How do you feel about DUers as shareholders?

[canetoad]

I know from experience that a number of DUers are shareholders. How do you feel about this?

To me it's simple. You cannot be a shareholder and be on the side of workers.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JCMach1]

2. Most workers ARE SHAREHOLDERS

Though pension funds, etc.

It is actually supposed to be a democratic process as well! i.e. governance of public companies!

[canetoad]

4. Sorry, I should have been more definitive

And I understand exactly what you are saying but these are generally shareholders without a voice in the corporate affairs of the company.

Let's redefine shareholders as people who have knowingly invested with an expectation of profit.

[dkf]

6. Shareholders without a voice in the corporate affairs of the company would include most investors.

The proxy votes are pretty bogus. We don't get to vote on the good stuff like executive compensation

[canetoad]

9. "We" don't get a vote?

Explain.

[dkf]

15. Anyone who owns a stock. And yes I do.

I don't have a pension so I have to fund my own retirement.

Judging from this poll of net worth most here do invest.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2096977&mesg_id=2096977

And no I am not in the top bracket of DUers.

[Laluchacontinua]

23. And your vote is meaningless unless you own a controlling interest. Which I assume

you don't.

Also meaningless as you don't have the kind of information that would make your vote a truly informed one.

Investor votes = by the dollar invested. The money votes, not the person. And most people don't have much skin in the game, comparatively speaking.

[JCMach1]

11. i.e. corporate governance is largely rigged this days...

Once again, lax regulation of the whole system by Washington...

Shocking, no :sarcasm:

[JCMach1]

10. Same thing... in this case the Union might speak for you, or the pension fund

Corporate governance is another issue entirely. Unfortunately, over the years most of the 'democracy' has been eliminated from that process for stockholders.

I don't see the problem as long as we are working with a Capitalist system.

[AntiFascist]

13. Exactly, and that's where it fails...

when public companies and banks in particular benefit from the "socialization of losses, privitization of profits" then those shareholders are indirectly endorsing a form of economic fascism. Most people won't acknowledge this, but socialization of losses is an inverse form of socialism. "Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor."

[Laluchacontinua]

22. Except workers don't govern the companies & have no means to do so.

It's not democratic at all.

[tama]

28. That's why co-ops nt

[dkf]

3. Then you can't be part of a union.

Unions have pensions and other investments.

[canetoad]

5. Union funds

are not company funds.

[dkf]

7. Huh? They invest their funds in stocks and bonds and other investments.

[Laluchacontinua]

24. And that's where unions started going crooked. In a company union

the bosses keep the workers in line & put their money in the company investments for the bosses to do with as they will.

Lately they've been stealing the cash & telling the workers they're bankrupt.

[msongs]

8. gee maybe if simon legree was nicer to the workers who create the wealth, shares would go UP nt

[tama]

12. Pity them nt

[Journeyman]

14. Karl Marx owned stock . . .

he lived off the dividends as he and Engels worked on Das Kapital.

Probably not the answer you expected. . .

[canetoad]

16. No, it's not

But it doesn't surprise me.

How do you think the DU socialist contingent will react to their heroes having feet of capitalist clay?

[Journeyman]

17. I suspect most of us are knowledgeable enough to be so aware. . .

The world is very complicated, bewildering in ways we oft times cannot decipher, and none of us should speak for another.

[Skittles]

18. "SOCIALIST CONTINGENT" ???

:rofl:

[canetoad]

20. Darlz, to use an old Aussie saying

You wouldn't know a socialist if it jumped up and bit you on the bum.

[Skittles]

26. you're really, REALLY outing yourself

[canetoad]

29. No I'm not

What do you mean by that?

[Laluchacontinua]

25. Link? From what I understand, Marx lived off Engels, journalism, & rich friends/relatives.

Engels was rich, Marx's parents were well-off, and Marx's extended family was fabulously wealthy.


With only the money that Engels could raise, the Marx family lived in extreme poverty. In March 1850 they were ejected from their two-roomed flat in Chelsea for failing to pay the rent. They found cheaper accommodation at 28 Dean Street, Soho, where they stayed for six years. Their fifth child, Franziska, was born at their new flat but she only lived for a year. Eleanor Marx was born in 1855 but later that year, Edgar became Jenny Marx's third child to die.

