this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2025
87 points (92.2% liked)

Ask Lemmy

33013 readers
1370 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] lime@feddit.nu 78 points 1 day ago (3 children)

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.

[–] d00phy@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 10 points 1 day ago

Yeah make minimum holding periods.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Nighed@feddit.uk 28 points 1 day ago (3 children)

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.

[–] Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Nighed@feddit.uk 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 day ago

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"

[–] FartMaster69@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 1 day ago

With a proper UBI and social safety net they’d be raking much less of a risk.

[–] bonus_crab@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyz 19 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] Strider@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago (4 children)

The stock market shouldn't exist. Fight me.

[–] Opinionhaver@feddit.uk 18 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] d00phy@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] Strider@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I'm not saying it is. But everything that offers the chance will be abused. And the way it currently exists, it shouldn't.

Currently it's just a massive machine for people with massive money to get more, channel money / misdirect analysis / hide and exploit all others. On paper one might disagree, in reality though...

[–] Opinionhaver@feddit.uk 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Investing in the stock market isn’t something exclusive to the rich. For someone like me, it’s pretty much the only realistic way to build any significant wealth for retirement. Without investing, I’d just be losing money to inflation by keeping it in a bank account. Now that I’ve got it invested, I’m already earning enough in returns to cover a few months’ wages each year. It makes no sense to want to take that possibility away from everyone just because you despise billionaires.

[–] Strider@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

I understand and am happy for you that you see a benefit in this for you.

However, I came to the conclusion that it is trivial for those in power to simply fuck you over on occasion. If you're a small investor and lose, we'll tough luck you signed up for it. If you're the bank, oh dear, we need to rescue it! There are various examples of crashes and closures but it really is fine to have a different opinion.

I just wanted to state I am not having mine simply for fun and did quite some research and also worked in a critical financial field once where made up money in a global scale was proven.

As you will also have your background for your opinion. That's fine!

[–] Geodad@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Fight you?

Brother, I've come to join you.

[–] FartMaster69@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

C’mon, surely we can find something to disagree over for some good ‘ol’ leftist infighting.

[–] Geodad@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Maybe if you believe in woo woo shit like crystal healing. 🤣

[–] Fedditor385@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago (4 children)

Poor people are poor just because they don't know how to participate in the stock market. Fight me.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 13 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I read this as "socks" and thought "What the hippy shit is this?"

Then I realized my error but still wondered the same thing.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] anachrohack@lemmy.world 9 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 4 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 4 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago

Whisper of a dream

[–] Semjaza@lemmynsfw.com 8 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Lumidaub@feddit.org 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I think you just invented communism?

[–] Goldholz@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 day ago

Nah. Needs a bit more than communism. There was capitalism without a stockmarket

[–] heatofignition@lemmy.world 5 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Why don't you think taxing the super rich is great?

[–] Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] Habahnow@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] bonus_crab@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Mothra@mander.xyz 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Had to read twice. My gut reaction was "Getting rid of socks? Why, you monster? Blisters and smelly shoes everywhere!"

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] rational_lib@lemmy.world 4 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 3 points 17 hours ago

It becomes very hard to form a company of any reasonable size without government intervention. At that point, corporations that form need tight relations with the government.

[–] Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip 3 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

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?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago

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?
[–] Areldyb@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Upvote for blue-sky thinking.

[–] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 2 points 21 hours ago

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.

[–] Geodad@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

I would very much like to see this happen.

[–] HailSeitan@lemmy.world 2 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] bonus_crab@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago

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.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

The "make every company a cooperative" concept has been proposed before. For certain companies it could make sense, but it gets a little tricky when it's anything that needs significant funds to get off the ground.

Corporations were invented for a reason: it creates a mechanism whereby investors can put money in up front in exchange for a share of possible profits once the venture gets going. For example, that makes it possible to build a billion dollar nuclear reactor with 100 staff people who couldn't each pay 10 million dollars.

The mechanism that creates billionaires is only sort of related. Elon Musk, for example, built up his wealth through tangential involvement with a series of really successful companies.

[–] Chee_Koala@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 day ago

Let's abolish any money beyond gold coins and exchange trades.
Btw: No writing on a tab as that is a loan.

load more comments
view more: next ›