Not enough, but that doesn’t mean that stocks are the problem. The current system that allows billionaires to exist is the problem, not stocks themselves. Stocks could just as easily be used to fairly share ownership of a business amongst its workers.
You could get rid of stocks and replace them with a big book written in crayon that keeps track of what percentage of a company someone owns, but if you changed nothing else, billionaires would still exist.
It’s the current financial and tax laws that allow billionaires to amass so much wealth, nothing else.
I am becoming confused about your overall position on the subject.
Nevertheless, it seems plain that as long as company shares remain tradable, some holders will accumulate fortunes allowing them to survive merely by virtue of their holdings, through profit generated by the work of others.
The trading of stocks itself, not particular laws or codes, supports the stratification of society into workers and owners, even if some workers own some stocks.
it seems plain that as long as company shares remain tradable, some holders will accumulate fortunes allowing them to survive merely by virtue of their holdings,
Yes, I agree with this, but plz realize that this is not solely dependent on stocks as people can, and do, amass wealth through other means. But it is definitely a big part of the problem.
through profit generated by the work of others.
Sometimes yes… and sometimes no!!!
As long as you choose to fixate on ONE thing, well… then you won’t see the entirety of the picture.
Again, people CAN amass wealth without taking advantage of workers, or without trading stocks, and that is STILL a problem.
The trading of stocks itself, not particular laws or codes, supports the stratification of society
??? Where do you think the definition of stocks and the rules governing their trade exists? It absolutely IS particular laws that are the problem.
As I’ve said in other comments, you could get rid of stocks and replace them with some other set of rules for defining ownership, and guess what? If those totally new rules allow some people to a differentmass billions of dollars of wealth then we’re back in the exact same situation… because it’s the rules (ie: laws and codes) that are the fucking problem
Want to see a corrupt politician lose their mind? Tell them to increase the capital gains tax.
The meaning of your objections is difficult to understand, but it seems clear that you are not understanding the broader discussion.
Instead, it feels as you are spinning in narrow loops, trying to find problems with certain ideas, yet not realizing that such ideas are outside the scope of your loops.
Hopefully I can help, at least a bit.
Yes, I agree with this, but plz realize that this is not solely dependent on stocks as people can, and do, amass wealth through other means. But it is definitely a big part of the problem.
No one has argued that eliminating stock trading is sufficient to address the problems in current systems, but surely at least as much is necessary, and the stock market is plainly a sensible target for antagonism, noticing that in it the most wealthy and powerful of society hold their wealth, and from it, derive their power.
Sometimes yes… and sometimes no!!!
All wealth gained in the stock market is profit gained by the work of others.
Again, people CAN amass wealth without taking advantage of workers
Depending on interpretation, the statement either is false on its merits, or too simplistic to be meaningful.
Property, and therefore wealth, is a social relationship, that is, occuring within social systems, whose structure transcends the choices of any participant.
Since no one endeavors to be deprived of wealth relative to another, everyone who has wealth relative to others has such position due to the surrounding social system having conferred structural disadvantages to others.
Therefore, being wealthy is nothing if not taking advantage of others and their disadvantages.
Any system, including the stock market, that confers vast advantages to some, is a rotten system.
??? Where do you think the definition of stocks and the rules governing their trade exists? It absolutely IS particular laws that are the problem.
My claim is not that trading stocks is not predicated on a set of governing rules. My claim is that every set of rules supporting the trade of stocks is broadly objectionable.
In other words, I object to your characterization that a single formulation of stock trading is problematic more than the practice at large.
As I’ve said in other comments, you could get rid of stocks and replace them with some other set of rules for defining ownership, and guess what? If those totally new rules allow some people to a differentmass billions of dollars of wealth
Yes. Replacing a bad system with a slightly different system as bad or worse than the current is obviously not a thoughtful way address the current problems.
Ya know, workers can own stocks too. There’s even companies that give stocks to employees. Stocks themselves are not the problem.
