1506

Listen here, kulak... (i.ibb.co)

submitted 2 years ago by Cleverdawny@lemm.ee to c/memes@lemmy.ml

288 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] huge_clock@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

It’s directly deployed in stocks and real estate, what do you mean?

Most capital is “collectively owned” through public corporations, pension funds, etc.

[-] FluffyPotato@lemm.ee 14 points 2 years ago

Not most, in the US around 400 individuals own over 50% of wealth. Similar situation in Russia.

[-] huge_clock@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

You’re right that wealth is concentrated, but I was saying that the assets are collectively owned. For example I am a shareholder of Amazon, a publicly-traded company that Jeff Bezos owns a large stake in. So Amazon is “collectively owned” but each share gets one vote instead of one person.

[-] FluffyPotato@lemm.ee 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Shares only give you voting power if you have a massive amount of them. In the vast majority of cases shares function as either a place to store wealth to protect it from inflation or as speculative gambling, the majority of use cases is not to signify ownership. I would not classify that as collective ownership, maybe only in theory if you don't look into it too much but real world application of shares is definitely not collective ownership.

I'm very much in favour of businesses being actually collectively owned through a coop business model though.

[-] huge_clock@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Owning public stock is legally indistinguishable from directly owning a joint business venture.

[-] FluffyPotato@lemm.ee 8 points 2 years ago

Plenty of things are legally indistinguishable but real world applications are often quite different.

Though I would also challage that claim since owning a joint business gives you legal deciding power while owning 1 stock does not, you get zero votes from that.