I think it’s a great idea in theory. Basically a form of decentralised loans. You need money to invest, you sell shares of your company to get some cash. In return the shareholders get a return if you succeed. And of course they can sell their shares if now your company is worth more.
Seems alright with me tbh.
I’m by no means an expert. So I asked the old CharlieGPT
This list seems pretty good to me though:
Transforming the stock market from its current state, which many perceive as being overly speculative, to a more stable and purposeful system would be challenging. However, here are some suggestions that could help mitigate its “casino-like” nature:
Limit High-Frequency Trading (HFT): HFT can exacerbate market volatility. Some argue it provides liquidity, while others feel it allows for manipulation. By setting limits or additional regulations on HFT, you might reduce some of the rapid, short-term fluctuations.
Enhance Financial Education: Educating the public about the fundamental analysis of companies, rather than speculative trading, can lead to a more informed investor base that makes decisions based on a company’s intrinsic value, not short-term price movements.
Tax Incentives for Long-Term Holding: Offer tax benefits for long-term investments. For example, increase capital gains tax for stocks held less than a year and reduce it for those held longer. This would incentivize investors to think long-term.
Increase Transparency: Companies could be required to disclose more about their financial health and business operations, making it easier for investors to make informed decisions.
Reduce Leverage: Limit the amount of leverage retail investors can use. Excessive borrowing to buy stocks can magnify gains but also amplify losses, leading to more volatile markets.
Strengthen Short-Selling Regulations: While short-selling can be a useful tool for price discovery, unrestricted or manipulative shorting can destabilize markets. Strengthening regulations and increasing transparency around short positions might help.
Limit Derivatives or Complex Financial Products: Overly complex financial products can mask risk. By limiting or more strictly regulating these products, one might reduce systemic risks.
Robust Regulatory Oversight: Enhance the powers and resources of regulatory bodies to monitor market manipulations, insider trading, and other unethical practices.
Circuit Breakers: Strengthen and refine circuit breakers, which are mechanisms that temporarily halt trading on an exchange during significant declines for predefined periods.
Restrict Speculative Products for Retail Investors: Limit access to highly speculative or complex products for inexperienced retail investors.
Promote Stakeholder Capitalism: Shift the focus from purely shareholder returns to considering other stakeholders, such as employees, the community, and the environment. This can encourage companies to think long-term and align their strategies with broader societal benefits.
Enhanced Shareholder Rights: Grant shareholders more power in corporate decision-making, making it easier for them to hold company executives accountable.
Remember, the stock market serves as a crucial mechanism for companies to raise capital and for investors to grow wealth over time. Any regulations or reforms should be considered carefully to ensure they do not stifle innovation or economic growth.
Those sound like a great ideas, although I have to question the immense burden it would put on any governing authority, still seems better than the current system though.
As a counterpoint, stock markets (or any structured form of capital investment) require infinite growth, not only is this unsustainable, but it will always prioritize the profit motive over ethical concerns.
In addition, in a market where capital controls expansion, it will always benefit those with capital and by extension power to loosen those regulations.
To summarize, regulation will win you the battle but never the war.
These are just AI ramblings. But for the sake of the argument I don’t think the stock market requires infinite growth per se.
Shareholders could just as well be happy with the dividend payout. Say you gave your apple farmer 20 units of wood to build a fence and storage, and in return he gives you an X amount of apples per fiscal quarter.
But this is hypothetical and in the capitalist system we enjoy you are right of course.
Though I will say that we could definitely regulate more. I would always be more inclined to put my faith in a regulatory body than the powers of the free market.
It isn’t a great idea even in theory. Even ideally, workers inalienable rights to appropriate the fruits of their labor and to democracy are still violated. These rights flow from the moral principle that legal and de facto responsibility should match. In a company, employees are jointly de facto responsible for using up the inputs to produce the outputs, but receive 0% of property rights and liabilities. The employer is held solely legally responsible resulting in a mismatch
I think it’s a great idea in theory. Basically a form of decentralised loans. You need money to invest, you sell shares of your company to get some cash. In return the shareholders get a return if you succeed. And of course they can sell their shares if now your company is worth more. Seems alright with me tbh.
