Why not both? Also, over time these shares/money grow to be worth quite a bit. We need more people invested in the market and participating in the economic success of America, not fewer. We can also give people the money or shares now with guaranteed results in a manner of speaking, whereas who dictates what a better world is?
You're free to start a worker co-op. That's the brilliant part about liberal democracy and capital markets. As opposed to authoritarian ideologies like Marxism or fascism.
For companies which aren't worker co-ops which would be a bit limited in terms of who could be invested based on most of the common structures we can just have people buy shares and be invested. It has worked extremely well and there's no good reason to change that model.
I can think of 100 reasons why not. How about we just give people the money instead and let them decide what to use it on? Or give them treasuries instead of a stock in a private company run by one of the most divisive men in American history, further entrenching him?
10 comments
[ 0.24 ms ] story [ 19.0 ms ] threadalternatively, worker co-ops would give people greater say in operations and a greater share of the upside
For companies which aren't worker co-ops which would be a bit limited in terms of who could be invested based on most of the common structures we can just have people buy shares and be invested. It has worked extremely well and there's no good reason to change that model.
wealth inequality is at a historic high in America, what is working so well about it? Most Americans seem to think something needs to change
If he wants to pave a wetland, and every single person in the country has a conflict of interest, who's going to prevent him?
If the stock price doubles, every American makes $100, and he makes $500,000,000,000. Seems like a pretty sound investment by him.
Sure, we should lower taxes and do that. :)
His conflict of interests is not a gift to the American people. It's a ballast for future generations.