What if we got rid of stocks?
-
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.
-
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.
only one person takes out the loan
No, a group of people would form a co-op, just like how people form a company, and the co-op would take out the loan. Entities can take out loans just like people can
but this is the same as all of the employees having stock in the business
No, stock is transferable and sellable, and not equal. If every employee got stock then one of them could / would sell it to someone with cash upfront. Now that new person is now getting money from the business without contributing any labor. They can then use that money to buy more stocks and make a passive income off the company. This leads to capital accumulation and a class of people making money off other people's labor just because they have more money, or had more money at the start.
As for Amazon the average employee would be making a lot more then they are right now but they wouldn't be billionaires. Billionaires never make there billions off working, they make it off capital gains, and since the shares aren't sellable, and thus have no monetary value, there'd be no idea of capital gains for a worker in a co-op.
For the restaurant example I agree they may want to start a business for economic security, but thats not the same as getting rich. Economic security can be provided by a social safety net.
I also agree they may want to start one because they lack autonomy, but I'd say that's largely the result of the alienation of working in normal stock owned companies where the owners make the decisions. If you are working in a co-op and get to have a say in all the decisions that alienation is partly ameliorated. If you want a hand in more decisions then you can "run" for a managerial position and get elected, administrative work would still be necessary in a co-op.
For the communist question most communist countries were more equal then the capitalist countries before the cold war ended. They were poorer, that's partially due to inefficiency, but also due to the fact that most of them developed later then the capitalist countries there often compared to. If you look at one of the last hold puts in Cuba it could be argued that the quality of life for the poorest there is better then the poorest in the u.s. as they have better access to food, housing and healthcare. I'm not going to defend the oppressive political regimes of those countries, but the standard of living wasn't as bad as a lot of people make it out to be.
Could you explain what financial risk is still there if you make an LLC? My understanding was the whole point of an LLC was to guard someone's personal assets from risk if the company goes under.
-
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.
Value was making value as you put it, long before rapid trading. Speculation and arbitrage are like the first two things that develop in any economy. Any entrepreneurial grade school child trading candy, baseball cards, pogs, hotwheels, or whatever the hot new thing is has probably seen both first hand.
-
only one person takes out the loan
No, a group of people would form a co-op, just like how people form a company, and the co-op would take out the loan. Entities can take out loans just like people can
but this is the same as all of the employees having stock in the business
No, stock is transferable and sellable, and not equal. If every employee got stock then one of them could / would sell it to someone with cash upfront. Now that new person is now getting money from the business without contributing any labor. They can then use that money to buy more stocks and make a passive income off the company. This leads to capital accumulation and a class of people making money off other people's labor just because they have more money, or had more money at the start.
As for Amazon the average employee would be making a lot more then they are right now but they wouldn't be billionaires. Billionaires never make there billions off working, they make it off capital gains, and since the shares aren't sellable, and thus have no monetary value, there'd be no idea of capital gains for a worker in a co-op.
For the restaurant example I agree they may want to start a business for economic security, but thats not the same as getting rich. Economic security can be provided by a social safety net.
I also agree they may want to start one because they lack autonomy, but I'd say that's largely the result of the alienation of working in normal stock owned companies where the owners make the decisions. If you are working in a co-op and get to have a say in all the decisions that alienation is partly ameliorated. If you want a hand in more decisions then you can "run" for a managerial position and get elected, administrative work would still be necessary in a co-op.
For the communist question most communist countries were more equal then the capitalist countries before the cold war ended. They were poorer, that's partially due to inefficiency, but also due to the fact that most of them developed later then the capitalist countries there often compared to. If you look at one of the last hold puts in Cuba it could be argued that the quality of life for the poorest there is better then the poorest in the u.s. as they have better access to food, housing and healthcare. I'm not going to defend the oppressive political regimes of those countries, but the standard of living wasn't as bad as a lot of people make it out to be.
Could you explain what financial risk is still there if you make an LLC? My understanding was the whole point of an LLC was to guard someone's personal assets from risk if the company goes under.