But nowadays it just seems like a fucking casino.
I don’t know if you can have that ideology without it eventually turning into what it currently is.
I’m by no means an expert. So I asked the old CharlieGPT
This list seems pretty good to me though:
Transforming the stock market from its current state, which many perceive as being overly speculative, to a more stable and purposeful system would be challenging. However, here are some suggestions that could help mitigate its “casino-like” nature:
Limit High-Frequency Trading (HFT): HFT can exacerbate market volatility. Some argue it provides liquidity, while others feel it allows for manipulation. By setting limits or additional regulations on HFT, you might reduce some of the rapid, short-term fluctuations.
Enhance Financial Education: Educating the public about the fundamental analysis of companies, rather than speculative trading, can lead to a more informed investor base that makes decisions based on a company’s intrinsic value, not short-term price movements.
Tax Incentives for Long-Term Holding: Offer tax benefits for long-term investments. For example, increase capital gains tax for stocks held less than a year and reduce it for those held longer. This would incentivize investors to think long-term.
Increase Transparency: Companies could be required to disclose more about their financial health and business operations, making it easier for investors to make informed decisions.
Reduce Leverage: Limit the amount of leverage retail investors can use. Excessive borrowing to buy stocks can magnify gains but also amplify losses, leading to more volatile markets.
Strengthen Short-Selling Regulations: While short-selling can be a useful tool for price discovery, unrestricted or manipulative shorting can destabilize markets. Strengthening regulations and increasing transparency around short positions might help.
Limit Derivatives or Complex Financial Products: Overly complex financial products can mask risk. By limiting or more strictly regulating these products, one might reduce systemic risks.
Robust Regulatory Oversight: Enhance the powers and resources of regulatory bodies to monitor market manipulations, insider trading, and other unethical practices.
Circuit Breakers: Strengthen and refine circuit breakers, which are mechanisms that temporarily halt trading on an exchange during significant declines for predefined periods.
Restrict Speculative Products for Retail Investors: Limit access to highly speculative or complex products for inexperienced retail investors.
Promote Stakeholder Capitalism: Shift the focus from purely shareholder returns to considering other stakeholders, such as employees, the community, and the environment. This can encourage companies to think long-term and align their strategies with broader societal benefits.
Enhanced Shareholder Rights: Grant shareholders more power in corporate decision-making, making it easier for them to hold company executives accountable.
Remember, the stock market serves as a crucial mechanism for companies to raise capital and for investors to grow wealth over time. Any regulations or reforms should be considered carefully to ensure they do not stifle innovation or economic growth.
Those sound like a great ideas, although I have to question the immense burden it would put on any governing authority, still seems better than the current system though.
As a counterpoint, stock markets (or any structured form of capital investment) require infinite growth, not only is this unsustainable, but it will always prioritize the profit motive over ethical concerns.
In addition, in a market where capital controls expansion, it will always benefit those with capital and by extension power to loosen those regulations.
To summarize, regulation will win you the battle but never the war.
These are just AI ramblings. But for the sake of the argument I don’t think the stock market requires infinite growth per se. Shareholders could just as well be happy with the dividend payout. Say you gave your apple farmer 20 units of wood to build a fence and storage, and in return he gives you an X amount of apples per fiscal quarter.
But this is hypothetical and in the capitalist system we enjoy you are right of course.
Though I will say that we could definitely regulate more. I would always be more inclined to put my faith in a regulatory body than the powers of the free market.
Needs more socialism. But we know how that goes…
It isn’t a great idea even in theory. Even ideally, workers inalienable rights to appropriate the fruits of their labor and to democracy are still violated. These rights flow from the moral principle that legal and de facto responsibility should match. In a company, employees are jointly de facto responsible for using up the inputs to produce the outputs, but receive 0% of property rights and liabilities. The employer is held solely legally responsible resulting in a mismatch