...In order to help supply Marx with an income, Friedrich Engels returned to work for his father in Germany. The two kept in constant contact and over the next twenty years they wrote to each other on average once every two days.

Friedrich Engels sent postal orders or £1 or £5 notes, cut in half and sent in separate envelopes. In this way the Marx family was able to survive. The poverty of the Marx's family was confirmed by a Prussian police agent who visited the Dean Street flat in 1852. In his report he pointed out that the family had sold most of their possessions and that they did not own one "solid piece of furniture".

Jenny helped her husband with his work and later wrote that "the memory of the days I spent in his little study copying his scrawled articles is among the happiest of my life." The only relief from the misery of poverty was on a Sunday when they went for family picnics on Hampstead Heath.

In 1852, Charles Dana, the socialist editor of the New York Daily Tribune, offered Marx the opportunity to write for his newspaper. Over the next ten years the newspaper published 487 articles by Marx (125 of them had actually been written by Engels). Another radical in the USA, George Ripley, commissioned Marx to write for the New American Cyclopaedia. With the money from Marx's journalism and the £120 inherited from Jenny's mother, the family were able to move to 9 Grafton Terrace, Kentish Town.

In 1856 Jenny Marx, who was now aged 42, gave birth to a still-born child. Her health took a further blow when she contacted smallpox. Although she survived this serious illness, it left her deaf and badly scarred. Marx's health was also bad and he wrote to Engels claiming that "such a lousy life is not worth living". After a bad bout of boils in 1863, Marx told Engels that the only consolation was that "it was a truly proletarian disease"...

By the 1860s the work for the New York Daily Tribune came to an end and Marx's money problems returned. Engels sent him £5 a month but this failed to stop him getting deeply into debt. Ferdinand Lassalle, a wealthy socialist from Berlin also began sending money to Marx and offered him work as an editor of a planned new radical newspaper in Germany. Marx, unwilling to return to his homeland and rejected the job. Lassalle continued to send Marx money until he was killed in a duel on 28th August 1864....Despite all his problems Marx continued to work and in 1867 the first volume of Das Kapital was published...

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/TUmarx.htm


Seriously, I'd really like to see an account of Marx's investing career; being able to invest in a way so as to be living off the dividends usually means you have a chunk of change to begin with.

[Starry Messenger]

59. +1

I'm reading the new biography of Marx that came out this year. His family barely scraped by.

[DrDan]

19. do you think labor leaders are not shareholders?

Not sure why owning a stock is bad for labor.

[tama]

21. "It's easer for a camel..."

Capitalistic system is based on continuous growth of profit margins, but on this finite planet unlimited economic growth is not possible. But the system dependent from growth needs to get everybody involved and invested in the system, because it is a pyramid fraud, a Ponzi scheme gone global. People who have been fooled and forced into investing in the Ponzi scheme become possessed by their imaginary financial property and are much less likely to revolt against the top of the pyramid. By making workers also shareholders is the easiest way to fool them to work against their own real interests, against their own freedom.

[canetoad]

27. Thank you

For spelling it out. I didn't think it needed to be made so explicit.

[DrDan]

30. then by all means do not subject yourself to the evils of stock-ownership

[tama]

31. I don't

the problem is that stock-owners subject me and others to the evils of stock-ownership. The first and foremost evil being fouling up this planet and the lives of our children in the name of capitalistic profit.

Shame. Shame. Shame. Occupy Wall Street!

[DrDan]

34. do you boycott ALL corporate owned establishments?

Do you refuse to fly on corporate-built planes? Refuse to ride in a corporate-built auto? Where did your computer come from? Bet it was a corporation.


Boycotting corporations run by greedy CEOs would be a much more effective tactic as compared to refusing to own any stock shares. Those shares you refuse to own are simply bought by someone else. However, to replace your purchasing dollars is much more difficult.

[tama]

35. I'm just as much part of the Babylon as the next guy

I accept we are all in the same boat and I try to live my life and do what I can from my small and modest part.

