TL;DR at bottom.

Ok so we all know that the fuckery around things like shorts and stuff are bad. But let’s just forget about all sorts of financial instruments which derive their value from stocks. In other words, let’s forget about “derivatives” such as options, swaps, shorts, etc. Let’s just say that tomorrow all this other shit will be banned. So now we’re back to simple buying and selling of stocks (shares) in companies.

Now, why in the world would a person want to own a stock? There are only two fundamental reasons in my opinion.

  1. You want to trade in stocks.
  2. You want to buy a stock and collect dividends.

Let’s tackle these one by one.

  1. You want to trade in stocks.

Why do you want to do this? I’ll tell you why. You want to buy a stock at a certain price and then sell it later for a higher price, thus making a profit. Sounds good right? How can there be a problem with this? It’s simply buying and selling like people buying Pokemon cards right?

Well here’s the fundamental problem with that: THERE'S ALWAYS A SUCKER AT THE END OF THE CHAIN. What I mean by this is that Person A buys a stock and sells it to Person B at a higher price. Person B bought it so that they could sell it at an even higher price than what they bought it for. So they sell to Person C, who also wants to sell it for a higher price at a later date. Do you see now? THIS CHAIN NEVER ENDS. There is always someone at the end who's holding the bag and hoping for another sucker to come along. What kind of system depends on people hoping for the next sucker in line? Sounds like a Ponzi scheme to me.

It should be pretty clear that this is a bad reason to trade in stocks, from the viewpoint of society. It promotes a 'dog eat dog' right-wing mindset that's all about "getting yours" at the expense of others... REACTIONARY

  1. You want to buy a stock and collect dividends.

Now you might say that this is more “noble” and “upright” than the shifty person who only wants to buy low and sell high. Perhaps in that sense you’re not a stereotypical middle man, but that doesn’t mean what you’re participating in is somehow better. You see, when you own a stock, in a sense you’re a “part-owner” in that company. The more shares you own, the more “ownership” you have, so to speak. (Obviously this is complicated by the fact that simply owning a share of doesn’t entitle you to make company decisions, as this depends on the type of share and all that BS, but my point remains the same.) Thus as a “part-owner” you are typically entitled to a small portion of the profit of the company you own stocks in. The more stocks you own, the more little bits of profit you receive. These are known as “dividends.” Some people don’t buy stock in order to sell it later: they simply own it because they want to collect dividends (kind of like landlords tbh).

“So what’s wrong with that?”, you may ask. Well, I’ll tell you. How does a company make profit? By squeezing as much productivity as they can out of their workers. By “downsizing” (i.e. firing) their workers. By dumping chemicals into rivers because it’s cheaper than properly disposing of them. By using child labor overseas for pennies on the dollar. By influencing politicians to intervene in foreign countries by funding fascist death squads that slaughter innocent people. By extracting wealth not only from your own country, but from other countries. By lobbying to classify you as an “independent contractor” or find other ways to suppress your wages. And on and on… By the way, under our current economic/political/legal system, companies only have one primary goal: to maximize profits for their shareholders. They do this at the expense of all else! So say goodbye to "ethical" companies.

So that nice little “dividend” that you get because you own a share is basically blood money. You may not be that sleazy wall street bro (who is basically a glorified middle man), but you are still COMPLICIT IN EXPLOITATION. Even if it’s just your retirement 401k, it’s being upheld and bolstered by exploitation. And when your retirement is threatened, you're gonna side with some "unsavory" elements in order to protect it... REACTIONARY

Summary

So even if all derivatives like shorts were banned, simple trading of stocks is also bad.

TL;DR People only really buy/sell stocks for two reasons, both of which are bad:

  1. You buy in order to sell high later ==> Ponzi scheme.
  2. You buy to collect dividends ==> exploitation
  • queenjamie [none/use name]
    hexagon
    ·
    4 years ago

    When you trade a stock after a IPO, you are just trading a investment that someone else made.

    Yes, the investment that someone else made was sold to you at a higher price than what they bought for. This just proves my point.

    • markersmarx [he/him]
      ·
      4 years ago

      lmao, that's not a ponzi scheme. Also, most stocks crash after IPO.

      • queenjamie [none/use name]
        hexagon
        ·
        4 years ago

        You buy in order to sell to someone else. They do the same. The chain never ends.

        • markersmarx [he/him]
          ·
          4 years ago

          You clear haven't studied any finance. Stocks often taken out of the market by the company through stock by backs. And yes, that true about any valuable material -somebody buys then sells at a higher price.

          • queenjamie [none/use name]
            hexagon
            ·
            edit-2
            4 years ago

            Stocks often taken out of the market by the company through stock by backs.

            You mean when companies artificially prop up their stock prices and give extra extra big bonuses to executives and board members?

            And yes, that true about any valuable material -somebody buys then sells at a higher price.

            Ah, yes that's what I did with those fries I got today, I immediately sold them for a profit instead of eating them in order to satisfy my hunger. Because that's what happens to "aNy VaLuAbLe MaTeRiAl"

            Are we rehashing Thomas Friedman here?

            • markersmarx [he/him]
              ·
              4 years ago

              You are right. Companies do conduct by backs to raise the share prices. This is part of the companies corporate obligation to do what's best for shareholders. I don't think this philosophy is very good.

              However, it's not like any trading of goods doesn't lead to price increases. I mean look at gold. There is a very small practical use for gold that does not drive the desire to own it. However, gold is very valuable. This value does not come from the labor need to extract gold, but the desire to have it. Historically, gold prices increase.

              Do you mean Milton Friedman lol?

    • D61 [any]
      ·
      4 years ago

      It doesn't have to be at a higher price though. I could buy somebody out of their shares after the share price dropped because they need the cash more than the gamble that prices will rise later.

      • queenjamie [none/use name]
        hexagon
        ·
        4 years ago

        So that person who you bought it from is the sucker. That pretty much proves my point.

        • D61 [any]
          ·
          4 years ago

          Its gambling, so... :shrug:

          People also can trade stocks directly for other stocks, as well as use a drop in stock price as a tax deduction.

          • queenjamie [none/use name]
            hexagon
            ·
            4 years ago

            Its gambling, so… :shrug:

            Which is why, sidenote, gambling has been pretty much prohibited by every major religion. Metaphysics, ontology, faith, and theology aside, they kinda had a good point.

        • D61 [any]
          ·
          4 years ago

          Maybe find another word besides "sucker", feels a bit punching down.

          • queenjamie [none/use name]
            hexagon
            ·
            4 years ago

            You're gonna have to explain this one cuz I've never heard of this critique before.

            • D61 [any]
              ·
              4 years ago

              ..It promotes a ‘dog eat dog’ right-wing mindset that’s all about “getting yours” at the expense of others… REACTIONARY

              So this feels pretty paternalistic to me, not trusting that somebody engaging in risky behavior can't be warned of the risk and then allowed to suffer the consequences. I thought the whole point behind your OP was that engaging in stock trading promotes a transaction were one participant benefits at the expense of another. A binary thing where there are two positions, win or lose that can only result in a winner and a looser. Then to refer to the person in the transaction who looses as a "sucker" feels weird.

              Just saying maybe re frame it so that it doesn't look like you're attacking the person in the situation that I thought you were trying to defend