Oh so now you need a group of people to decide they want to start a business and take out a loan? So right there we've now eliminated small businesses run by a sole trader, yay? So now you need a bunch of people to all put their livelihoods on the line, and as soon as they hire more employees their share of the co-op is diluted while their loan portion is not. Again - yay?
So if one of the original starters quits or is fired from their job, what happens? What happens to their part of the loan? Do they get a payout when they leave? If not, again, why would they ever take the risk?
For the communist question
So there are no communist countries that exist where everyone is equally wealthy and there is no poor underclass and no super rich upper class rulers? That's what it sounds like to me. Hmmm, I wonder why communism has failed literally every time it has been attempted? But I'm sure this time communism would work, right? The others just didn't do it right, right?
Could you explain what financial risk is still there if you make an LLC? My understanding was the whole point of an LLC was to guard someone’s personal assets from risk if the company goes under.
You can't just make an LLC, take out a huge business loan, and then wipe your hands of it if the business the LLC runs goes bankrupt lol.
-
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?
Just go back to needing futures to actually be fulfilled in kind.
And maybe limit/outlaw complex financial products.
These would be a solid start to fixing the issue of the unsustainable, and irrational, not to mention unconstructive economic growth of the last 60 years.
-
I read this as "socks" and thought "What the hippy shit is this?"
Then I realized my error but still wondered the same thing.
I was also wondering if this is a continuation of the socks as a social construct thread.
Unlike you, however, I don't consider the idea to be "hippy shit" at all. In fact, I've often thought that we might be better off without corporations. Entrepreneurship is what we need, not impersonal investment.
-
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?
Well that would eliminate the whole point of corporations, which is to make it easy to raise money.
Let's start with an understanding of why corporations suck in the first place. The root of all good and evil in a corporation is limited lability. This allows investors to not have to worry that they're going to lose more than their investment, so they don't need to think too hard before putting their money in some company they just heard of. This is great for investors and for the corporation.
But this comes with a cost to everyone else. There's the direct cost that if the corporation ends up owing people money through excessive debt, negligence, or illegal activities, they can declare bankruptcy and the investors don't have to worry any paying for those (other than their losses on the stock). But I suspect the more pernicious effect is that the investors' lack of concern over their investment as anything but a vehicle of profit basically leads them to pick sociopathic CEOs and demand profit maximizing behavior at the cost of social good and even long term stability. And since all this sociopathic activity is really great at amassing money, it's kind of a big power boost for sociopathy overall.
However, the ease of investing can be a good thing for society too - basically it allows a lot of people to retire at some point, and allows for rapid funding of new ideas. So is there a way to get corporations back under control without throwing out the baby? I tend to think we should tax corporations higher if nothing else, as it is we do the opposite thanks to Trump's last tax cut plan.
-
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?
Idk, man. I paid my rent last year with some stocks i cashed out.
I'd recommend just researching companies to invest in for like 10 years, and then research information on ETFs to help your money grow with the market. I'm basically poor and the stocks i invested in helped when i needed it, and i am definitely going to invest again.
But I wouldn't say get rid of the stock market. Just do some research, and only invest what you're willing to not keep in a savings account for a rainy day.
-
I wish I could live the rest of my days without socks.
-
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?
The stock market has been manipulated to the point where there is very little understanding of value anymore. We need a better way otherwise the "Pelosiism" will continue to drive down value and drive up prices. The only action available to us, in order to regain trust, is transparency. If it ain't transparent, someone is diverting too much money somewhere along the line.
-
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?
wrote on last edited by [email protected]I've got a better idea: Make stockholders criminally liable and eligible for prison/execution for the crimes committed by the companies they invest in.
Oh, PharmaCorp knowingly put a medication in to production that causes baby's brains to catch fire? Every single investor in PharmaCorp is gonna serve three consecutive life sentences in Rapesburg-Asspain penitentiary.
Wipe out a few generations of the upper class by getting a couple mass first degree murder convictions to stick and the problem will sort itself out.