I don't fly any planes, I don't own a car but accept rides with gratitude when I get those, my computers are old and used donated gifts that run on Linux, and they come from natural resources and human labor and our collective intellect and creativity. I try to shop organic when I can, I'm learning gardening and communal ways of living, I've lived in ecovillages, been activist etc, but I accept this is not about me and my personal choices but all of us collectively.

[DrDan]

38. but what is feeding the greed of the CEOs more - someone purchasing a car

or someone owning a share of stock? I would say the former.

Boycotting the greed is much more effective than not owning stock. A boycott actually deprives the greed of actual dollars.

And there are corporations whose intentions benefit us all - for example those trying to capture the energy from wind. For them to succeed, they need to raise capital. Going public is one manner to do so. That allows many of us with limited dollars to contribute toward a worthwhile effort.

[tama]

40. It's not either-or nt

[DrDan]

43. I editted my post after you replied

What about corporations that are involved with efforts to benefit the planet - like those trying to harness the energy in wind. Or those involved with cleaning the water of oil. These require extensive capital and going public is one way in which that capital can be raised.

Do you feel the same way about stock-ownership regardless of their product?

[tama]

45. General principles

fail in particular situations. :)

Edit to add: having good understanding or feel of the whole and being relatively free of personal greed helps to adjust and react in particular situations in beneficial ways. Puristic and strict slavery to good general principles is not helpful but form of tyranny.

[canetoad]

32. And neither do I

To do so would be giving support to a corporate system whereby a CEO is paid obscenely to return profits to shareholders, on the backs of fellow workers.

[DrDan]

33. that is entirely up to you - the simple concept of stock ownership does not

force CEOs into their state of greed.

We have many greedy politicians in the House and Senate. Do you also deny yourself participation at the federal level (voting) because of this greed? Their wealth is on the backs of their constituents.

[tama]

37. It tends to limit

your own personal freedom, as long as you are being possessed by your possessions. First and foremost it's psychological and emotional problem, constant fear of losing what you believe you own, feeling guilty subconsciously and maintaining structures of denial, and when you give up your possessions and get that part of your skin out of the system, you breath more freely and feel better. You don't have to believe what I say, as the only way you can really know is by trying it by yourself.

I boycotted all elections for a while, but then realized that was stupid too. I can be both anarchist and vote if and when I feel so and like to.

[MadHound]

36. Wow, that didn't take long

And this is why the French Revolution ultimately failed, ushering in Napoleon. The purity police trying to decide who more equal than others.

So what do you want me to do with my savings? Stick it under my mattress and thus screw myself? Stick it in a bank? What?

[tama]

39. Drama queen :)

You might die tomorrow, so what about your savings? Investing what you can in sustainability is never a bad idea.

[MadHound]

42. You want to talk about investing in sustainability, let's talk

Let's talk about investing in a twenty acre spread, where I can grow an organic, heirloom orchard, both for my own use, but to sell, since as a teacher I'm never going to be wealthy and able to retire. Let's talk about investing in a garden, so I grow most of my own food. Let's talk about investing in solar and rainwater collection. Let's talk about investing in making my home self sustainable and green. Much, if not most of this investment was sweat equity.

Yes, I might die tomorrow, which is why I invested in life insurance, so my wife isn't left holding onto a lot of debt. But if I don't die tomorrow, I would like to spend my latter years in my house, with a modicum of comfort. Is that wrong? Or must we prove our purity by never aspiring to retirement?

Oh, and my investments? They're in what are known as "white hat" portfolios. Companies that are environmentally responsible, non-polluting, etc. Things like German wind turbine companies, are solar panel companies, that sort of thing.

But I guess I'm not pure enough, despite being nowhere close to wealthy:eyes:

[tama]

44. Thanks

And no, you don't need to prove your purity. Purity and puritanism are failed ideas in this dirty old world. :)

I salute you and your wise and responsible choices, but you are still a bit of a drama queen. Nothing wrong with that, in this dirty old world... ;)

[Bluenorthwest]

49. Why do you do the name calling thing, particularly 'drama queen'

which is homophobic and promotes stoicism? Just want to note that to me, your posts sound much like those of an extreme fundie, judgment, name calling, absurd standards and zero actual personal context or information as to what YOU do that is better for you. You do not speak of your methods or of the issue at hand, you get personal and try to take status. It is an imperialism that is much like that of a board of directors, only you do not give dividends....

