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.
Of course not. Stock ownership by private individuals is exactly what socialism is the opposite of. In, socialism, all wealth and production capacity rests in the hands of all of the people equally and collectively, not those people who acquire unequal shares of the wealth and unequal privileges to control it.
Why don't you tell us where you're coming from. Are you one of those who believes that socialist is absolutely the worst insult you can award to anyone, and you are scratching around the barnyard for new and improved ways to paint people as dirty rotten socialists?
Of course not. Stock ownership by private individuals is exactly what socialism is the opposite of. In, socialism, all wealth and production capacity rests in the hands of all of the people equally and collectively, not those people who acquire unequal shares of the wealth and unequal privileges to control it.
Yep. 100% correct.
I would add that the above is the theory of socialism. Every working attempt at socialism has resulted in unequal wealth and privileges generally from a shrinking pie.
Basically, most of the people get somewhat equal slices of a small crappy pie while there is still an elite class that gets larger slices.
Stock ownership has little to do with control unless you are a majority stockholder or get a seat on the board. What stock ownership does that can be important is force the company CEO or founder to accept an oversight board of directors. While ownership of individual stocks might be seen as anti-social ( ) the ownership of index funds does have a somewhat socialist component.
The real problem is that the market is subtly and not so subtly rigged. When AIG and others are "too big too allow them to stop being responsible for poor decisions" and naked shorts can drag down a company as quickly as a pack of wolves, there is no level playing field Capitalism, but socialism for the wealthiest and most connected of the traders instead.
Actually it depends, if a government controls a majority of the stock and influences the decisions of a company it's not really socialistic but can be considered publicity owned. It happened in many Asian tigers were like that for many years after WW2 to about the 70's in rebuilding from the post war destruction. Just owning the stocks in funds for public employees retirement accounts wouldn't be the same, or marketable securities for short term income investments.
I would add that the above is the theory of socialism. Every working attempt at socialism has resulted in unequal wealth and privileges generally from a shrinking pie.
Basically, most of the people get somewhat equal slices of a small crappy pie while there is still an elite class that gets larger slices.
Give our economy about ten years, and see what happens when people can duke it out for unequal slices of a small crappy pie. Or just go to Zimbabwe, or even Russia.
The OP still hasn't explained how stock ownership is socialistic. I doubt that all 300 million Americans own shares of, say, John Deere & Company, so how is it that the shareholders of DE are socialists?
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.
) the ownership of index funds does have a somewhat socialist component.
