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?

  • Opinionhaver@feddit.ukEnglish
    212·
    3 days ago

    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·
      3 days 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
      41·
      3 days ago

      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.ukEnglish
        41·
        3 days ago

        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·
          3 days 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!