4 ms·

This analysis glances over the simple reality that corporations not only need to make a profit, but need to make the highest profit possible relative to their p

This analysis glances over the simple reality that corporations not only need to make a profit, but need to make the highest profit possible relative to their peers. Stocks have reached such insane valuations that companies need double-digit growth just to maintain their existing prices Many Americans are still flush with cash from loose monetary policy, pay raises, and COVID savings. So long as they have this cash, companies will keep increasing prices. Companies are also understandably trying to get in as many price increases as they can now because this may not be possible later. And what about when these companies lose money? Should I have paid more for my flight tickets during the pandemic just because I had a higher net worth than United?

zaptheimpaler 4y ago
No they fundamentally don't. We have chosen to organize society in this particular way, and we could choose differently. Stock ownership is highly concentrated among the rich. When we prioritize the interests of those owners over the customers, the majority lose. Maybe those stocks should crash. Growth by just raising prices isn't really substantive growth for society anyways, it's just moving money from consumers to investors.
- refurb 4y ago
  56% of Americans own stock and if you roll in pension plans (heavily invested in stocks), your claim that "ownership is highly concentrated among the rich" and "maybe those stocks should collapse" is clearly not based on facts or taking into account the impact. https://news.gallup.com/poll/266807/percentage-americans-owns-stock.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/266807/percentage-americans-own...
  - samhw 4y ago
    Thank you. I'm broadly left-wing but I'm tired of how much economic illiteracy is common coin nowadays among the left. That argument reminds me of the exasperating "climate change is caused by the rich because most carbon emissions come from big companies" argument.
  - Broken_Hippo 4y ago
    I'll note that both statements can be true: While 53-56% of folks own some sort of stock, most folks own very little stock and thus, don't really have much say. IIRC, something like 70% of the value of stocks are held by the top 10% earners. I mean, owning a lot of stock generally requires buying a lot of stock so this does make sense. I'll also point out that it isn't like the 56% is evenly distributed. When you are more wealthy, you are vastly more likely to own stock. The poorest among us generally would have to sell any reasonable amount of stock amount in order to qualify for benefits so that you are destitute enough to get help with shelter. Few people say they have stocks if they have a pension and nothing else mostly because isn't actually owning the stocks.
    - refurb 4y ago
      most folks own very little stock I'm not sure that matters. If I make $60,000 per year and have $5,000 in equity (after saving for 5 years), whether it goes up or down matters a lot to me. That fact that some rich person owns 100x that amount is irrelevant to my well being. Then add on top those with pension plans, 401ks, etc. And the older you get the more equity you hold. Again, holding $100,000 in equity at 60 isn't much in the grand scheme, but that's the person's retirement fund. It matters a lot to them.
- HigherPlain 4y ago
  This is absurdly wrong. The average working person's pension is heavily invested in stocks.

zaptheimpaler 4y ago

No they fundamentally don't. We have chosen to organize society in this particular way, and we could choose differently. Stock ownership is highly concentrated among the rich. When we prioritize the interests of those owners over the customers, the majority lose. Maybe those stocks should crash. Growth by just raising prices isn't really substantive growth for society anyways, it's just moving money from consumers to investors.

refurb 4y ago
56% of Americans own stock and if you roll in pension plans (heavily invested in stocks), your claim that "ownership is highly concentrated among the rich" and "maybe those stocks should collapse" is clearly not based on facts or taking into account the impact. https://news.gallup.com/poll/266807/percentage-americans-owns-stock.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/266807/percentage-americans-own...
- samhw 4y ago
  Thank you. I'm broadly left-wing but I'm tired of how much economic illiteracy is common coin nowadays among the left. That argument reminds me of the exasperating "climate change is caused by the rich because most carbon emissions come from big companies" argument.
- Broken_Hippo 4y ago
  I'll note that both statements can be true: While 53-56% of folks own some sort of stock, most folks own very little stock and thus, don't really have much say. IIRC, something like 70% of the value of stocks are held by the top 10% earners. I mean, owning a lot of stock generally requires buying a lot of stock so this does make sense. I'll also point out that it isn't like the 56% is evenly distributed. When you are more wealthy, you are vastly more likely to own stock. The poorest among us generally would have to sell any reasonable amount of stock amount in order to qualify for benefits so that you are destitute enough to get help with shelter. Few people say they have stocks if they have a pension and nothing else mostly because isn't actually owning the stocks.
  - refurb 4y ago
    most folks own very little stock I'm not sure that matters. If I make $60,000 per year and have $5,000 in equity (after saving for 5 years), whether it goes up or down matters a lot to me. That fact that some rich person owns 100x that amount is irrelevant to my well being. Then add on top those with pension plans, 401ks, etc. And the older you get the more equity you hold. Again, holding $100,000 in equity at 60 isn't much in the grand scheme, but that's the person's retirement fund. It matters a lot to them.
HigherPlain 4y ago
This is absurdly wrong. The average working person's pension is heavily invested in stocks.