Thread 513082769

Why are non-employees allowed to own a companies stock? This is like giving Israel control over your country while exempting them from taxes

>>513082769 (OP)
nigga that's what a stock market is
now why are government representatives allowed to buy leveraged contracts?

Well if you want outsiders to give you money, you have to give them something in return.

Iran killed about 1300 people in Isreal over the last 3 months with ICBM technology that America sold them, and Jews are down-playing it.

I think the turning against Israel isn't an accident, I think it's a scheduled demolition. Encourage Jews to return to Israel.

>I will give you a gorillion dollars in exchange for a partial stake in your business
Ackahually no you aren't allowed to do that. Only the guy who works the drive-thru night shift on Thursdays and Sundays is qualified to decide how the business operates.

>>513082993
By that logic government should be bought by the highest bidder

Why not have companies work in the interest of employees instead of stock holders

>>513082870
>what are loans

>>513082769 (OP)
To raise money

>>513083076
>He still believes in Democracy in the big '25
What are you even doing here? Shouldn't you be on Bluesky or something?

>>513082769 (OP)
>why can't i sell what i own to other people?
keep trying, bruce.

>>513083316
So you're cool with your country being sold to Jews, nice Juan

>>513082769 (OP)
>This is like giving israel control over your country while exempting them from taxes

The answer you seek lies in this sentence here.

>>513083261
>he idealizes a system in which he's the loser
conservatives are hilarious bro

>>513083512
Anybody who takes sides in politics is a fucking retard. They are there to steal your money and give it to their friends

>>513083512
We are winning so much under Democratic governance.

>>513082769 (OP)
If no one else can own it, who are they going to sell it to?

>>513083879
Why should companies fiduciary obligation be to people that don't work for the company

>>513083076
Loans are a different method that company owners are free to pursue. If they prefer to give up equity instead of taking a loan, that's their decision to make.

>>513083442
imagine being so cucked you don't know what private property is. i knew it was bad down there but i had no idea it went this far. are you sucking abo cock now, or are you still waiting for the state to give you the order, bruce?

>>513084011
Because they own it, would be the obvious answer.

>>513084011
Why should a company's fiduciary responsibility be to people who do work for the company? Why do you inherently deserve partial ownership of McDonald's because you flip the burgers?

>>513084011
>s fiduciary obligation
The bigger an organization is the less likely this exists. At states like countries theres practically zero fiduciary obligation. Professional managers dont need to respect any obligation to a company. What are shareholders gonna do, complain to the manager?

>>513084226
It's the workers best interest for his employer to keep working. Nothing stops an external shareholder from plundering the company and sucking it dry, as we know to happen sometimes.

I can see where OP is trying to go, but I can also see the "it's my company I can sell to whomever" point of view too. This discussion seem barely beyond my two neurons, such that hanging around I might learn something.

>>513084087
Ownership is a social construct, people collectively decided companies can be owned by anyone and can collectively decide it can only be owned by employees, you're not making an argument other than "it is what it is"

>>513084335
>It's the workers best interest for his employer to keep working
That's not an answer to the question I asked.

>>513084352
>Ownership is a social construct

>>513084335
>It's the workers best interest for his employer to keep working.
Not really

>>513084268
>The bigger an organization is the less likely this exists
Stock buybacks contradict this, also even if this were the case you would want an explicit obligation to shareholders, why would we want companies that aren't beholden to anybody

Oh it's another episode of
>something being a social construct means it's made up

>>513084512
>Why do you own this
>This piece of paper says so
>This isn't a social construct
American education

>>513084577
>s, why would we want companies that aren't beholden to anybody
In large organizations managers are simply not beholden to anyone. This is a trend that increases the bigger the organization is. They cant be controlled.

>>513082769 (OP)
Its over for /pol/. OP just ended it.

>>513084641
you're brown. also stupid. this is your last (you). enjoy.

>>513084456
>Why do you deserve partial ownership of employer company?
>Because it's in your best interest for him to contnue employing you.
(not always, true >>513084529 but could be?)

Seems like an answer to me. I'm not saying it's true, but seems to me like it might be where OP is coming from. It kind of makes sense to dumb me. Sounds like a good idea at first, but something is obviously off like, perhaps, the obvious counter that is what I'm getting from the other replies of "I own it, I can sell shares to whomever".

Again, I'm not smart enough to know the right answer, but I'm just talking stuff to clarify what I think I might know to keep the discussion going in hopes I can reach the ending and learn something from you guys.

>>513084839
Almost because employees have no stock and therefore no actual power

>>513082769 (OP)
Welcome to jewish system.

>>513085012
I think you have dyslexia or something because you are obviously misreading what I wrote.
You seem to think that I asked:
>Why should employees own the companies they work for?
That's not what I asked.
What I actually asked was:
>Why do employees deserve to own the companies they work for?

>>513085239
I might have, indeed. I didn't understood the OP text to imply employees deserve to own it, as in, they get stock when hired, workers owning the means etc. Just that foreigners should not own any so if shares must be sold for whatever reason, they should be sold to employees only. I'd personally maybe include suppliers etc, you know, others with an interest in the company's success instead of just sacking it and selling it's assets to pocket the profit and run it aground. So my answer was to why employees deserve this special priviledge of being the only available buyers of stock, not why they'd deserve to own the communist means of production etc.

But then again, I honestly might be too dumb to understand the whole thing, as I stated in my first post, and I sincerely thank you for the patience you're taking to explaining it to me. I'm also sleepy at 2am, so there's also that. So I'll probably fall asleep before replying again, but I will reread the thread in the morning, should you want to clarify anything further, I'd like to previously express my gratitude, fren. You're a good man.