn't mean their stocks are sold publicly. But because they are a registered corporation, they have to have a board.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]The op did not mention only companies that would be publicly sold. It said ALL OWNERSHIP of companies would be banned. So yeah, people can currently register their companies in whatever way they wish, but the op removes all the options that make the most sense for small companies. And I bet your example was just a partnership, and they wanted to feel fancy by calling it a board.
-
The op did not mention only companies that would be publicly sold. It said ALL OWNERSHIP of companies would be banned. So yeah, people can currently register their companies in whatever way they wish, but the op removes all the options that make the most sense for small companies. And I bet your example was just a partnership, and they wanted to feel fancy by calling it a board.
Oh, I didn't see the no ownership thing. Yeah that's dumb haha
-
That's fine, let's just disagree.
My point besides the corruption would be a massively rigged system.
Yes, you can have wins. But that does not make it better or even - and that was the point before - people who don't use it incapable to do so.They might also want to stay clear from it, wisely.
Could be, but in the end, no risk no reward. People who do risk, are the ones who get rewarded.
-
You think everyone that starts a business are rich already?
The people taking the risk by starting the company are the ones risking everything, not the employees that they hire lol
wrote on last edited by [email protected]"Rich" is a relative term. But nobody starts a business when their basic needs aren't already met, because they literally wouldn't be able to. That inherently makes them richer than the job seekers.
-
"Rich" is a relative term. But nobody starts a business when their basic needs aren't already met, because they literally wouldn't be able to. That inherently makes them richer than the job seekers.
People start businesses all the time when their “basic needs aren’t met” because they need to earn money to be able to meet their basic needs.
-
I don't think your understanding how this works, the loan is on the co-op as an entity, not the individuals. A single person or group of people can form a co-op, just like how they form an LLC. That co-op can then take out a loan just like a company can take out a loan. That loan is the co-ops liability, not any of the members. If any or all of the original members leave that loan will still be on the co-op, the original members will not be responsible.
I think you have a misunderstanding of limited liability in general, per wikipedia:
Limited liability is a legal status in which a person's financial liability is limited to a fixed sum, most commonly the value of a person's investment in a corporation, company, or joint venture. ... A shareholder in a corporation or limited liability company is not personally liable for any of the debts of the company, other than for the amount already invested in the company and for any unpaid amount on the shares in the company, if any—except under special and rare circumstances that permit "piercing the corporate veil."
So yes you can just make an LLC , take out a huge business loan then leave and wipe your hands of it. The bank knows this and that's why when they give out loans they evaluate whether the company can pay it back, not an individual. The loan will also probably come with stipulations ensuring some sort of corporate governance so you personally can't just drain the company account and walk off with the money. Doing that would be embezzlement.
As for the communist question, were soviet style communist countries perfectly equal, no, but the situation your describing of a poor underclass and super rich upper class rulers is way more reflective of capitalist countries then communist ones. Yes there were high ranking beuracrats at the top but they weren't living in the lap of luxury, the highest ranking soviet officials lived in the house on the embankment where the largest sized unit was 3,200 square feet and the average unit was 2,000 square feet. Compare that to a millionaires mansion in the u.s. Communist societies were far more equal then capitalist societies and the idea that there's some gang of rich exploiters at the top hoarding all the resources is your projection.
These communist countries must be thriving then, right? Which ones are they again?
-
Billionaires are definitely a problem. Corrupt public servants are also a problem. We can admit there is more than one problem.
I don't think outlawing the existence of stocks fixes things though.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Billionaires aren’t a problem though. Corrupt politicians being bought by billionaires is a corrupt politician problem, not a billionaire problem.
What problems do billionaires cause by themselves, not via influencing people who shouldn’t be influenced?
-
Billionaires aren’t a problem though. Corrupt politicians being bought by billionaires is a corrupt politician problem, not a billionaire problem.
What problems do billionaires cause by themselves, not via influencing people who shouldn’t be influenced?
The obscene concentration of wealth is bad for the stability of the country. The existence of billionaires is a policy failure. And there's no world where they exist without them being able to influence politicians, rules against it or not. You can't just exclude one of the biggest drawbacks of their existence from criticism
-
The obscene concentration of wealth is bad for the stability of the country. The existence of billionaires is a policy failure. And there's no world where they exist without them being able to influence politicians, rules against it or not. You can't just exclude one of the biggest drawbacks of their existence from criticism
So you agree the problem is really politician corruption, not billionaires.
-
So you agree the problem is really politician corruption, not billionaires.
Blatantly, no. Learn to read. Holy shit
-
Blatantly, no. Learn to read. Holy shit
If politicians weren’t corrupt, what problems do billionaires cause?