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 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.
Yeah make minimum holding periods.
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.
Even if we ignored the immediate collapse of the world economy, if you were starting from scratch how would you get anyone to take risks and put money/time into creating a business?
Even if people did decide to do it, no banks would be able to lend to you (what banks? They need a massive amount of money to start) as they would have absolutely nothing as collateral.
How would you get anyone to take risks and start a business
People create things all the time without a profit motive. Assuming they have a good safety net behind them that allows them to start up there ideas people will create. Case in point the app were on right now, it’s developed open source with no profit motive, no stocks, no company. It’s built by a bunch of hardline communist who believe in an open social network.
What banks
There are credit unions that function as co-ops with no stock ownership
they would have absolutely nothing as collateral
Co-ops can have collateral just like any other business, property of a store or factory, stock ( in the product sense ) etc. Yeah we wouldn’t have silicon valley with vcs betting millions on unproven tech, but do we really need that?
Also this is all assuming there’s no state involvement or planning. The state has a great credit line that it can use to backstop loans for small cooperative enterprises or just create the enterprises itself, eg. City run grocery stores like zohrans been pitching.
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”
With a proper UBI and social safety net they’d be raking much less of a risk.
im definitely interested in not collapsing the world financial system, but its a tough problem to find a solution to.
there are other assets besides stocks banks could own - loans would definitely be a much bigger part of the pie.
As for starting a business, itd make sense to only hire on people you trust at first. Afterward you have to continue to show your worth not to investors but to employees.
As an alternative to trust, you could cut your own business a loan, so that if youre ousted as long as it doesnt go tits up you still get a payout.
The stock market shouldn’t exist. Fight me.
Fight you?
Brother, I’ve come to join you.
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. 🤣
where is the line between croud funding and a stock?
This is called a cooperative
Except not just control but ownership too, there is no division between owner and employee.
And yes I agree with you, it would be a good idea. The economic system I advocate for the most is cooperatives in a free market.
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.
I wish I could live the rest of my days without socks.
deleted by creator
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
At least some of that is tax rates. A few tweaks to unrealized income and losses, capital gains and losses, treatment of dividends, and we can step back from the brink of “financial engineering” and get back to using the profit motive for actual engineering. Basically repeal most of the tax changes since Reagan
Whisper of a dream
What your describing is a socialist revolution. Marx referred to it as the abolition of private property, which he said is the goal of communism. Private property doesn’t mean your phone or car or home or whatever, that is personal property, it’s stuff you own to use. Private property is something you own to make money from, stocks, bonds, rental properties etc. That type of property is based off power and exploitation, the power to kick someone out of there home if they don’t pay rent, or the exploitation of the working class by extracting there surplus value (profit) which goes to pay a stocks dividends, or to be reinvested in the business thus raising the stocks capital holdings and the stocks value.
In Marxism private property is the justification given to the working class for there exploitation, and abolishing it will free the working class and allow them to organize horizontally like you said with voting, without bourgeoisie property relations.
Why don’t you think taxing the super rich is great?
answered this one here : https://lemmy.world/comment/17993835
Had to read twice. My gut reaction was “Getting rid of socks? Why, you monster? Blisters and smelly shoes everywhere!”
Just like the kid who asserts that socks are a social construct.
I think you just invented communism?
Nah. Needs a bit more than communism. There was capitalism without a stockmarket
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.
You’re overthining. There aren’t enough billionaires for abstracts like this. Just create specific teams fir evaluating each individual billionaire’s due.
In theory, the banks and funds in question should themselves be owned by ordinary people. As it stands, ordinary-ish people own most things anyway; even as grotesquely rich as billionares are, there’s only ~2000 of them known.
I do kind of wonder if you could have a group of companies that buy back all the shares external entities own in them. I can’t say if it’s ever happened, though.
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.
Removed by mod
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.
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.
Removed by mod
Oh, I didn’t see the no ownership thing. Yeah that’s dumb haha
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?
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.
