I think it's within the best interest of everyone if it was illegal to publicly trade companies. amirite?

Only an architect would do that. Engineer would know the wall is most likely load bearing

by ImplementPast 11 hours ago

"Jerry, these are load bearing walls, they're not going to come down"

by Anonymous 10 hours ago

Engineering would blame operations for not following the process correctly causing this damage that "could have been avoided if done correctly."

by Anonymous 10 hours ago

Hey! Wait a second!

by Anonymous 9 hours ago

I guess without them it'd be harder to get investment money, as that is their purpose. You'd have to invent a way to invest money, either privately or publicly, so a company could either get off the ground or expand when possible.

by Anonymous 9 hours ago

Calm down Chesterton. He just wants to remove a fence that's going across a road for some not particularly apparent reason.

by Anonymous 9 hours ago

Just to be clear: You mention that the only stakeholders should be employees. You're not just rejecting publicly traded companies; you're also rejecting private investment. Valve is Valve today because of the injection of private capital, and you wouldn't have Valve today under your proposed system.

by Anonymous 8 hours ago

There are also plenty of privately held companies that treat their employees like absolute trash.

by MentalSuggestion6211 8 hours ago

There are no HR issues in Ba Sing Se

by Anonymous 8 hours ago

He's also not wrong about short term demands doing damage to long term sustainability. I mean financial sustainability, don't get your thong in a knot.

by No-Bed 8 hours ago

We wear speedos at our beach getaways I mean shareholder meetings

by Anonymous 7 hours ago

Weirdo. Ours are at nude beaches

by No-Bed 7 hours ago

To be fair, most people who are against socialism have zero clue how either capitalism or socialism work.

by Anonymous 7 hours ago

Lolll idk why they like ip so much

by Anonymous 6 hours ago

He's also describing socialism and doesn't realize it. I'm not a knee jerk "all socialist principles are bad" people, but to say there's a lot of problems with the kind of economy OP describes is an understatement

by johnsonebert 6 hours ago

you arnt describing socialism. Socialism is not when everything is still private but employees receive dividends. socialism is when companies are publically owned and centrally planned.

by Independent-River 6 hours ago

I was only pointing out the person I replied to was wrong about their definition of socialism, a system where the employees of a business are the members is socialist even if a central government is not involved.

by Anonymous 6 hours ago

From the OP: "I believe the only stakeholders of the business should be the employees." That means they own the business. The owners are stakeholders, the only stakeholders are the employees, ergo the employees are the owenrs.

by Anonymous 5 hours ago

Not necessarily.

by Anonymous 5 hours ago

OP didn't call for that tho. OP only discussed publicly traded companies. Private companies, owned by one or several individuals, is not consistent with socialism

by Anonymous 5 hours ago

The only thing worse than young socialists not knowing how to describe socialism is capitalists attempting to describe socialism. SoCiaLIsm is wHeN GovErNmeNt DoEs StuFf

by maxdach 4 hours ago

Tell me how op's plan doesn't give the workers the means of production??

by Anonymous 4 hours ago

Because OPs plan is specific to publicly traded companies and says nothing of private companies. I own a factory. I control the means of production. OPs proposal does nothing to change this

by Anonymous 4 hours ago

Why would publicly traded companies not just buy all their stock back though?... lol

by Anonymous 3 hours ago

It wasn't wrong tho...

by Anonymous 3 hours ago

It was

by MobilePossibility 3 hours ago

How??

by Anonymous 3 hours ago

Read

by Alanna95 3 hours ago

There are publicly traded and not publicly traded companies, most are not publicly traded. The only thing your idea would do is remove a diversity and simple ways of investing and raising capital.

by Anonymous 2 hours ago

Written by someone who has no understanding of how the system works.

by Far_Willow_534 2 hours ago

Do people not realize all of the pensions and retirement plans (401ks) in the US rely on the stock market growing? It's not all billionaires who invest in the stock market, your 65 year old mom who needs it to retire does too.

by Ashamed-Fig 2 hours ago

The criticism OP has of the financial system isn't that it benefits billionaires. It is that it incentivizes short-term thinking and harmful behavior.

by Anonymous 2 hours ago

I feel like you're combining a lot of ideas that don't go together. Not being publicly traded doesn't mean the employees own the business it means the business owners own it. They can still treat employees poorly, cheap out on products and only look to enrich themselves. In fact any company bought by venture capital/private equity is not publicly traded, but certainly doesn't mean they are treating employees and consumers well. I think you're also overlooking how essential capital is to a business. Employees don't bring in capital. So if you want businesses to exist that are expensive and innovative you need capital to come from somewhere

by Anonymous 1 hour ago

Can you explain? I don't see how this is different for a publicly traded business vs a private business

by Anonymous 1 hour ago

They don't either.

by Enrique31 1 hour ago

I think what you're missing is the exact same thing is true of private businesses. In fact there's a much smaller number of people trying to maximize their wealth. Also shareholders can and do sue

by Anonymous 1 hour ago

As i said i think alot of the issues could be resolved if you remove their ability to sue the Business would feel not pressure to screw the average joe like they do public trading or not

by kenyonstreich 35 minutes ago

I agree it creates misaligned incentives, but on the other hand stock-based index funds are probably the best investment opportunity for the average person. Most 401ks in particular have a lot in stocks so this would hurt peoples' retirement funds.

by Anonymous 16 minutes ago