Someone(s) have sent out pro-worker messages to unsecured receipt printers connected to the internet

[tippy2k2]

 

[Seanchaidh]

this seems vaguely relevant to a thread's tangent:

Is a few hundred thousand dollars too much? If you start an online bookstore, and it explodes into the second biggest retailer on the planet, how does one limit the accumulation?

oh, this is easy.

award ownership to the employees who made that happen. and then tax them if necessary.

 

[Agema]

"Should" can be a dangerous word.

Should is the keyword by which we employ morality.

"Should" almost always comes with Monkey's Paw rules attached. I understand the sentiment of "we should spread happiness instead of letting the resources rot", but what you imagine should be isn't so easy. Like, you want to limit overaccumulating? Is a few hundred thousand dollars too much? If you start an online bookstore, and it explodes into the second biggest retailer on the planet, how does one limit the accumulation? Do you say "Amazon isn't allowed to be worth that much" and shut it down? How do you stock the accumulation of wealth, when wealth is an abstract, subjective, fluctuating number? Is owning a bunch of trading cards that appreciate in value, just from decrease in supply and increase in demand, qualify as accumulating wealth? If people bout bitcoin for pennies and still own a bunch, do you take it from them? If the value of bitcoin drops, do you give it back?

Yes, there are practicalities for how we deal with any issue. So what?

People like hard numbers, they like to put a number on things, but wealth and value are imaginary concepts

No, value is not an imaginary concept, it is very much real. It is however an abstract concept.

that function only so long as people are in agreement. Most stock affords no power or privilege to it's owner, other than people's desire to buy it off of them. Is it in any way reasonable to say "people value your stocks too highly, you're gonna have to give them up." Particularly in the instance of someone who started a business, are you really willing to say "your business is too successful by our standards to let you own that much of it"?

As an idea, maybe tax them like we get taxed for our labour. Because after all, the value of our labour and the wealth it gains us is no more or less abstract, and likewise functions by societal agreement.

If you think someone's stock affords them no power or privilege, you do not understand stocks.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

A stock investment is literally giving someone else your money to use productively on your behalf. It is the opposite of hoarding.

This is tricky. An investment holds part of a company, and effectively provides income for the company that allows the company to invest - to start up, expand, fund R&D, etc. It is not, as such, wasted money. These therefore likely drive economic activity in the long-term. It is however certainly not money that is effectively being used for goods and services that drive economic activity and provide jobs in the here and now. This is the logic for why the government should borrow and fund jobs during a recession: by increasing work, earnings, and driving demand it should help prevent further job losses, increase business confidence, and end a slump. Chucking money at savers, however, doesn't achieve this.

What bothers me are things like tax havens and the like, which whilst of course technically legal, allow the rich to remove their money from the normal processes of scrutiny and taxation, evade the spirit of the law, and provide a considerable acceleration to their ability to amass wealth. Meanwhile, of course, things need to paid for, and when the rich are untaxable the low-middle earning population gets clobbered for it instead, which makes it harder for us to both spend and save. Similarly I don't like the fact that capital gains tax is often significantly lower than income taxes: because capital gains are basically income, so the rich are intrinsically taxed less on the money they make. I think work should pay - and work is how most people earn. But our societies feel to me set up to reward ownership more than they reward work.

You're both only partially correct.

During the initial public offering of a stock, and reissuing of stock directly from a company you are investing in that company by buying the company's stock. If you are buying company stock from a third party who previously bought it and is now selling it the transaction with that third party has no tangible benefit to the company whose stock is being bought and sold. At that point your buying of the stock is not providing the company any money and isn't really an investment in that company, it's just trading on that company's brand recognition. The vast majority of stock trading does not involve the company that originally issued the stock in any way, and does not have any benefit to that company. It's rich people trading stocks between themselves and generating pretend wealth out of nothing (or doing things like naked shorting in which case no actual stock is even being traded, just the vague idea that a stock exists somewhere maybe).

The entire stock market as it is today is pretty much a scam of moving around money without benefiting anyone other than the already extremely wealthy. It does not function in the way that it was originally intended.

 

[tstorm823]

award ownership to the employees who made that happen. and then tax them if necessary.

Stock value is not necessarily dependent on employee actions. Do you really think we should take stock away from long term AMC investors and give it to the kid at concessions if the internet memes the stock high enough?

