What if we got rid of stocks?
-
The stock market shouldn't exist.
Fight me.Poor people are poor just because they don't know how to participate in the stock market. Fight me.
-
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]Why do all solutions need to be destructive? The stocks and companies exist to make one thing - maximize the stakeholder value. So, to get rich, one just needs to - hold stocks, and the company works to make you money. Nothing more, nothing less. But why are so little people actually owning stocks? Because you don't get tought in school about financial literacy.
Money is actually on the table for everyone to grab, just that majority of the people lack basic knowledge - where is the table and how to get to it.
Just teach people in school how to manage stocks, and everyone can
be richhave a lot of money. -
Honestly, I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum. Completely deregulate markets. This would make the stock market a constant churn of volatility and pump and dump schemes. It would gain a reputation for being a scam. People would be forced to once again invest in local businesses where they actually knew something about the owners and the conditions on the ground. Large financial collapses would cease to be a thing, since a small collapse in one city wouldn't affect the next city over
scam=people stop investing
Crypto, blockchain products, NFT's, magnetic bracelets, alkaline water, magic crystals...you are severely underestimating the average human's ability to be constantly scammed
-
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?
Maybe just give rid of the 2ndary market. You can only buy stock directly from the company, and you're entitled to a % of profit share as a result of that. When you're done, you can sell the stock back to the company
-
Poor people are poor just because they don't know how to participate in the stock market. Fight me.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]I fully agree!
However, participation requirements for winning include:
- Knowledge (obviously)
- Having a lot of money in the first place
- Having power to influence the rules and / or market
-
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?
You just reinvented a Co-Op.
However, at what level does this get enacted?
Does little Tommy's summer lawn cutting "business" with his 3 neighbors as customers need an elected board in order to operate?
If I run a business and need a secretary to take care of some mundane things while I do the actual money making part of the business, doors that secretary suddenly get 50% vote over all decisions?
-
unable to be sold or owned
So what incentive is there to start a company? Who funds it? People are expected to start a company, take all the financial risk, for what exactly?
People being billionaires is not the issue people like to think it is. Public servants becoming millionaires by trading and taking bribes/kickbacks and cushy jobs upon leaving politics is the problem.
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.
-
Maybe just give rid of the 2ndary market. You can only buy stock directly from the company, and you're entitled to a % of profit share as a result of that. When you're done, you can sell the stock back to the company
A return to pure value investing would be incredible harm reduction about, I dunno, sixty years ago. Nowadays the derivatives market is so much larger than the actual market that any attempt to unwind it might literally collapse the entire global economy
-
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?
Our beef supply would vanish overnight
-
Why do all solutions need to be destructive? The stocks and companies exist to make one thing - maximize the stakeholder value. So, to get rich, one just needs to - hold stocks, and the company works to make you money. Nothing more, nothing less. But why are so little people actually owning stocks? Because you don't get tought in school about financial literacy.
Money is actually on the table for everyone to grab, just that majority of the people lack basic knowledge - where is the table and how to get to it.
Just teach people in school how to manage stocks, and everyone can
be richhave a lot of money."Everyone can be rich" - no.
For one to be rich, another needs to be poor. Rich and poor are entirely relative terms.
-
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?
Why don't you think taxing the super rich is great?
-
I fully agree!
However, participation requirements for winning include:
- Knowledge (obviously)
- Having a lot of money in the first place
- Having power to influence the rules and / or market
Both point 2 and 3 are false. You have examples for both in the current US affairs. Please elaborate if you know something that the rest of us doesn't.
-
"Everyone can be rich" - no.
For one to be rich, another needs to be poor. Rich and poor are entirely relative terms.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Pardon my expression, everyone can have a lot of money.
A man who doesn't want anything is rich, even if he doesn't have money. I adjusted my comment accordingly.
-
Why don't you think taxing the super rich is great?
answered this one here : https://lemmy.world/comment/17993835
-
Both point 2 and 3 are false. You have examples for both in the current US affairs. Please elaborate if you know something that the rest of us doesn't.
Holy crap your effing president is running pump and dump schemes and a lot of politicians made wins on stocks that they Coincidentally sold or bought with the right timing.
Do I need to explain that?
That is blatant misuse of power and conflict of interest.
-
You just reinvented a Co-Op.
However, at what level does this get enacted?
Does little Tommy's summer lawn cutting "business" with his 3 neighbors as customers need an elected board in order to operate?
If I run a business and need a secretary to take care of some mundane things while I do the actual money making part of the business, doors that secretary suddenly get 50% vote over all decisions?
Your questions at the end are what distinguish this from a co op.
Im not saying i have an answer for every case, but a co op has strictly one vote per employee.
I think itd be okay to build on top of that and let co-ops of more than 2 people set up some sort of charter or constitution that requires periodic re ratification.
3 is the minimum amt of employees that makes sense imo.
-
Why not instead have public and/or worker ownership of stocks, as the Meidner plan proposed, or in the form of a Social Wealth Fund as Matt Bruenig at the People’s Policy Project has suggested? This give people both democratic control and socializes the profits. As long as we have corporations, having them owned either by the public or by their workers (in the form of cooperatives) seems like the way to go.
I think the people that built a company are better qualified to elect their ceo than the bulk populus. Gotta be democratically elected by workers imo, though a simple majority isnt always the best way.
-
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.
I dont think taxing them will accomplish much. its also trivial for corporations to evade taxes, and all of the big ones do.
I think the ease of raising money is part of the problem. Loads of tech companies way over-raise, and develop into bloated cancerous messes that have no way of ever realizing the growth that would have to exist to warrant the investment theyve been given.
In the first place, the only way their investors even expect make anything back would be by reselling the stock, making it a ponzi asset.
The entire system is just propped up by peoples 401ks being funneled to institutional investors. Its inherently unstable.
Make social security good enough that middle class citizens dont need to invest, and the overinflated value of stocks plummets back to earth.
-
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 through almost the whole thing wondering how it would connect to “socks”. Is he a shill for “big footwear”?
You need a way to invest in companies, especially for any to grow, and you need to motivate people. A central economy might budget tax revenue, typically on a multi-year plan, but it tends not to be responsive to real world messiness nor motivating. Capitalism means anyone can invest in a company, getting partial ownership and partial benefit from gains and responding quickly to the whims of the market. People are motivated by profit. Are you proposing a third way?
-
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 still think capitalism is a useful tool. But by are we letting it use us rather than the other way around?
Government was arguably created to establish a market, needed for any economic system to work. You need consistent legal structure, money, a way to do business.
But our failure is government getting owned by the market rather than shaping it for the good of their constituents. Let capitalism be our tool in a market that factors in externalities, fairness and that rewards work.combine that with a progressive tax system like what we claim, and things are looking up, with what seems like minor changes.
- why does the market fail to account for environmental destruction in the cost of doing business?
- why is the market based on a legal structure that exploit individuals?
- why do the richest people have the lowest effective tax rate?
