Stock and the Corporation

[enigma2517]

When we think of capitalism a lot of us conjour up in our heads the stereotypical image of the single factory owner employing (exploiting) the numerous individuals that look to him as a means of subsistance.

What about modern day capitalism, where sole proprietorship usually exists the most commonly in small, local businesses. All major corporations are just that...corporations. Many people own stock in it, including some of the workers themselves.

Can we say that this is lessening the divide between the classes? That everyday people can choose to own stock and decide in which direction to take the company?

I'm pretty sure that I myself can't concede that, but could we draw from this that modern capitalism certaintly has a different face (and possibly function) from that of its original form?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 03:26 AM
When we think of capitalism a lot of us conjour up in our heads the stereotypical image of the single factory owner employing (exploiting) the numerous individuals that look to him as a means of subsistance.

What about modern day capitalism, where sole proprietorship usually exists the most commonly in small, local businesses. All major corporations are just that...corporations. Many people own stock in it, including some of the workers themselves.

Can we say that this is lessening the divide between the classes? That everyday people can choose to own stock and decide in which direction to take the company?

I'm pretty sure that I myself can't concede that, but could we draw from this that modern capitalism certaintly has a different face (and possibly function) from that of its original form?
In general I would say yes, stock ownership is providing more people with ownership of society. Additionally, the percentage of people who own their own home continues to rise. I think that more than stock ownership empowers people.

The problem with corporations is that as ownership becomes more decentralized in the form of stockholders, responsibility of top management decreases. If BODs continue to give top execs big golden parachutes, but those same execs have little or no stake in the company in the form of ownership, their performance is going to suffer.

[TheKwas]

Your average stock holder has no real say in what the corporations do other than tell them to make more money. The true owner (with 51% of the stock) now is forced to make money using any method possible or create a chain-reaction of losing stock-holders who wish to bail out. They bascily lose control of the corporation and thus, the corporation becomes a monster without a leash that will exploit anyone and anything to please the Stock-holders.

I'll get more in-depth later.

[Iepilei]

I've contemplated this several times before. Idealistically, capitalism could benefit the people via stock trade. Allowing essentially anyone to purchase a part of a company sounds compelling and almost worker-perfect, but there is a problem.

The notion of investments cater to only a particular group of people, the investors. People who have a keen skill at manipulating capital, are priced above your average doctor. But why?

Higher risks, higher gains. The stock system in modern capitalism is nothing more than gambling. Some are good enough to count the cards in a nice rivoting game of Poker, and the rest should just stick to slot machines. Painful, but true.

So the concept of "stock gambling" is only really beneficial to a minority of people. The rest of us who aren't as good at managing numbers has to earn their keep traditionally through our cultivation of fresh labour to the corporate hands.

In America, hard work truly gets you nowhere!

:ph34r:

[Latifa]

Higher risks, higher gains. The stock system in modern capitalism is nothing more than gambling. Some are good enough to count the cards in a nice rivoting game of Poker, and the rest should just stick to slot machines. Painful, but true.

Card counting is actually a blackjack thing. :D


Your average stock holder has no real say in what the corporations do other than tell them to make more money. The true owner (with 51% of the stock) now is forced to make money using any method possible or create a chain-reaction of losing stock-holders who wish to bail out. They bascily lose control of the corporation and thus, the corporation becomes a monster without a leash that will exploit anyone and anything to please the Stock-holders.

Exactly. Excellent description. Also, welcome to the boards. Not sure how long you have been here, but I just noticed you now :D

[TheKwas]

I'm New!:)

I've only recently been getting into Anarchism, and prior to looking into Anarchism I was a social Keynesian that didn't trust the government or the free-market with too much power.

[Exploited Class]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 07:07 PM
Your average stock holder has no real say in what the corporations do other than tell them to make more money. The true owner (with 51% of the stock) now is forced to make money using any method possible or create a chain-reaction of losing stock-holders who wish to bail out. They bascily lose control of the corporation and thus, the corporation becomes a monster without a leash that will exploit anyone and anything to please the Stock-holders.

I'll get more in-depth later.
Too bad nobody owns 51% of the stock in a company. Usually the largest stock holder which is never and individual but an investment firm or LLC (limited Liability Corporation) has 9% at the most of a company's stock.

Fred's a medium sized company, the largest stock holder is Janus Capital Management, LLC, which owns like 9% which is 3,582,214 shares, which is worth $60,754,349.

Pepsi Co.'s top stock holder, other than itself is State Street Corporation, which owns 15,211,943 or 6% valued at $412,091,535.

Yeah I don't think it is even possible to think that Pepsi or Fred's could give even a half of second of worry to what an individual purchases. Even if I had a million dollars and put it all into Pepsi, I would only own 37,037. The largest still has over 15 million more shares than I do. And I am putting in 1 million dollars.

So no, owning stock does not make you an owner, it most definetly just makes you and investor, a prospector. It isn't even gambling, the only gambling is picking stock of a new company who's stock is very, very, very cheap, investing in it and hoping that it is the next IBM or Wal-Mart, or hoping that one of those company's perhaps buys out your company...

Want to be an owner, have it state run, have the state be democratic and you get a single vote like everybody else and now you are an owner that has a significant amount of decision making for that company's direction.

[TheKwas]

I used the 51% to demostrate the largest investor. The number itself is unimportant.

[Exploited Class]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 07:47 PM
I used the 51% to demostrate the largest investor. The number itself is unimportant.
Well the number is important because a lot of people believe that, that is how it works. "Thank you Hollywood Media". Accuracy is almost always important, except in Horseshoes and US Presidential Elections. The 51% might be confusing to others, who would have thought that, that is how it works in the stock market.

Next time if you are going for largest investor, say "largest investor" instead of 51% and then nobody corrects you.