 

[Seanchaidh]

Stock value is not necessarily dependent on employee actions. Do you really think we should take stock away from long term AMC investors and give it to the kid at concessions if the internet memes the stock high enough?

who said you have to do it based on stock prices? the only ridiculousness in that scenario is that there are people doing stock market manipulation. That employees would have ownership of the entity that benefits from their work is hardly more absurd than ownership by some guy who bought shares at the NYSE, whether he's had them for minutes or decades.

 

[Agema]

You're both only partially correct.

During the initial public offering of a stock, and reissuing of stock directly from a company you are investing in that company by buying the company's stock. If you are buying company stock from a third party who previously bought it and is now selling it the transaction with that third party has no tangible benefit to the company whose stock is being bought and sold. At that point your buying of the stock is not providing the company any money and isn't really an investment in that company, it's just trading on that company's brand recognition. The vast majority of stock trading does not involve the company that originally issued the stock in any way, and does not have any benefit to that company. It's rich people trading stocks between themselves and generating pretend wealth out of nothing (or doing things like naked shorting in which case no actual stock is even being traded, just the vague idea that a stock exists somewhere maybe).

The entire stock market as it is today is pretty much a scam of moving around money without benefiting anyone other than the already extremely wealthy. It does not function in the way that it was originally intended.

Much of the time, yes, stock is being traded to no great impact on the company. But that doesn't discount the times it does, either.

Not that I necessarily want to defend all sorts of financial wankery which amounts to rich people gambling with each other, to very little overall societal benefit.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Much of the time, yes, stock is being traded to no great impact on the company. But that doesn't discount the times it does, either.

Not that I necessarily want to defend all sorts of financial wankery which amounts to rich people gambling with each other, to very little overall societal benefit.

If buying stocks in a company only gets that company money in 1% of the overall trades can you really say that buying stocks on the stock market is a successful vehicle for investing in the continued success of that company or the economy at large? I would say no.

 

[tstorm823]

If buying stocks in a company only gets that company money in 1% of the overall trades can you really say that buying stocks on the stock market is a successful vehicle for investing in the continued success of that company or the economy at large? I would say no.

The daily trades back and forth account for equally minimal amounts of the wealth accumulation, when compared to the immense gains for those who were actual direct investors in something before it got big.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

The daily trades back and forth account for equally minimal amounts of the wealth accumulation, when compared to the immense gains for those who were actual direct investors in something before it got big.

That's not remotely true. If it was multi-billion dollar hedge funds wouldn't exist. Daily trades back and forth amount to minimal amounts of wealth accumulation for those who already have a minimal amount of wealth to invest. Those who have billions to invest get billions in returns on investments made by traders on their behalf, but it's all a shell game of money and debt that doesn't actually contribute to the economy.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

The ongoing GameStop and AMC fiasco should definitively prove to anybody that whatever theoretical use *a* stock market could have is not what's going on in our actual real world stock market.

 

[Agema]

That's not remotely true. If it was multi-billion dollar hedge funds wouldn't exist. Daily trades back and forth amount to minimal amounts of wealth accumulation for those who already have a minimal amount of wealth to invest. Those who have billions to invest get billions in returns on investments made by traders on their behalf, but it's all a shell game of money and debt that doesn't actually contribute to the economy.

A lot of these funds work by targetting what they perceive are underperforming companies. By buying large quantities of stock they can if not take control of the company outright, then have sufficient ownshership to drive a change in direction and make the company more profitable, so the stock price rises and they can sell up and move on. Of course, what makes a company more profitable is often not good for workers.

Relatively passively holding stock is more what pension funds and the like do with your and my money: the returns are very modest, but in the long term better than a high interest account.

 

[Seanchaidh]

The daily trades back and forth account for equally minimal amounts of the wealth accumulation, when compared to the immense gains for those who were actual direct investors in something before it got big

(due to the efforts of its employees)

 

[tstorm823]

The ongoing GameStop and AMC fiasco should definitively prove to anybody that whatever theoretical use *a* stock market could have is not what's going on in our actual real world stock market.

To be clear, I'm not against this statement. There's a lot wrong with the stock market as it is. But that only makes it less reasonable to try and calculate and judge wealth based on stock holdings, particularly for people who mostly own just one company.

 

[Agema]

To be clear, I'm not against this statement. There's a lot wrong with the stock market as it is. But that only makes it less reasonable to try and calculate and judge wealth based on stock holdings, particularly for people who mostly own just one company.

That is wealth, whether you like it or not.

