what do you think about equal public ownership of stock?

Question

I mean, like everyone owning the stock in companies, instead of just the elite owning the majority of the stock? Would that be considered communism or capitalism? (The government wouldn't own the stock, it would still be owned by the people)

Dean didn't explain his answer...Anyone else wanna try?

To "trolling...": If everyone was given an equal amount of stock and they could not sell or buy any more stock (thus making stock neither privately owned or government owned, but publicly owned, like the air we breathe) wouldn't that cancel out your argument...You assume I meant that the stock would be sellable.

To ultrasport195: I always thought communism was when the government owns everything and distributes it to the people, rather than the people owning things directly without the government being involved (other than by passing laws but no actual hands on interference). In addition, I did not say anything about property ownership, just stock ownership...And I was not talking about small businesses that do not have stock, only big business.

Oh, sorry Dean I read your answer wrong...duh.

Answer 1

that would go against the american way, the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer

Answer 2

Communism is state capitalism, Capitalism is communism for the rich. The parasites on Wall Street conduct a Stalinist command economy, especially on employment. If you don't pay people a salary plus free tuition to go to college, they aren't worth anything. But fatcats love mice. Giving these bullies control of the corporations that the American people built guarantees tyranny.

The employees at a business must own the stock, not the Wall Street Kremlin or the government. Or the public in general, as you propose. But you're on the right track in seeing through the fraud of telling us we have to be slaves of either the rich or the government.

"Risk" literally means stupidity. Casino oinkonomics means that the Little Piggies Who Go to Market fix it so they will always profit in the long run. Busting unions and even committing treason by moving "their" businesses, which We the People built for them, to foreign sweatshop colonies are ways they guarantee that they never really take risks.

Answer 3

Capitalism's roots are based on economic inequality. Equal divided ownership among the public is a socialistic(or communistic) concept designed to curb opportunism and exploitation by a small minority. In some facets of the business world it is I believe more desirable...eg medical care to have public ownership because the service is frequently not optional. If someone wants to build a new toy and market it...something optional, go for it and make every dollar you can.

Answer 4

That eliminates the risk/reward pricing in finance.

The incentive for companies is to improve performance, which improves their value on the open market.

If you gave everyone in the United States an equal amount of stock, the people who were the most talented at valuation would end up with it in the end, just like today.


Edit: If the stock is NOT sell-able, then it is pointless to own any. There is no incentive for companies to succeed if there are no market repercussions on their cost of raising capital.

All construction projects would be financed by the bond markets, again, which would mean equity held by stocks is worthless.