7 ms·

>A bit confused by this - you're now not actually buying anything that produces anything. I suggest you look up what stock ownership means. Most wealthy people

>A bit confused by this - you're now not actually buying anything that produces anything. I suggest you look up what stock ownership means. Most wealthy people only own non-controlling interest in most of their investments as well. If you own a share of stock, you own part of the means of production.

SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
I understand what a classic stock was - it just seems so abstracted now, it doesn't feel like it's an equivalent. You aren't sharing in the companies success directly, but now there's layers of abstraction and speculation and gamification that it appears that stock success is only tangentially related to company success.
BeetleB 7y ago
> I suggest you look up what stock ownership means. Stock ownership traditionally means partial ownership of a business. Except that you almost have no decision making power unless you own a lot of stocks, and that's not going to happen while working a simple middle class job. It also doesn't mean that the company will pay you a portion of their profits. It is entirely up to the company whether they want to pay you a portion of their profits. So you own something, but have absolutely no rights to the profits and practically no decision making power. In the spirit of the usual definition of "owning" something, you do not own anything with stocks.
- doubleInt 7y ago
  Do you own stocks? If you don't, and your reasoning above is the reason why, I strongly recommend you reconsider. There is more to be lost by fearing your lack of control and failing to invest than there is by investing, in say, index funds.
  - BeetleB 7y ago
    You're the second or third person assuming I'm advocating against stocks. Why do people keep assuming this from my comment? Nothing in my statement suggests owning stocks is a bad idea. I own stocks. My wealth portfolio is high in stocks. This has little bearing on my comment. I'm not recommending against stocks - in the US I've not found a better investment (real estate is worse). I'm simply pointing out that the notion of ownership in a company via stocks is very different from what most people imagine. You own almost nothing, and you have virtually no control over the means of production.
- C1sc0cat 7y ago
  Your point is? a lot of the USA's railroads where funded by Investment trusts based in London and Edinburg which had small middle class investors going back to the 19th century.
  - BeetleB 7y ago
    The point is that if you want to "own the means of production", as was discussed somewhere above, buying stocks as a middle class investor is not going to get you there.
    - pathseeker 7y ago
      By that notion, most wealthy people do not own the means of production either. There are billionaires from hedge funds that own no controlling interest in any companies. Partial ownership is still ownership.
- icedchai 7y ago
  My portfolio works for me 24x7, doesn't complain, doesn't send annoying emails, bother me after hours with an "emergency", or cause loss of sleep. I am highly diversified with index funds. You want to "own a lot of stocks"? Start a small business. Your stock starts off worth nothing, and probably stays that way.
  - BeetleB 7y ago
    I am having trouble connecting your comment to mine. Perhaps you replied to the wrong comment?
    - icedchai 7y ago
      No, I replied to the correct one. I am pointing out some of the benefits of stock ownership and "no decision making power."
      - BeetleB 7y ago
        I suppose if you want to point it out to others. I'm well aware of them and own plenty of stocks.
        loco5niner 7y ago
        > So you own something, but have absolutely no rights to the profits and practically no decision making power. In the spirit of the usual definition of "owning" something, you do not own anything with stocks. I would disagree. I can sell those stocks I own and (hopefully) get more money than I paid for them. Sometimes they pay me a dividend too (share of profits). Sounds like ownership to me. I don't care about decision making power within the company. I LIKE that I have delegated that responsibility.

SketchySeaBeast 7y ago

I understand what a classic stock was - it just seems so abstracted now, it doesn't feel like it's an equivalent. You aren't sharing in the companies success directly, but now there's layers of abstraction and speculation and gamification that it appears that stock success is only tangentially related to company success.

BeetleB 7y ago

> I suggest you look up what stock ownership means. Stock ownership traditionally means partial ownership of a business. Except that you almost have no decision making power unless you own a lot of stocks, and that's not going to happen while working a simple middle class job. It also doesn't mean that the company will pay you a portion of their profits. It is entirely up to the company whether they want to pay you a portion of their profits. So you own something, but have absolutely no rights to the profits and practically no decision making power. In the spirit of the usual definition of "owning" something, you do not own anything with stocks.

doubleInt 7y ago
Do you own stocks? If you don't, and your reasoning above is the reason why, I strongly recommend you reconsider. There is more to be lost by fearing your lack of control and failing to invest than there is by investing, in say, index funds.
- BeetleB 7y ago
  You're the second or third person assuming I'm advocating against stocks. Why do people keep assuming this from my comment? Nothing in my statement suggests owning stocks is a bad idea. I own stocks. My wealth portfolio is high in stocks. This has little bearing on my comment. I'm not recommending against stocks - in the US I've not found a better investment (real estate is worse). I'm simply pointing out that the notion of ownership in a company via stocks is very different from what most people imagine. You own almost nothing, and you have virtually no control over the means of production.
C1sc0cat 7y ago
Your point is? a lot of the USA's railroads where funded by Investment trusts based in London and Edinburg which had small middle class investors going back to the 19th century.
- BeetleB 7y ago
  The point is that if you want to "own the means of production", as was discussed somewhere above, buying stocks as a middle class investor is not going to get you there.
  - pathseeker 7y ago
    By that notion, most wealthy people do not own the means of production either. There are billionaires from hedge funds that own no controlling interest in any companies. Partial ownership is still ownership.
icedchai 7y ago
My portfolio works for me 24x7, doesn't complain, doesn't send annoying emails, bother me after hours with an "emergency", or cause loss of sleep. I am highly diversified with index funds. You want to "own a lot of stocks"? Start a small business. Your stock starts off worth nothing, and probably stays that way.
- BeetleB 7y ago
  I am having trouble connecting your comment to mine. Perhaps you replied to the wrong comment?
  - icedchai 7y ago
    No, I replied to the correct one. I am pointing out some of the benefits of stock ownership and "no decision making power."
    - BeetleB 7y ago
      I suppose if you want to point it out to others. I'm well aware of them and own plenty of stocks.
      - loco5niner 7y ago
        > So you own something, but have absolutely no rights to the profits and practically no decision making power. In the spirit of the usual definition of "owning" something, you do not own anything with stocks. I would disagree. I can sell those stocks I own and (hopefully) get more money than I paid for them. Sometimes they pay me a dividend too (share of profits). Sounds like ownership to me. I don't care about decision making power within the company. I LIKE that I have delegated that responsibility.