Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The principle remains, ownership of capital does not equate to production.
Really? How is Amazon going to fulfill their orders if they have no stock, warehouses, shipping contracts, etc., or no negotiated agreements with vendors (who take a cut of the sale for supplying merchandise) who supply stock? All of that takes capital. It doesn't happen without capital. And the beauty of it is that since Amazon is a publicly traded company, anyone and everyone who so chooses can buy into that capital ownership.
Really? How is Amazon going to fulfill their orders if they have no stock, warehouses, shipping contracts, etc., or no negotiated agreements with vendors (who take a cut of the sale for supplying merchandise) who supply stock? All of that takes capital. It doesn't happen without capital. And the beauty of it is that since Amazon is a publicly traded company, anyone and everyone who so chooses can buy into that capital ownership.
Capital exists outside of single handed ownership. You should know that; if capital and production were owned by usage, and supply chains, demand, etc. we’re based off of needs based production, you would see a society with actual freedom and access to labor for everyone based off of their own abilities, not the desires of executives.
Furthermore the second piece of ownership is management, if those who produce don’t have a right to self management, then labor is never free.
Furthermore selling other people’s labor to stockholders is akin to slave markets in practice (not to the same extent, but the principle is the same).
The principle remains, ownership of capital does not equate to production. Furthermore Bezos is credited with the input of his company and the distribution of the wealth others produce. The concept of management and investors controlling the output of others is similar to authoritarian control in the political realm, only this exists in the economic realm.
Every business organization that becomes large is going to grow beyond one person ( the founder /owner) working there .
The people that work at amazon receive a paycheck , a paycheck which they agreed to work for .
Many of them also own stock in the company and have profited that way as well .
If the employees want to stop being employees and want to start their own business they can do so .
Most don’t becsuse there are more headaches and risk in owning a business versus being an employee .
I don’t see what the problem is .
Every business organization that becomes large is going to grow beyond one person ( the founder /owner) working there .
The people that work at amazon receive a paycheck , a paycheck which they agreed to work for .
Many of them also own stock in the company and have profited that way as well .
If the employees want to stop being employees and want to start their own business they can do so .
Most don’t becsuse there are more headaches and risk in owning a business versus being an employee .
I don’t see what the problem is .
The part of his wealth that the government created with things like artificially low interest rates that harmed others and corporate welfare programs like Quantitative Easing.
Capital exists outside of single handed ownership.
Yes, it's called stocks/shares. Amazon, as a publicly traded company, has outstanding publicly traded stocks/shares. What's the problem? It's a communally owned entity.
Here's a tidbit of info I bet you don't even know... People, especially the ignorant on the left and socialists, like to whine complain about corporate profits. BUT... $27 trillion is invested in American workers'/retirees' pensions and investment accounts. That is not a trivial amount, and tens of millions if not more people depend on the gains and income produced from those investments when they're retired and no longer earn an income.
One of CalPERS (California Public Employees Retirement System) top ten stock holdings, for example, is Wal-Mart. Another 5 of the top ten are Big Pharma and Banking stocks.
So, if you think big publicly traded companies' capital isn't already communally owned, you're completely wrong.
The part of his wealth that the government created with things like artificially low interest rates that harmed others and corporate welfare programs like Quantitative Easing.
Does Amazon fund their business from money borrowed at low interest rates ?
If these companies were able to get low interest bank loans for their startups there would be less a need for Venture capitalists and angel investors .
Yes, it's called stocks/shares. Amazon, as a publicly traded company, has outstanding publicly traded stocks/shares. What's the problem? It's a communally owned entity.
Here's a tidbit of info I bet you don't even know... People, especially the ignorant on the left and socialists, like to whine complain about corporate profits. BUT... $27 trillion is invested in American workers'/retirees' pensions and investment accounts. That is not a trivial amount, and tens of millions if not more people depend on the gains and income produced from those investments when they're retired and no longer earn an income.
One of CalPERS (California Public Employees Retirement System) top ten stock holdings, for example, is Wal-Mart. Another 5 of the top ten are Big Pharma and Banking stocks.
So, if you think big publicly traded companies' capital isn't already communally owned, you're completely wrong.
Your stock sharing scheme is not as extensive as you believe. Besides me already explaining why such a system is immoral and against all natural laws of freedom and self-determination, your point is self negating.
Stock owners are the vast minority of workers, they exist as a bottom line for the executives to make money, money that they have no claim to. The economic concept of overall labor being sold and value added prices are akin to slave markets (though not to the same extent of course).
Furthermore profit based growth is not sustainable and is the parameters by which many retirees have to worry about dying of hunger or not having food in the first place.
Your stock sharing scheme is not as extensive as you believe.
It's actually quite extensive. For example, tell me how CalPERS is going to pay retiree benefits and pensions without the gains they've earned via their investments in publicly traded corporations.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
