563
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2024
563 points (98.1% liked)
A Boring Dystopia
9576 readers
834 users here now
Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.
Rules (Subject to Change)
--Be a Decent Human Being
--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title
--Posts must have something to do with the topic
--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.
--No NSFW content
--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
He doesnt make that in actual money tho. Rich people's value are vibes based egregors summoned through the stock market. So, in a similar vein, if the stock market crashes and never recovers, he loses most of his money. This is why I propose ripping down Wallstreet to starve the machine.
He'd still have a lot of property to his name, a lot of other assets and stuff that aren't tied to an arbitrary stock market. Even if you crash it, mansions and luxury cars would still be very valuable. He will never not be a billionaire due to that.
That is, unless you redistribute his wealth. Then yeah, he wouldn't be filthy rich anymore.
well it's worse than that becase most of those houses and other assets were bought for the most part from loans taken out at very low interest rates against the stock he has in his company's and other shares in his portfolio . The stocks on whole give better return than that interest rate. So it's free money they can spend an they don't even have to sell their stock and pay taxes on the returns just the dividends at a way lower rate that any working person. the way this is setup it becomes impossible for him to spend money fast enough for him to actually lose more money than he gained.
Very true, but you have to be able to sell those assets to gain from them. If the stock market is erased you can't sell your yacht to another exploiter because their networth is decimated too and they can no longer borrow off anything but physical assets, and now they also have a massive "income" stream that is now down so borrowing is more risky. We coulda had a bad bitch of a society, instead we let the rich turn us all into Mammon zombies.
And the vast amount of web storage customers
The Paper Billionaire Argument
Wealth shown to scale
Love both of these, but going after the stock market is how you kick billionaires in the balls. Then you redistribute their assets to serve society instead of society serving their assets.
You do not talk about project mayhem
You don't want the stock market destroyed. That is how retirements are funded as well.
You want to restrict ownership of an individual stock. Limit them to 5% or so. Also make every stock have 1 vote, no exceptions.
Thus illustrating [one of] the ulterior motive[s] behind replacing pensions with 401(k)s.
Pensions are funded by the stock market as well. Pension funds are some the largest landlords as well.
No, the stock market needs to go. It is the primary vector of mass exploitation and binds us all to these immoral chains. It makes Mr and Mrs Greenbury down the street as complacent in Nestle's filfthy acts as the CEOs themselves, because everyone is drooling for line go up, nothing else. Wealth chasing is the heroin addiction for Mother Terra, and we will chase this dragon until the world is charred.
The stock market is how pensions are funded. That means the largest loss of wealth to the middle class.
Thats great, you can still save pensions. Use the wealth you are redistributing to ensure pensions. The billionaires have enough for all of us to retire. I'm not advocating for instant destruction. I'm advocating for removing it and replacing it with a system that promotes cooperation and resource efficiency instead of one that solely focuses on financial gain.
The stock market is one of the reasons why we don't have pensions anymore. Companies realize that it's a lot cheaper to pawn off the responsibility of covering your own retirement on the people who work their entire lives for you.
Well, those suggestions would destroy the stock market. Nobody would ever register their company on the stock market if it meant giving up 95% of the control.
Really which company do you have more than 1 vote per share or have more than 5%? Very few people are given either.
All non-stock companies which is the majority of all companies. That's the problem. When a company applies for a stock market registration, it means that they're selling off control and profit sharing of the company in order to gain investments to expand.
All companies start with a single or two owners. The transition from owning everything to including others won't happen if it means giving up to the majority of control, whether that's 50% or 5/95%. That's why many companies get stuck on 51%. It only ever comes over 50% when someone dies or makes a mature decision of letting others control "their" company.