rockSlayerJust a little class consciousness to wash down another day of work
Point taken, but FYI billionaires don’t “make” a billion dollars regardless, it’s almost exclusively because their net worth due to stock ownership makes them a billionaire.
If you bought a house somewhere cheap, and then the eyesore old factory down the road gets torn down, and the land around your house explodes in value, you did not “make a million dollars” in income even though your house is now worth that much.
As well, most billionaires live off money they borrow at stupid low interest rates because that doesn’t count as income. An accountant would be able to explain in depth but that’s one of the way they dodge taxes.
bdonvrStocks are just an abstracted way of exploiting workers.
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?
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.
unfreeradicalStocks themselves do allow billionaires to exist.
Almost always stocks is understood to represent tradeable 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.
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 in our 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, or without trading stocks, and that is STILL a problem.
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, it occurs 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.
??? 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 any set of rules supporting the trade of stocks is broadly objectionable, the same as any other.
In other words, I object to your characterization that a single formulation of stock trading is problematic, more so 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.
Perhaps try thinking harder.
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 cannot survive based solely on income from owned assets, such as companies 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 answer to the question would be provided an actual percentage, rather than an absurd assertion.
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.
No they are a way of sharing ownership in a company. It is the speculation that occurs in stock exchanges than can lead to negative outcomes for employees.
Speculation has been a relatively insignificant factor overall in the trade of stocks compared to real changes their intrinsic value.
Stocks carry and accrue value due to the work of others than those who hold them.
That simply is not true. The value of publicly traded stocks is based upon the speculation that the value of the stock will rise or decline which is often not related to the productivity of the workers.
The notion that all value cones from labor is fundamentally incorrect. Value can be created by scarcity and speculation which has been demonstrated time and again. For example all those recent finds of lithium potential mines have impacted the price of lithium world wide despite not a single mine being approved or any work being done to obtain it. Just knowing it is there has created that change.
Speculation is value supported by a belief that value will rise in the future.
All speculation depends on the acknowledgment of value not speculative.
Land speculators know that land has usefulness, for development, agriculture, or resources. Stock speculators know that stocks have value generated by work. Even if market value has some component that is speculative, always some component is not.
Your assertion, that “value of publicly traded stocks is based upon the speculation that the value of the stock will rise or decline”, is refuted by the contradictions it itself implies.
An asset whose value is purely speculative would collapse eventually. Generally in such cases the speculative value is generated through hype created by a nefarious actor who originally created the asset. Such is the nature of Ponzi schemes.
You seem to be confused by my comment if you think it is contradictory.
I think APPL is overvalued so Im selling its stock while someone else believes that the stock will go up during the time they plan to hold onto the stock thus while I think it will decline someone else perceives for their reasons it will increase.
Considering you literally claimed Marx LVT as if it were gospel maybe consider you aren’t going to have a good grasp on how stock markets work as that’s not something you’ve studied.
A particular stock cannot be meaningfully considered overvalued if its entire value is speculative.
Such is the contradiction.
I have never said the entire value is speculative. I have said the price is based on perceived value of the company which us not 1:1 with productivity or actual reality in some cases (eg when the value is based on fraudulent information or reports a la Enron)
I observed as follows:
Speculation has been a relatively insignificant factor overall in the trade of stocks compared to the effects of their intrinsic value.
Stocks carry and accrue value due to the work of others than those who hold them.
The following was your response:
That simply is not true. The value of publicly traded stocks is based upon the speculation that the value of the stock will rise or decline which is often not related to the productivity of the workers.
The notion that all value cones from labor is fundamentally incorrect.
It only confuses the matter further that you now offer as clarification, “I have never said the entire value is speculative”.
I believe my observations, not yours, are generally accurate.
The price of stocks is supported principally by the value generated by labor, with speculation necessarily only a secondary effect.
The belief that value will rise is generally an accurate belief, because growth occurs from the value generate by labor. Such growth is not related to speculation.
The bit you are overlooking is the conditional phrase “which is often not related to the productivity of workers”.
