Not entirely as if you sold the company then you would receive a share of the profits as you are part owner so it does in a sense represent the value of a company but not really and only if sold. In your example they cannot sell so those specific shares wouod yave no value making getting investment difficult.
If shares cant be sold then why are CEOs getting paid in stocks while claiming to only be paid $1/year? Are you saying that they.literally only work for a dollar? How is their house payment made? Yacht payment? Car payment? Children’s education? Can we get all that for $1 also?
Shares right now can be sold, but if you stole all the stock from outside sources and gave it to the workers no one would purchase that stock ever again as there would be no reason to think you would not steal again.
In CEO’s cases if they get paid $1 they either take loans against the value of the stock that they can later move or the business provides them a series of allowances and an expense account. It is usually the latter where the business gives them a home and a credit card that covers everything.
So, again, that sounds to me like stocks have no actual value and arent at all related to the health of the company.
As for “stealing”, that’s the risk an investor takes, isnt it? The company buys them back and redistributes it. Same stock, same value. Maybe the employee sells theirs again to buy a house or pay some bills. You’re making the hedge funder’s argument (which is a vile and corrupt fake industry that shouldn’t exist)
If the company bought back the shares that could destroy most companies as it is almost impossible to have enough cash reserves to cover the value of your company. You can’t get loans for it because you would have to give up stock as collateral which would defeat the purpose of the buyback.
If the stock is bought back then those shares will have lost value as the company has less cash in reserve and is clearly worth less than it was before.
If the shares can only be held by employees they would have no real value. getting a job at that company would likely be very expensive as you would have to buy in and there would be little incentive to do so.
Basically your idea won’t work IRL in any form and would likely destroy the company really quickly. Is it safe to presume you have no formal education in economics because this is intro level stuff.
I understand your point. I also understand that that if all the money made goes to profits and shareholders and none to workers then capitalism has lied about it’s claims. Workers get paid first; shareholders second.
Capitalism doesn’t make claims in those regards though.
Workers do get paid first in most cases as I got paid when a business I worked for was forced to sell (liquor store that flagrantly violated laws). The people who lost out were the owners who could not sell the business, its stock of booze, or its license.
Are you telling me that you were regularly given cost of living raises as the company raked in millions in profits per year far beyond their employee expense would otherwise be, or are you telling me that you got your last paycheck when the business folded?
So what you’re telling me is that stocks have no relation to the value of the company, it’s production, or market share.
Not entirely as if you sold the company then you would receive a share of the profits as you are part owner so it does in a sense represent the value of a company but not really and only if sold. In your example they cannot sell so those specific shares wouod yave no value making getting investment difficult.
If shares cant be sold then why are CEOs getting paid in stocks while claiming to only be paid $1/year? Are you saying that they.literally only work for a dollar? How is their house payment made? Yacht payment? Car payment? Children’s education? Can we get all that for $1 also?
Shares right now can be sold, but if you stole all the stock from outside sources and gave it to the workers no one would purchase that stock ever again as there would be no reason to think you would not steal again.
In CEO’s cases if they get paid $1 they either take loans against the value of the stock that they can later move or the business provides them a series of allowances and an expense account. It is usually the latter where the business gives them a home and a credit card that covers everything.
So, again, that sounds to me like stocks have no actual value and arent at all related to the health of the company.
As for “stealing”, that’s the risk an investor takes, isnt it? The company buys them back and redistributes it. Same stock, same value. Maybe the employee sells theirs again to buy a house or pay some bills. You’re making the hedge funder’s argument (which is a vile and corrupt fake industry that shouldn’t exist)
Stocks have value but part of it is speculative.
If the company bought back the shares that could destroy most companies as it is almost impossible to have enough cash reserves to cover the value of your company. You can’t get loans for it because you would have to give up stock as collateral which would defeat the purpose of the buyback.
If the stock is bought back then those shares will have lost value as the company has less cash in reserve and is clearly worth less than it was before.
If the shares can only be held by employees they would have no real value. getting a job at that company would likely be very expensive as you would have to buy in and there would be little incentive to do so.
Basically your idea won’t work IRL in any form and would likely destroy the company really quickly. Is it safe to presume you have no formal education in economics because this is intro level stuff.
I understand your point. I also understand that that if all the money made goes to profits and shareholders and none to workers then capitalism has lied about it’s claims. Workers get paid first; shareholders second.
Capitalism doesn’t make claims in those regards though.
Workers do get paid first in most cases as I got paid when a business I worked for was forced to sell (liquor store that flagrantly violated laws). The people who lost out were the owners who could not sell the business, its stock of booze, or its license.
Are you telling me that you were regularly given cost of living raises as the company raked in millions in profits per year far beyond their employee expense would otherwise be, or are you telling me that you got your last paycheck when the business folded?
Why couldnt they be sold?