this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2025
91 points (91.7% liked)

Ask Lemmy

33151 readers
2154 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Ive often seen individuals on the left talking about how billionares shouldnt exist etc., but when probed on how that could be accomplished the answer is usually just taxes or guillotines. I dont think either is great.

What if instead, corporations were made to be unable to be sold or owned. Initially theyre made to default to popular election for their board, and after that they can set up a charter or adopt a standard one, ratified by majority vote of their employees.

Bank collapse would probably follow, how could that be remedied? Maybe match the banks invalidated stocks with bonds?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] heatofignition@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Why don't you think taxing the super rich is great?

[–] Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip 4 points 6 days ago (2 children)

You just reinvented a Co-Op.

However, at what level does this get enacted?

Does little Tommy's summer lawn cutting "business" with his 3 neighbors as customers need an elected board in order to operate?

If I run a business and need a secretary to take care of some mundane things while I do the actual money making part of the business, doors that secretary suddenly get 50% vote over all decisions?

[–] Lv_InSaNe_vL@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

So to answer your questions

  1. Depends on how they have their business registered. I once worked at a company that had 7 people total working there, but because it was legally a corporation it had a "board", which was just the 3 guys who owned the company.
  2. Not necessarily, going back to my previous answer, but there is no legal requirement to sell your stocks when you hire someone. And if you decide to sell stocks you can do a private sale of any amount of the company that you want.

Just because a company is a registered corporation doesn't mean their stocks are sold publicly. But because they are a registered corporation, they have to have a board.

[–] Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

The op did not mention only companies that would be publicly sold. It said ALL OWNERSHIP of companies would be banned. So yeah, people can currently register their companies in whatever way they wish, but the op removes all the options that make the most sense for small companies. And I bet your example was just a partnership, and they wanted to feel fancy by calling it a board.

[–] Lv_InSaNe_vL@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

Oh, I didn't see the no ownership thing. Yeah that's dumb haha

[–] bonus_crab@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

Your questions at the end are what distinguish this from a co op.

Im not saying i have an answer for every case, but a co op has strictly one vote per employee.

I think itd be okay to build on top of that and let co-ops of more than 2 people set up some sort of charter or constitution that requires periodic re ratification.

3 is the minimum amt of employees that makes sense imo.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

I still think capitalism is a useful tool. But by are we letting it use us rather than the other way around?

Government was arguably created to establish a market, needed for any economic system to work. You need consistent legal structure, money, a way to do business.

But our failure is government getting owned by the market rather than shaping it for the good of their constituents. Let capitalism be our tool in a market that factors in externalities, fairness and that rewards work.combine that with a progressive tax system like what we claim, and things are looking up, with what seems like minor changes.

  • why does the market fail to account for environmental destruction in the cost of doing business?
  • why is the market based on a legal structure that exploit individuals?
  • why do the richest people have the lowest effective tax rate?
[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

The "make every company a cooperative" concept has been proposed before. For certain companies it could make sense, but it gets a little tricky when it's anything that needs significant funds to get off the ground.

Corporations were invented for a reason: it creates a mechanism whereby investors can put money in up front in exchange for a share of possible profits once the venture gets going. For example, that makes it possible to build a billion dollar nuclear reactor with 100 staff people who couldn't each pay 10 million dollars.

The mechanism that creates billionaires is only sort of related. Elon Musk, for example, built up his wealth through tangential involvement with a series of really successful companies.

[–] crystalmerchant@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Our beef supply would vanish overnight

[–] bonus_crab@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

WHERE DID THE COWS GO

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world -1 points 6 days ago

I read through almost the whole thing wondering how it would connect to “socks”. Is he a shill for “big footwear”?

You need a way to invest in companies, especially for any to grow, and you need to motivate people. A central economy might budget tax revenue, typically on a multi-year plan, but it tends not to be responsive to real world messiness nor motivating. Capitalism means anyone can invest in a company, getting partial ownership and partial benefit from gains and responding quickly to the whims of the market. People are motivated by profit. Are you proposing a third way?

[–] lime@feddit.nu 79 points 1 week ago (2 children)

i think an easier way would be to limit stock trading to once per fiscal quarter.

stocks were invented as a way for people to invest in things they believe in, and get some money back as thanks. with the advent of rapid trading, the economy has become hopelessly slaved to the ticker; the business is no longer what makes value, value is what makes value.

it's all turned into speculation. eliminating that part would go a long way.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Nighed@feddit.uk 28 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Even if we ignored the immediate collapse of the world economy, if you were starting from scratch how would you get anyone to take risks and put money/time into creating a business?

Even if people did decide to do it, no banks would be able to lend to you (what banks? They need a massive amount of money to start) as they would have absolutely nothing as collateral.

[–] Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (13 children)

How would you get anyone to take risks and start a business

People create things all the time without a profit motive. Assuming they have a good safety net behind them that allows them to start up there ideas people will create. Case in point the app were on right now, it's developed open source with no profit motive, no stocks, no company. It's built by a bunch of hardline communist who believe in an open social network.

What banks

There are credit unions that function as co-ops with no stock ownership

they would have absolutely nothing as collateral

Co-ops can have collateral just like any other business, property of a store or factory, stock ( in the product sense ) etc. Yeah we wouldn't have silicon valley with vcs betting millions on unproven tech, but do we really need that?

Also this is all assuming there's no state involvement or planning. The state has a great credit line that it can use to backstop loans for small cooperative enterprises or just create the enterprises itself, eg. City run grocery stores like zohrans been pitching.

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyz 19 points 1 week ago

This is called a cooperative

Except not just control but ownership too, there is no division between owner and employee.

And yes I agree with you, it would be a good idea. The economic system I advocate for the most is cooperatives in a free market.

[–] Strider@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago (12 children)

The stock market shouldn't exist. Fight me.

[–] Opinionhaver@feddit.uk 19 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

The stock market isn’t the root of all evil - it’s just one way for companies to raise money and for regular people to invest in those companies. Without it, businesses would still need funding, but the money would come from a much smaller circle of the ultra-rich and private investors. That would make the system less democratic, not more.

If we got rid of the stock market, we wouldn't get rid of corporate greed or wealth inequality. We’d just move them into darker, less transparent places - behind closed doors instead of in public view. Ordinary people would lose what little access they have to ownership and wealth-building. Rich people would still get richer, just in ways even harder to regulate.

So if the goal is to make the system fairer, abolishing the stock market isn’t the answer. Reforming it might be - but killing it outright would probably just make things worse.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›