3 ms·

at least it could be argued that FOREX traders actually provide something of value because they provide liquidity for businesses to trade internationally and pe

at least it could be argued that FOREX traders actually provide something of value because they provide liquidity for businesses to trade internationally and people to carry their wealth between different nations. I struggle to see the value of publicly traded companies, and even more so options and other "exotic vehicles" other than enticing people to gamble and make some lucky few people rich. I see the corporatization of businesses as harmful to almost everybody, including investors who are lied to or denied profits from the companies their shares control (but mainly to the working class, for humanitarian reasons). Even capital intensive industries could just borrow money from investors, which would bring everything back to reality. build the oil rig, or you go into default, thats it. no trickery, no growth promises or "pivoting". If you don't make money you go out of business. I don't see any need for shareholders.

xp84 2y ago
I think what you don't see is that the shareholders are in large part pension funds and people saving for retirement. In the absence of a wildly higher-tax government pension system, which as many other countries have demonstrated, come with just as much risk, there isn't a plausible way that I can save for retirement without holding stocks. Plus I get to pick stocks instead of just hoping the government knows what it's doing with my pension dollars.
multjoy 2y ago
Those investors would be buying shares in the company in all but name.
dumah 2y ago
FOREX volume is almost 10% of annual global GDP _per day_. This trading is overwhelmingly unrelated to trade in goods or services, or the movement of wealth with much permanence.
- gosub100 2y ago
  thats fine, I dont think the amount should be regulated to match the good it provides. I just claim that it provides some good for the world, whereas equities does not.
- anomaly_ 2y ago
  Cool, so speculators are just providing shitloads of liquidity to people trading in goods and services. As an importer/exporter, I love that FX is so liquid, cheap, and easy today.
Terr_ 2y ago
> at least it could be argued that FOREX traders actually provide something of value because they provide liquidity [...] I struggle to see the value of publicly traded companies Seeing this A>B comparison made me stop and re-check whether it was the introduction to a satirical post. Many of those companies are actually doing something transformative in the world like growing food or inventing better mousetraps. That's way more "value" than "providing liquidity", regardless of whatever debates we might have about who ends up with the rewards. > Even capital intensive industries could just borrow money from investors Does that mean using shares as collateral for a cash-loan, versus selling shares outright?
- voat 2y ago
  I believe the op wasn't arguing that companies themselves aren't valuable, just the public speculation markets.
- gosub100 2y ago
  I never said the companies shouldn't exist. Try reading what I said more carefully since you also misclassified it as satire.
anomaly_ 2y ago
Mate, what on Earth are you talking about? "Even capital intensive industries could just borrow money from investors" > What do you think publicly traded companies are?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Terr_ 2y ago
  The most-charitable interpretation I can think of is that the company never sells shares outright (preventing speculation on their value) but only uses them as collateral when borrowing cash from a lender... But that raises questions about why the lender would agree: * If there's no competitive market to sell them on, how does the lender recoup its losses by selling the shares? * If the company is in such a bad place that it can't repay the cash loan, why would the shares retain any value? * Even if the shares entitle you to some portion of the capital that was purchased with the missing cash (e.g. a mine and mining machines) then getting your cash back means you have to work fighting against other shareholders who might not want to liquidate anything.

xp84 2y ago

I think what you don't see is that the shareholders are in large part pension funds and people saving for retirement. In the absence of a wildly higher-tax government pension system, which as many other countries have demonstrated, come with just as much risk, there isn't a plausible way that I can save for retirement without holding stocks. Plus I get to pick stocks instead of just hoping the government knows what it's doing with my pension dollars.

multjoy 2y ago

Those investors would be buying shares in the company in all but name.

dumah 2y ago

FOREX volume is almost 10% of annual global GDP _per day_. This trading is overwhelmingly unrelated to trade in goods or services, or the movement of wealth with much permanence.

gosub100 2y ago
thats fine, I dont think the amount should be regulated to match the good it provides. I just claim that it provides some good for the world, whereas equities does not.
anomaly_ 2y ago
Cool, so speculators are just providing shitloads of liquidity to people trading in goods and services. As an importer/exporter, I love that FX is so liquid, cheap, and easy today.

Terr_ 2y ago

> at least it could be argued that FOREX traders actually provide something of value because they provide liquidity [...] I struggle to see the value of publicly traded companies Seeing this A>B comparison made me stop and re-check whether it was the introduction to a satirical post. Many of those companies are actually doing something transformative in the world like growing food or inventing better mousetraps. That's way more "value" than "providing liquidity", regardless of whatever debates we might have about who ends up with the rewards. > Even capital intensive industries could just borrow money from investors Does that mean using shares as collateral for a cash-loan, versus selling shares outright?

voat 2y ago
I believe the op wasn't arguing that companies themselves aren't valuable, just the public speculation markets.
gosub100 2y ago
I never said the companies shouldn't exist. Try reading what I said more carefully since you also misclassified it as satire.

anomaly_ 2y ago

Mate, what on Earth are you talking about? "Even capital intensive industries could just borrow money from investors" > What do you think publicly traded companies are?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Terr_ 2y ago
The most-charitable interpretation I can think of is that the company never sells shares outright (preventing speculation on their value) but only uses them as collateral when borrowing cash from a lender... But that raises questions about why the lender would agree: * If there's no competitive market to sell them on, how does the lender recoup its losses by selling the shares? * If the company is in such a bad place that it can't repay the cash loan, why would the shares retain any value? * Even if the shares entitle you to some portion of the capital that was purchased with the missing cash (e.g. a mine and mining machines) then getting your cash back means you have to work fighting against other shareholders who might not want to liquidate anything.