Could stock ownership be considered socialistic?

[mwruckman]

Originally Posted by geofra

Abraham Lincoln wrote in the Gettysburgh Address "A government of the people, by the people, and for the people."

In light of that statement, could stock ownership in publicly traded corporations by the people be considered socialistic?

I wouldn,t consider the the concept of stocks as socialist because it predates the 19th century by several hundred years. It along with a number of innovations that in the 15-16th centuries made our modern bussiness world possible. These innovations include the idea of corporations, the idea of limited liability, the concept of insurance, the idea of credit and the modern bank. These inventions made it possible to collect, manage and concentrate capitial and undertake larger business projects like building ocean going ships or business of a national or international scale. The development of new technologies and more complex goods than were possible in the middle ages. Business of a scale larger than can be undertaken by a single artisan and a few helpers. Stocks give a way for a number of people to contribute a modest amount of money to a business venture. If there a large number of share holders the sum of money can be very large. You can contribute to a risky venture and share in the profit with out having to contribute a small fortune and assuming the entire risk if the venture fails where you would be wiped out.

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by jfre81

(insert GM/Chrysler reference here)

I sometimes have difficulty understanding some of these topics since it seems fashionable for Americans to throw around a word they hardly know the meaning of. This country has never seen anything even close to true socialism.

lol good point about GM etc.

NO country has seen anything even close to true socialism.

[No attitude]

No, it is worse than that.