Personally, I'd like to abolish the stock market altogether. But this is an attractive, actionable policy

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -1 points 5 months ago (14 children)

Of course not. It's the internet. Unless it includes all asset classes and deals with stewardship of imagined entities that own things (corporations, charities, non profits etc), I have doubts. Especially if the ppl most prolific at evading community accountability are not thrown in prison and barred from wielding power.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (13 children)

    If your perspective is "Anything less than perfect isn't even worth considering" then this might not be the community for you. It's not that I disagree with your underlying sentiment of desiring actual meaningful change, but that's not what this community is about.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago (12 children)

    Anything less than effective isn't worth doing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 5 months ago (11 children)

    There's a difference between perfect and effective. Less than perfectly effective is still effective. Less than perfectly effective, when perfect is presently unobtainable, is what this community is about. This is less than perfectly effective.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago* (10 children)

    So long as the players can keep playing, changing the rules of the game isn't an effective solution.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 5 months ago (9 children)

    It's not perfectly effective. It accomplishes something.

    Some of us don't want to live our lives on standby until the rules of the game change. Sure, we should change them, but that's a multi-generational task.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (8 children)

    It isn't effective enough to be worth doing. I'm not chasing perfection, as you keep insisting, just recognizing history.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 4 months ago (7 children)

    When has this kind of direct taxation through stock dilution been tried historically? I don't see any history to recognize here. The article explains how it couldn't be dodged like other taxes, so historical wealth taxation isn't relevant.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (6 children)

    When has seizing assets ever been tried? Constantly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    You really should read the article. This isn't that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (4 children)

    I did read it, did you? It takes 1.5% of all companies in the form of stock or ownership, that are big enough, and gives it the citizenry every year. Seizes assets and give it to citizens. Then it gets sold to....whoever the fund manager decides, and it is all easily corruptible and that is exactly what would happen if it ever managed to pass, which it won't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 4 months ago (3 children)

    Then it gets sold to....whoever the fund manager decides,

    No, it gets sold gradually onto the open market.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments