2 ms·

> Interpreted charitably No need for your charity, thanks. I'm simply making the argument that you must live in a bubble if you think that enough people have t

> Interpreted charitably No need for your charity, thanks. I'm simply making the argument that you must live in a bubble if you think that enough people have the excess liquidity and market knowledge for this to be an applicable solution to the general population. > Unless you want to imply that people are too dumb and need to be protected from themselves Not being wise in the markets != being dumb. Protected from themselves? No, protected from speculators and exploiters.

eru 2y ago
Nudging people to own a substantial chunk of their net worth in one single company protects them from speculators and exploiters? OK..
- ossobuco 2y ago
  When the alternative is owning no chunk of any company? Yes, still orders of magnitude better. Nothing prevents people from investing also in other companies if they feel like. Or are you implying they are "too dumb" to consider the possibility? Shared ownership also protects employees from speculative decisions like mass layoffs made only to give more value to shareholders. It also prevents the alienation of working on something you don't own and gives a strong incentive for everyone to give their best.
  - its_ethan 2y ago
    > Nothing prevents people from investing also in other companies if they feel like I thought you just said that this isn't a viable option for most people? Now it is on the table? > are you implying they are "too dumb" to consider the possibility For what it's worth, reading through this thread, it seems like you were the one who claimed most people don't have "market knowledge"...
    - ossobuco 2y ago
      Oh please, you don't even know anymore what's your argument, do you? You just hate to be reminded that the bubble you live in is in now way accurately reflective of the reality most people live in.
      - its_ethan 2y ago
        I am not the person you were arguing with, so sure maybe I don't know what the other guys argument is lol I was just commenting on what I was seeing in your comments - sorry that I struck a nerve.. I'm not sure what bubble you think I'm living in, given how little you know about me. But in "your bubble" it doesn't seem like there's a way to reconcile two very antithetical propositions: 1- people don't have the resources/knowledge to invest, but also 2- they can use their excess resources to diversify away from having significant investment with solely their employer. How does that work? And just to re-iterate, no one besides you has brought up the intelligence of "most people" when it comes to the ability to invest. So...?

eru 2y ago

Nudging people to own a substantial chunk of their net worth in one single company protects them from speculators and exploiters? OK..

ossobuco 2y ago
When the alternative is owning no chunk of any company? Yes, still orders of magnitude better. Nothing prevents people from investing also in other companies if they feel like. Or are you implying they are "too dumb" to consider the possibility? Shared ownership also protects employees from speculative decisions like mass layoffs made only to give more value to shareholders. It also prevents the alienation of working on something you don't own and gives a strong incentive for everyone to give their best.
- its_ethan 2y ago
  > Nothing prevents people from investing also in other companies if they feel like I thought you just said that this isn't a viable option for most people? Now it is on the table? > are you implying they are "too dumb" to consider the possibility For what it's worth, reading through this thread, it seems like you were the one who claimed most people don't have "market knowledge"...
  - ossobuco 2y ago
    Oh please, you don't even know anymore what's your argument, do you? You just hate to be reminded that the bubble you live in is in now way accurately reflective of the reality most people live in.
    - its_ethan 2y ago
      I am not the person you were arguing with, so sure maybe I don't know what the other guys argument is lol I was just commenting on what I was seeing in your comments - sorry that I struck a nerve.. I'm not sure what bubble you think I'm living in, given how little you know about me. But in "your bubble" it doesn't seem like there's a way to reconcile two very antithetical propositions: 1- people don't have the resources/knowledge to invest, but also 2- they can use their excess resources to diversify away from having significant investment with solely their employer. How does that work? And just to re-iterate, no one besides you has brought up the intelligence of "most people" when it comes to the ability to invest. So...?