Is having shares in a company that you are not affected by morally wrong?
Why/why not?
Why/why not?
@gabriel I was thinking more is it okay to have power over and/or extract wealth from something that doesn't employ you, or operate near you, or that you don't depend on in any way (such as by buying things from it). I'm not sure what you were getting at with your bees/honey comment.
It isn't really possible per se.
The moment you have a share in a company you are affected by it. Typically, you have to sell your time to somebody else, and then those hours of your life become money which then you invest in stocks. So just from that point, those stocks represent an investment of time that you had to take to make the money to invest in the company. If the value of those stocks go up, then investing that time as it paying off, if the value of those stocks goes down, then investing that time did not pay off. If the stock pays a dividend, you will get it and if it doesn't then you will not. It's even possible for the stock to go to zero, and then you lose your entire investment of time in that company.
Anyone who works for publicly traded company has the option to turn the money that they make doing work for the company and equity. It's entirely possible for someone who works at McDonald's for example to take a chunk of their earnings and invest it back into mcdonald's, and then they own the company that they work for in part. Often people don't want to do this because they just want to make their wage, and they don't want to have to worry about the ups and downs of the market or to have money tied up in investments when they could just spend it.
Now I'm more complex thing would be the topic of limited liability, and that's something that I would be a little bit more grayscale on because I wonder if it's really okay that if you own shares in a company that kills a bunch of innocent people all you can lose are those shares. If you own a share in a company that is worth a dollar and it feels the Grand canyon with toxic sewage, it doesn't really seem just that if they had made millions of dollars filling the Grand canyon with toxic sewage you would have gotten a share of that, but if they were caught you'd only be on the line for your investment. It's asymmetrical. Unlimited upside, only 100% downside. That's one of the reasons why in the past I've talked about the idea of eliminating limited liability as a legal concept, and so anyone who invests in a company is putting themselves on the line if that company commits a crime heinous enough. It would certainly change the equation when companies decide to break the law.
The moment you have a share in a company you are affected by it. Typically, you have to sell your time to somebody else, and then those hours of your life become money which then you invest in stocks. So just from that point, those stocks represent an investment of time that you had to take to make the money to invest in the company. If the value of those stocks go up, then investing that time as it paying off, if the value of those stocks goes down, then investing that time did not pay off. If the stock pays a dividend, you will get it and if it doesn't then you will not. It's even possible for the stock to go to zero, and then you lose your entire investment of time in that company.
Anyone who works for publicly traded company has the option to turn the money that they make doing work for the company and equity. It's entirely possible for someone who works at McDonald's for example to take a chunk of their earnings and invest it back into mcdonald's, and then they own the company that they work for in part. Often people don't want to do this because they just want to make their wage, and they don't want to have to worry about the ups and downs of the market or to have money tied up in investments when they could just spend it.
Now I'm more complex thing would be the topic of limited liability, and that's something that I would be a little bit more grayscale on because I wonder if it's really okay that if you own shares in a company that kills a bunch of innocent people all you can lose are those shares. If you own a share in a company that is worth a dollar and it feels the Grand canyon with toxic sewage, it doesn't really seem just that if they had made millions of dollars filling the Grand canyon with toxic sewage you would have gotten a share of that, but if they were caught you'd only be on the line for your investment. It's asymmetrical. Unlimited upside, only 100% downside. That's one of the reasons why in the past I've talked about the idea of eliminating limited liability as a legal concept, and so anyone who invests in a company is putting themselves on the line if that company commits a crime heinous enough. It would certainly change the equation when companies decide to break the law.
@gabriel If you are detached from the outcome, there's less of an incentive to fix problems.
Because then you are owning something (controlling and/or extracting wealth from it) that has power over other people's lives but not yours.
I'm surprised to hear a self-identified socialist ask that question.
I'm surprised to hear a self-identified socialist ask that question.