6 ms·

This reminds me of when people claim it'd be better if a company was owned by its employees. This idea influences businesses to various degrees, from stock opt

This reminds me of when people claim it'd be better if a company was owned by its employees. This idea influences businesses to various degrees, from stock options to cooperatives. IMHO, this idea fails to acknowledge that ownership is a dynamic concept, not a static one. In a free country, people can sell what they own. So even if you give shares to a category of person you think should own them, you don't know if they will keep them or if they will sell them to the very category of people you took these shares from in the first place.

inimino 10y ago
The idea that the difference between people with capital and without is one of preference seems rather bizarre.
- grondilu 10y ago
  Some people prefer cash to share holdings. It is, by all means, a preference.
  - naravara 10y ago
    Some people would prefer holdings in lieu of cash, but prefer being able to eat and pay rent in lieu of holdings so they wind up taking the cash. That too is, technically, a preference but let's not pretend all "preferences" have no more weight or societal implication than what flavor of ice-cream we like.
    - grondilu 10y ago
      You seem to believe that people don't own capital because they are poor or something. It is certainly true that poor people don't own capital, but it is also probably true that a lot of people who are not poor do not own capital either. For instance, I suppose that socialistic-minded people don't, and yet I doubt they are all poor. In any case, the preference I was talking about was excluding wealth considerations. All other things being equal, the tendency to hoard capital is, I believe, part of character.
      - vertex-four 10y ago
        To be honest, everyone I know who can afford to own capital does, in some form or another. The alternative is an inability to retire.
        grondilu 10y ago
        > in some form or another. Well, I may have made the mistake of using the word capital to refer to shares of companies. I admit the term is more generic and even cash can be seen as capital. Still, this thread started about the idea of giving shares to a category of person. So my point remains : ownership is a dynamic concept. Even if you give those shares to people you think should own them, what makes you think they will keep them and not sell them?
- swalsh 10y ago
  OP could have been a bit more subtle with his statement. Obviously some people have an easier time than others accumulating capital. If you're working at a minimum wage job (or 2) you may not have any "extra" capital to accumulate. In those cases, it's not really a preference. On the other hand, many people DO have some amount left over after their basic living expenses. People have options with this. They have "preferences". They could spend it on a "luxurious" lifestyle, expensive bars, updated wardrobes, expensive cars, houses larger than they need. Etc. Many "rich" people (even middle class people) have a preference for living below their means, and allowing the capital to accumulate. My father was a post office worker, the government took care of him for sure, but he never made more than $20/hr. Today his retirement account has over a million dollars in it. Growing up we never owned a car, we rarely eat out, and we lived in a very cheap house, in a very cheap neighborhood. I resented him for it many times, not having a car is very difficult in the suburbs of the Midwest. Our cheap house was in a shitty school district. But it was his "preference". He could have saved less, and spent the money on a better house in a better school district. He chose to accumulate capital instead.
  - inimino 10y ago
    Or he could have been born into money, used the family's capital wisely to accumulate more capital while living in the best school district and leaving a lot more than that for retirement. Nothing wrong with that, but not everyone had the "preference" or "foresight" to choose their parents so carefully. What OP missed is not subtlety but a basic grasp of how the deck is stacked for most human beings living today.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  Haven't you heard? Real life is just like a monopoly game where everyone starts out equal and those who end up poor do so as a result of their own flawed decision-making. It's totally fair. At least, so people would have you believe.
vertex-four 10y ago
You can put all sorts of restrictions on selling shares so long as you're not a public company, though. I own some shares which I can only sell to other people who already hold shares, and then only when the company allows me to, for example.
- grondilu 10y ago
  > You can put all sorts of restrictions on selling shares so long as you're not a public company, though. Sure you can. But it is my understanding that the more restrictions you put in the circulation of capital, the further away you go from the capitalistic model and the closer you get to the socialist one.
  - vertex-four 10y ago
    You're implying that is necessarily a bad thing in all cases. Many people don't believe that. There are definitions of freedom other than the dominant ones - and plenty of ways in which many people are not free as a direct result of capitalism.
    - grondilu 10y ago
      > You're implying that is necessarily a bad thing in all cases. I sincerely wasn't. I was trying to be as neutral as possible. And I was not talking of freedom in the post you're replying to, I was only talking about restrictions on the circulation of capital.
  - AlexB138 10y ago
    > But it is my understanding that the more restrictions you put in the circulation of capital, the further away you go from the capitalistic model and the closer you get to the socialist one. Restrictions and regulations are in no way automatically "socialist". Something being less laissez faire doesn't inherently make it socialist. Socialism doesn't just mean "not free market capitalism".
tanderson92 10y ago
> As long as people are free to buy and sell capital, it will always end up in the hands of those who like to hoard it. As long as people are free to buy and sell access to healthcare, healthcare will always end up in the hands of those who like to hoard it. You can advocate for or against capitalism but this framing is dishonest, and even the capitalists would think it's unfair.