And what percentage of stocks are held by the working class?
As much as they wish. Also there’s no working class, that’s not 18th century anymore.
The working class is not defined in terms of historical dates.
The working class is everyone who lacks sufficient income to survive solely from owned assets such as businesses or rented properties.
Obviously, ability to purchase stocks is limited by wealth and income remaining after meeting other expenses.
Sorry, but the working class exists, and cannot own as much stock as it pleases.
A constructive response to the question would be of providing an actual percentage, as was asked, rather than returning an absurd deflection.
There are no classes in a capitalist system.
Ability to make investments is not limited by wealth, this is not a 19th century anymore.
Not sure which percentages you want.
Not enough, but that doesn’t mean that stocks are the problem. The current system that allows billionaires to exist is the problem, not stocks themselves. Stocks could just as easily be used to fairly share ownership of a business amongst its workers.
Stocks themselves do allow billionaires to exist.
Almost always stocks is understood to represent tradable assets.
No dude.
You could get rid of stocks and replace them with a big book written in crayon that keeps track of what percentage of a company someone owns, but if you changed nothing else, billionaires would still exist.
It’s the current financial and tax laws that allow billionaires to amass so much wealth, nothing else.
I am becoming confused about your overall position on the subject.
Nevertheless, it seems plain that as long as company shares remain tradable, some holders will accumulate fortunes allowing them to survive merely by virtue of their holdings, through profit generated by the work of others.
The trading of stocks itself, not particular laws or codes, supports the stratification of society into workers and owners, even if some workers own some stocks.
Yes, I agree with this, but plz realize that this is not solely dependent on stocks as people can, and do, amass wealth through other means. But it is definitely a big part of the problem.
Sometimes yes… and sometimes no!!!
As long as you choose to fixate on ONE thing, well… then you won’t see the entirety of the picture.
Again, people CAN amass wealth without taking advantage of workers, or without trading stocks, and that is STILL a problem.
??? Where do you think the definition of stocks and the rules governing their trade exists? It absolutely IS particular laws that are the problem.
As I’ve said in other comments, you could get rid of stocks and replace them with some other set of rules for defining ownership, and guess what? If those totally new rules allow some people to a differentmass billions of dollars of wealth then we’re back in the exact same situation… because it’s the rules (ie: laws and codes) that are the fucking problem
Want to see a corrupt politician lose their mind? Tell them to increase the capital gains tax.
The meaning of your objections is difficult to understand, but it seems clear that you are not understanding the broader discussion.
Instead, it feels as you are spinning in narrow loops, trying to find problems with certain ideas, yet not realizing that such ideas are outside the scope of your loops.
Hopefully I can help, at least a bit.
No one has argued that eliminating stock trading is sufficient to address the problems in current systems, but surely at least as much is necessary, and the stock market is plainly a sensible target for antagonism, noticing that in it the most wealthy and powerful of society hold their wealth, and from it, derive their power.
All wealth gained in the stock market is profit gained by the work of others.
Depending on interpretation, the statement either is false on its merits, or too simplistic to be meaningful.
Property, and therefore wealth, is a social relationship, that is, occuring within social systems, whose structure transcends the choices of any participant.
Since no one endeavors to be deprived of wealth relative to another, everyone who has wealth relative to others has such position due to the surrounding social system having conferred structural disadvantages to others.
Therefore, being wealthy is nothing if not taking advantage of others and their disadvantages.
Any system, including the stock market, that confers vast advantages to some, is a rotten system.
My claim is not that trading stocks is not predicated on a set of governing rules. My claim is that every set of rules supporting the trade of stocks is broadly objectionable.
In other words, I object to your characterization that a single formulation of stock trading is problematic more than the practice at large.
Yes. Replacing a bad system with a slightly different system as bad or worse than the current is obviously not a thoughtful way address the current problems.
Perhaps try thinking harder.