It is not different in essence from calculating someone's asset worth by property, gold, goods, or even currency itself, all of which also experience fluctuation. One might argue at best that stock prices are more volatile, but it does not escape the basic principle that the shares are worth however much, and they have that many shares. Buy a new car at $30,000, and you could immediately sell it on for about that price. After a few years, it'll be worth a lot less. Nevertheless, it contributes to your wealth at any time, whether or not that contribution changes.

There may limitations - people strongly identified with companies like Musk and Bezos may well not be able to quickly dump huge amounts of that stock without damaging the stock value, but how is this different from other assets (e.g. property) which also often can't be quickly realised without accepting less than full value? No-one acts like a $200,000 home isn't $200,000 because if it had to be sold in a hurry a bid may need to be accepted that's significantly lower. And of course outside sales, shares could readily be used as assets to borrow against to gain liquidity.

None of these arguments you are coming up with are anything more than smoke and mirrors. These guys are as stupendously rich as the numbers say, and I have no idea why you are so invested in trying to pretend otherwise.

 

[Cheetodust]

That is wealth, whether you like it or not.

It is not different in essence from calculating someone's asset worth by property, gold, goods, or even currency itself, all of which also experience fluctuation. One might argue at best that stock prices are more volatile, but it does not escape the basic principle that the shares are worth however much, and they have that many shares. Buy a new car at $30,000, and you could immediately sell it on for about that price. After a few years, it'll be worth a lot less. Nevertheless, it contributes to your wealth at any time, whether or not that contribution changes.

There may limitations - people strongly identified with companies like Musk and Bezos may well not be able to quickly dump huge amounts of that stock without damaging the stock value, but how is this different from other assets (e.g. property) which also often can't be quickly realised without accepting less than full value? No-one acts like a $200,000 home isn't $200,000 because if it had to be sold in a hurry a bid may need to be accepted that's significantly lower. And of course outside sales, shares could readily be used as assets to borrow against to gain liquidity.

None of these arguments you are coming up with are anything more than smoke and mirrors. These guys are as stupendously rich as the numbers say, and I have no idea why you are so invested in trying to pretend otherwise.

Surely, also by that logic, money isn't really wealth either because it's value can go up and down. I remember in the wake of brexit being able to purchase items online in the UK at a slightly reduced rate than buying them here in ireland. Video games in ireland tend to be pretty heinously priced, usually just matching the euro value to the dollar value. In the brief window immediately after Brexit buying games from the UK was about 15 to 20 quid cheaper than buying here because of how close the euro and pound we're in value.

I mean if Tstorm wants to argue that wealth is entirely imaginary then I'm down for that because it is. But it's weird to me when capitalists use our arguments against capitalism to defend it.

 

[Silvanus]

The problem with these calculations is that they are based in the assumption that the government is building them. Elon Musk would need to acquire the land first, which is itself a nearly impossible endeavor without the power of eminent domain. Additionally, if Elon Musk attempted to liquidate $266 billion in stock, the value of those stocks would plummet, then another 10-20 percent would go directly into taxes, and he'd be lucky to have $100 billion at the end.

Why on earth would we assume Elon Musk would be building the highway? That doesn't make an iota of sense. The point is that the money would be of better use in the hands of another body altogether.

 

[Cheetodust]

Why on earth would we assume Elon Musk would be building the highway? That doesn't make an iota of sense. The point is that the money would be of better use in the hands of another body altogether.

... And $100 billion is more than any human should ever have. $1 billion is more than enough money for generations to survive on. It's still completely unethical to hoard more wealth than you will ever use while people who need it starve to death.

 

[Agema]

... And $100 billion is more than any human should ever have. $1 billion is more than enough money for generations to survive on. It's still completely unethical to hoard more wealth than you will ever use while people who need it starve to death.

And indeed, this can be found in the philosophy of John Locke - thought of as possibly the founding father of liberalism. He recognised that once something is owned it becomes inaccessible to others, and that the ownership is excessive where it creates an heavy limit on others. Although of course Locke was assuming creating additional value from property via labour, not skimming some of the value created by other people's labour. Nevertheless, the moral implication is there right from the start that people can own too much.

 

[Seanchaidh]

$1 billion is more than enough money for generations to survive on.

$1 million is likely to be enough for a family to survive indefinitely if you assume the continued existence of an exploitative institution like capitalism. You simply buy income (that is produced by others under the management of different others). And any little bit that is not consumed can be put right back into increasing that passive-- for the people receiving it, anyway-- income.