If I suspect APPL is going to gain value because I know China is going to announce that Chinese government workers can use Apple devices, then the gain in value will be based on the speculation that the stock will rise with these potential new sales. Thus the rise is not related to anything the workers are currently doing only on what they might possibly do in the future. That is speculative.
The above is not the same as the total value being purely speculative. Stocks kind of sort of sometimes represent real valuations but they never reflect the pure value of the labor alone. If that was the case there would be nothing to speculate on. We know exactly how many units Apple manufactures and how many sell. That is factored into evaluations as to if the stock price is accurate or not.
If I suspect APPL is going to gain value because… Chinese government workers can use Apple devices, then the gain in value will be based on the speculation… not related to anything the workers are currently doing…
The new sales would be of products whose creation occurs only through the labor of workers. Your are describing ordinary investment, not speculation.
The above is not the same as the total value being purely speculative. Stocks kind of sort of sometimes represent real valuations but they never reflect the pure value of the labor alone.
The analysis is not relevant. Stocks gain value because of the labor of workers.
The labor of workers is the source of value, the single element without which stocks would never gain value. Speculation only occurs as a response to the intrinsic value generated by labor. If work stopped, if intrinsic value stopped growing then speculation would also cease to have meaning.
An asset traded speculatively but lacking any intrinsic value inevitably crashes, as observed in Ponzi schemes.
The value increased because people suspect sales would be made of products that have yet to he created so the value increased with ZERO input from the workers.
“Stocks kind of sort of sometimes represent real valuations but they never reflect the pure value of the labor alone. The analysis is not relevant. Stocks gain value because of the labor of workers.”
Sorry but it is entirely relevant as it demonstrates the inaccuracy if your claim that labor is the only source of value. It is not and you can easily find thousands of examples as to why the labor theory of value is no longer supported in neoclassical economics. Marx was wrong about this.
Speculation creates some of the value of stock and labor factors into it but neither accounts for the total value of the stock.
The value increased because people suspect sales would be made of products
No prediction is absolute, and neither is any investment.
However, suppose inputs may be purchased at market for prices that are broadly stable, suppose a process is available for workers to create the products from such inputs, suppose the process is not in conflict with natural and legal constraints on the labor market, suppose the total wages required to pay to workers for each product is known, to reasonable precision, and suppose a consumer demand is also known, to reasonable precision.
Then, the prediction for profitability of investment is one related to general investment, not one based on speculation.
Sorry but it is entirely relevant as it demonstrates the inaccuracy if your claim that labor is the only source of value.\
You have consistently misconstrued my claim.
I never asserted the value of an asset may never have a component that is speculative, only that an asset class cannot sustain a component of its value that is speculative value unless it also has a component relating to intrinsic value.
Except in extreme cases, the reason assets have speculative value is because they also have intrinsic value.
Again, assets eventually crash if they have no intrinsic value, only speculative value. Such is the claim I have made, which you consistently misrepresent.
All theories of value are lacking in one way or another, but you’re definitely in the wrong community if you fundamentally disagree with the labor theory of value. Intrinsically, an item has value based on demand and usefulness. However, no items exist without labor. The value of an item is disconnected from the wage exchanged to create it, and this theft of value is what we call “profit”.
My guy/gal/bie, have you heard of GameStop?
Yes.
Have you heard of other publicly traded companies that are not Gamestop?
I am sorry, but your using the example to negate my position is sloppy and ridiculous.
So you’re being purposefully obtuse. Wonderful. 🤦
No. I just have not made any claims that are negated by the events related to trading Gamestop.
Yes you have and I’ll leave you to go research what happened to it so you can see the truth for yourself.
Or you can refuse and continue to embarrass yourself peddling lies. Your choice.
Which statement have I made that is a “lie”?
This person is insane. Don’t even try to talk to them. Even though you don’t know that they are POC. They think everybody knows their skin color already and that literally any question is a challenge and racist and they will call you and not see you in a heartbeat. Just don’t even bother.