I hope that you idiots realize that workers can just purchase stock if they want to own the means of production

I hope that you idiots realize that workers can just purchase stock if they want to own the means of production.

No.
That'd be better, but it doesn't get rid of absentee ownership.

So no more vacation homes, is that what you're saying?

No.
When I said "absentee ownership" this was obviously in the context of private ownership.

A house is personal property.

I would oppose rental property though though

I hope you realize that stock is effectively meaningless since the more people buy if the more valuable it becomes and the more of it the company makes and that the company can choose who it sells it to which can effectively prevent the workers from ever achieving ownership over the company, you idiot.

Economics isn't just strong feelings you'e had

Why? If your vacation home is "personal property", it is surely up to you to rent it out for parts of the year if you so please, right?

I prefer a society where there are no leeches that make money without doing any work.

But what is wrong with it?

It puts you in a position of power and wealth over others without having done any actual work of contribution at all.

...

You have done work though by, directly or indirectly, using your savings to create that house/apartment through your purchase. You then do great contribution by letting other people enjoy that home for a small fee, without having had to put in all that time and effort to create it.

Are you saying that everyone with a vacation house built it too?
By the same logic you could defend feudalism too. I am opposed to leeches though.

Why shouldn't everyone have their own vacation home/dacha

Yes. Like I said they either built it directly, or indirectly by using the previous owner(s) as an intermediary.


I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. For some people, it simply doesn't suit them. Maybe they prefer to spend their money on other things than a home and thus choose to rent, maybe they don't like all the hassle with maintenance, maybe they are students or people who only intend to live there briefly, maybe they move a lot or maybe they simply can't afford it.

You could make that argument for virtually anything. Shouldn't everyone own diving equipment, a forklift, a sailboat, or an excavator?

The previous owners did not build it either, nor did they create the land that it was built upon.

that's retarded. workers built it, actually, and were paid less than the worth of their labor to do so

it means "why shouldn't everyone have their own vacation home?"

The previous owners did build it by buying materials and hiring people who built their house in exchange for money. If those workers didn't feel the wage offered was enough, they wouldn't have accepted the contract. The discussion about land is one that I don't want to get into. I will agree though that under the current system, where the government has arbitrarily claimed all land as theirs, some people have been able to get it at the expense of others, or have gotten more land than they are using.

There is no objective should or shouldn't that fits all people.

...

This actually. And with what money are the workers supposed to buy stock? Their wages?

Clearly you haven't read Marx
"A rapid growth of capital is synonymous with a rapid growth of profits. Profits can grow rapidly only when the price of labour – the relative wages – decrease just as rapidly. Relative wages may fall, although real wages rise simultaneously with nominal wages, with the money value of labour, provided only that the real wage does not rise in the same proportion as the profit. If, for instance, in good business years wages rise 5 per cent, while profits rise 30 per cent, the proportional, the relative wage has not increased, but decreased.

If, therefore, the income of the worker increased with the rapid growth of capital, there is at the same time a widening of the social chasm that divides the worker from the capitalist, and increase in the power of capital over labour, a greater dependence of labour upon capital.

To say that "the worker has an interest in the rapid growth of capital", means only this: that the more speedily the worker augments the wealth of the capitalist, the larger will be the crumbs which fall to him, the greater will be the number of workers than can be called into existence, the more can the mass of slaves dependent upon capital be increased."

Wage Labor and Capital

no thanks

...

This. In turbulent, inflationary times you want to hold physical cash or bonds.

This is obvious bait. But people are replying so 6/10 OP

No, the people who built the house built the house. The previous owner just moved money. Moving money is not labor, and by itself it accomplishes nothing.


Ha! Those workers are obliged to take what they are offered, because the alternative is unemployment. Unemployment is a loss of livelihood. Thus the transaction is based on threat and fear of loss, not some conscious decision regarding the value of work.


All privately-held land is owned at the expense of others. Fencing off what was once available to all is no less than theft. Land need not be owned to be developed.

...

this

The majority stock holder is the only owner. The other stock holders are just investors.