this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2023
1283 points (91.6% liked)

Memes

45731 readers
749 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
1283
They aren't, and I'm sick of being told they are (lemmy.world)
submitted 11 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
203 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Except they didn't. Whomever purchased the stock initially did, and often that amount is a shadow of what the stock is currently traded at.

It's also a figure that's been repaid over and over again as dividends have been paid.

With government organizations, the public, aka debt devices, aka the public wallet, pays for the initial investment. Once that investment is made it pays for itself over and over in goods and services over the lifetime of the investment.

Shareholders are basically the landlords of wall street. They contribute nothing and feel like they deserve everything.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

Except they didn't. Whomever [sic] purchased the stock initially did, and often that amount is a shadow of what the stock is currently traded at.

This ignores two other very important roles that subsequent shareholders play:

  • Give initial investors the opportunity re-deploy their capital elsewhere when they choose to do so.
  • Signal the value of the company’s equity, in real time, on the open market. When the stock is trading above IPO price (as your rebuttal implies), this enables the company to raise more capital by borrowing against its equity and/or selling shares of its own stock.

In light of these critical roles, it’s vastly unfair to say that shareholders contribute nothing to the delivery of goods and services—quite the opposite.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

this enables the company to raise more capital by borrowing against its equity

You can always get asset backed loans, even as a company, why should we be welfare for businesses?

Also you would need an uncaptured market for anything you said to even have an effect, when 90% of trades are completed off market not effecting the price on the tape are we really doing anything but getting fleeced by market makers? You aren't signaling anything when your trade data is being bought and hidden from the market using PFOF techniques.

In light of the objective failures of our market it's extremely fair to say shareholders have no contribution to the delivery of goods and services. Could they in a perfect market sure, but I could have everything in utopia, to bad that doesn't exist.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 11 months ago

why should we be welfare for businesses?

Who said anything about welfare?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Okay, I'm not getting into a debate about organizational behaviour, economics and finance with an unarmed person.

Good day to you sir/madam.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

For the kids reading at home, this is what an ad hominem attack looks like—a logical fallacy in which one attacks their opponent personally instead of addressing the merits of their argument.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

I'm just tired, and the context of your statements show a dramatic lack of understanding for how business operates.

Good luck tho. 👍