7 ms·

That kind of ownership does not yield the kind of returns we’re talking about, and more importantly does not allow for control. The centralization of returns an

That kind of ownership does not yield the kind of returns we’re talking about, and more importantly does not allow for control. The centralization of returns and control reinforce one another.

WalterBright 7y ago
> That kind of ownership does not yield the kind of returns we’re talking about Depends on which stock you bought. > does not allow for control One share equals one vote. The more shares you buy, the more you vote. > The centralization of returns and control reinforce one another With stocks you get the same returns and votes per share that anyone else does.
- nico_h 7y ago
  > With stocks you get the same returns and votes per share that anyone else does. I believe founders have wised-up to that and now there are differently voting shares, the most prominent being Facebook, which is controlled by the Zuck & friends even though they only own 18% of the stock https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/20/shareholders-wont-force-zuckerbergs-hand-in-facebook-management.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/20/shareholders-wont-force-zuck... >> Mark Zuckerberg owns the majority of the voting rights to Facebook due to a dual class structure that weights certain shares over others. >> Facebook’s Class B shares, controlled by Zuckerberg and a small group of insiders, has about 18 percent of the shares, but they also have 10 votes per share. >> Surprisingly, it’s not that uncommon: 355 of the companies in the Russell 3000 (11.8 percent) have a dual voting-class structure.
  - WalterBright 7y ago
    Pick another stock, then.
- solidsnack9000 7y ago
  Not sure if you're pulling my leg here with the stock picking suggestion; but directly holding stocks seems to be overall a losing bet for retail investors. A few do well but most don't; and that makes sense because retail investors have full-time jobs and they're up against traders whose full-time job is investing.
  - WalterBright 7y ago
    > directly holding stocks seems to be overall a losing bet for retail investors I'm not pulling your leg at all. I've been holding individual stocks for 40 years, started buying since my first job. I spend very little time on it, I just buy and hold, and hold, and hold, and hold. I still have the stock I bought 40 years ago. It's the constant trading based on emotion that'll eat you alive. Statistically, the most successful investors are dead people (while their estates are in probate) because they aren't trading. I'll ride a stock all the way to zero (hello Enron), but most of the time it works out well.
WalterBright 7y ago
I forgot to mention. Schwab (and other brokerages) now have 0% commissions. I.e. you don't have to pay commissions. And if you're poor, you pay 0% taxes on capital gains. Zero taxes. There's never been a better time for anyone to join the ownership class.
- WalterBright 7y ago
  And estate taxes on the wealthy are 40%. On poor people, they're 0%.
  - NotSammyHagar 7y ago
    But many poor people can't buy stock cause they are poor and they have little to pass on to their heirs.
- quaquaqua1 7y ago
  Only issue is that not all stocks yield the amount required to live a basic life in USA, and indeed a certain percentage lose money. You have to pick winners and certainly not everybody can
  - WalterBright 7y ago
    > not all stocks There are many thousands to choose from, and on average they do. Or you can buy an index fund and choose them all.
    - quaquaqua1 7y ago
      Assuming someone bought in at the absolute bottom of the market in 2008 and has continued to hold for 11 years, fund symbol SPY has yielded 6.5% per year before inflation. The median net worth in the USA is $50,000, inclusive of real estate wealth which is a bit illiquid. Assuming the median citizen puts in $50,000 in 2008, that person would receive $3,250 in pre-tax wealth per year. This is barely enough to put a low quality roof over family members' heads in Vietnam, let alone the USA. And we haven't talked about food, transport, or health insurance as well. So then, I don't think it's sufficient to say that the median citizen can expect to gain very much from the products of asset ownership.

That kind of ownership does not yield the kind of returns we’re talking about, and more importantly does not allow for control. The centralization of returns and control reinforce one another.

WalterBright 7y ago

> That kind of ownership does not yield the kind of returns we’re talking about Depends on which stock you bought. > does not allow for control One share equals one vote. The more shares you buy, the more you vote. > The centralization of returns and control reinforce one another With stocks you get the same returns and votes per share that anyone else does.

nico_h 7y ago
> With stocks you get the same returns and votes per share that anyone else does. I believe founders have wised-up to that and now there are differently voting shares, the most prominent being Facebook, which is controlled by the Zuck & friends even though they only own 18% of the stock https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/20/shareholders-wont-force-zuckerbergs-hand-in-facebook-management.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/20/shareholders-wont-force-zuck... >> Mark Zuckerberg owns the majority of the voting rights to Facebook due to a dual class structure that weights certain shares over others. >> Facebook’s Class B shares, controlled by Zuckerberg and a small group of insiders, has about 18 percent of the shares, but they also have 10 votes per share. >> Surprisingly, it’s not that uncommon: 355 of the companies in the Russell 3000 (11.8 percent) have a dual voting-class structure.
- WalterBright 7y ago
  Pick another stock, then.
solidsnack9000 7y ago
Not sure if you're pulling my leg here with the stock picking suggestion; but directly holding stocks seems to be overall a losing bet for retail investors. A few do well but most don't; and that makes sense because retail investors have full-time jobs and they're up against traders whose full-time job is investing.
- WalterBright 7y ago
  > directly holding stocks seems to be overall a losing bet for retail investors I'm not pulling your leg at all. I've been holding individual stocks for 40 years, started buying since my first job. I spend very little time on it, I just buy and hold, and hold, and hold, and hold. I still have the stock I bought 40 years ago. It's the constant trading based on emotion that'll eat you alive. Statistically, the most successful investors are dead people (while their estates are in probate) because they aren't trading. I'll ride a stock all the way to zero (hello Enron), but most of the time it works out well.

WalterBright 7y ago

I forgot to mention. Schwab (and other brokerages) now have 0% commissions. I.e. you don't have to pay commissions. And if you're poor, you pay 0% taxes on capital gains. Zero taxes. There's never been a better time for anyone to join the ownership class.

WalterBright 7y ago
And estate taxes on the wealthy are 40%. On poor people, they're 0%.
- NotSammyHagar 7y ago
  But many poor people can't buy stock cause they are poor and they have little to pass on to their heirs.
quaquaqua1 7y ago
Only issue is that not all stocks yield the amount required to live a basic life in USA, and indeed a certain percentage lose money. You have to pick winners and certainly not everybody can
- WalterBright 7y ago
  > not all stocks There are many thousands to choose from, and on average they do. Or you can buy an index fund and choose them all.
  - quaquaqua1 7y ago
    Assuming someone bought in at the absolute bottom of the market in 2008 and has continued to hold for 11 years, fund symbol SPY has yielded 6.5% per year before inflation. The median net worth in the USA is $50,000, inclusive of real estate wealth which is a bit illiquid. Assuming the median citizen puts in $50,000 in 2008, that person would receive $3,250 in pre-tax wealth per year. This is barely enough to put a low quality roof over family members' heads in Vietnam, let alone the USA. And we haven't talked about food, transport, or health insurance as well. So then, I don't think it's sufficient to say that the median citizen can expect to gain very much from the products of asset ownership.