inimino 10y ago

The idea that the difference between people with capital and without is one of preference seems rather bizarre.

grondilu 10y ago
Some people prefer cash to share holdings. It is, by all means, a preference.
- naravara 10y ago
  Some people would prefer holdings in lieu of cash, but prefer being able to eat and pay rent in lieu of holdings so they wind up taking the cash. That too is, technically, a preference but let's not pretend all "preferences" have no more weight or societal implication than what flavor of ice-cream we like.
  - grondilu 10y ago
    You seem to believe that people don't own capital because they are poor or something. It is certainly true that poor people don't own capital, but it is also probably true that a lot of people who are not poor do not own capital either. For instance, I suppose that socialistic-minded people don't, and yet I doubt they are all poor. In any case, the preference I was talking about was excluding wealth considerations. All other things being equal, the tendency to hoard capital is, I believe, part of character.
    - vertex-four 10y ago
      To be honest, everyone I know who can afford to own capital does, in some form or another. The alternative is an inability to retire.
      - grondilu 10y ago
        > in some form or another. Well, I may have made the mistake of using the word capital to refer to shares of companies. I admit the term is more generic and even cash can be seen as capital. Still, this thread started about the idea of giving shares to a category of person. So my point remains : ownership is a dynamic concept. Even if you give those shares to people you think should own them, what makes you think they will keep them and not sell them?
swalsh 10y ago
OP could have been a bit more subtle with his statement. Obviously some people have an easier time than others accumulating capital. If you're working at a minimum wage job (or 2) you may not have any "extra" capital to accumulate. In those cases, it's not really a preference. On the other hand, many people DO have some amount left over after their basic living expenses. People have options with this. They have "preferences". They could spend it on a "luxurious" lifestyle, expensive bars, updated wardrobes, expensive cars, houses larger than they need. Etc. Many "rich" people (even middle class people) have a preference for living below their means, and allowing the capital to accumulate. My father was a post office worker, the government took care of him for sure, but he never made more than $20/hr. Today his retirement account has over a million dollars in it. Growing up we never owned a car, we rarely eat out, and we lived in a very cheap house, in a very cheap neighborhood. I resented him for it many times, not having a car is very difficult in the suburbs of the Midwest. Our cheap house was in a shitty school district. But it was his "preference". He could have saved less, and spent the money on a better house in a better school district. He chose to accumulate capital instead.
- inimino 10y ago
  Or he could have been born into money, used the family's capital wisely to accumulate more capital while living in the best school district and leaving a lot more than that for retirement. Nothing wrong with that, but not everyone had the "preference" or "foresight" to choose their parents so carefully. What OP missed is not subtlety but a basic grasp of how the deck is stacked for most human beings living today.
anigbrowl 10y ago
Haven't you heard? Real life is just like a monopoly game where everyone starts out equal and those who end up poor do so as a result of their own flawed decision-making. It's totally fair. At least, so people would have you believe.

vertex-four 10y ago

You can put all sorts of restrictions on selling shares so long as you're not a public company, though. I own some shares which I can only sell to other people who already hold shares, and then only when the company allows me to, for example.

grondilu 10y ago
> You can put all sorts of restrictions on selling shares so long as you're not a public company, though. Sure you can. But it is my understanding that the more restrictions you put in the circulation of capital, the further away you go from the capitalistic model and the closer you get to the socialist one.
- vertex-four 10y ago
  You're implying that is necessarily a bad thing in all cases. Many people don't believe that. There are definitions of freedom other than the dominant ones - and plenty of ways in which many people are not free as a direct result of capitalism.
  - grondilu 10y ago
    > You're implying that is necessarily a bad thing in all cases. I sincerely wasn't. I was trying to be as neutral as possible. And I was not talking of freedom in the post you're replying to, I was only talking about restrictions on the circulation of capital.
- AlexB138 10y ago
  > But it is my understanding that the more restrictions you put in the circulation of capital, the further away you go from the capitalistic model and the closer you get to the socialist one. Restrictions and regulations are in no way automatically "socialist". Something being less laissez faire doesn't inherently make it socialist. Socialism doesn't just mean "not free market capitalism".

tanderson92 10y ago

> As long as people are free to buy and sell capital, it will always end up in the hands of those who like to hoard it. As long as people are free to buy and sell access to healthcare, healthcare will always end up in the hands of those who like to hoard it. You can advocate for or against capitalism but this framing is dishonest, and even the capitalists would think it's unfair.