[tama]

56. Thanks for your input

English is not my native language and by 'drama queen' I meant behavior of taking personal offense about the issue and playing the martyr card.

[Bluenorthwest]

58. Ah, but that does not address the fact that it is YOU getting snarky

and personal and using jibes targeted at another. Playing the martyr card= being insulting and then claiming poor language skills rather than owning up to your own tactics. On DU, the idea is to discuss ideas, not other posters. I asked you why you employed schoolyard name calling tactics. You failed to answer that.
You enjoy yourself.

[tama]

64. Yes

I understand that your idea is to discuss the idea of my posting style, not me as other poster, and I heartily welcome your interest in that fascinating topic. I admit being guilty of not knowing that I was a homophobic because I used the expression 'drama queen', I can only take myself and my opinions with utmost importance and only my deep humility prevents me admitting publicly that I am the most important person on Earth and there for all the problems and faults that humans blame each other for is mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, and I humbly beg for mercy and forgiveness for not being perfect and up to your standards of personal integrity that You Yourself no doubt fully live up to. I also cannot but admit to your acute observation that as I wouldn't write and post if I didn't like doing so, I hence "enjoy myself", being the wanker that I am.

[tama]

48. A question

Have you thought and discussed about paying of your wife's debts whit what liquidity you have available? I'm not making any suggestions or recommendations, you know best your situation and I'm just asking. :)

[WilliamPitt]

41. (facepalm)

[greytdemocrat]

46. In this instance, I agree. n/t

[Fla_Democrat]

47. When did DU have an IPO?

Now I hear that DUers are shareholders? What exchange are they traded on? Anyone have the ticker sign?


:shrug:










:smoke:

[TBF]

52. ...

I think we might all lose a boatload of $$$.

:rofl:

[WinkyDink]

50. I believe the word you want is "simpleton." The issue is "Fairness, not Fiefdoms."

[TBF]

51. Disagree -

We have all been brought up in this system and as adults can know see how it works. Some of us may have investment accounts, 401Ks, or inherited money because that is the system that we are living in.

It doesn't mean we like the system or that we're not fighting against it.

[Recursion]

63. The joint stock corporation is responsible for the greatest increase in common prosperity in history

The problem is not the existence of corporations or stocks, the problem is the excessive power of some of those corporations.

Corporations on the whole are good things and have made human life much, much better.

[tama]

65. In essence

stocks etc. financial profits mean "making the money work for you" instead of working yourself. There was day and age not so long ago when 'living of the interest' was considered parasitical in the eyes of the working class, whose fruits of labor the earners of financial profits also enjoy.

The class that owns stocks and other means of capitalistic profit making perhaps enjoy great increases in "common prosperity", but to the classes of non-moneyed people common prosperity meant other things - like healthy land, healthy communities, freedom to enjoy blessings of Nature and the fruits of labor by themselves instead of serfdom and wage slavery to the class that makes money work and lives of interests.

[Vinca]

53. Actually, Mark Cuban of all people said something that made a whole lot of sense.

If people want change, they need to get power in the companies and change them. Buying shares - if you're lucky enough to have some money - is one way to register your vote. Enough votes could create change.

[RegieRocker]

54. Can you spell hypocrite?

That is if they are investing in corps.

[Bluenorthwest]

55. Simplicity is not always the way to go...

Every Union, and thus every Union member, holds shares in many investment vehicles. That is how they fund health plans and pensions. So if Union members, who are workers, on not on their own side in your view, you have a difficult path to plow here.
In addition, 'shareholder' is far too general a term. A member of a co-op, even of a nonprofit co-opt, is a share holder. Many apartments in Urban areas are co-ops, so when you buy your home, what you are buying is shares of the building and the right to the apartment. Apparently in your view, the only people who should own homes in such cities are those who can buy entire buildings for many millions, and run those buildings solo, because to share that ownership and interest is, in your view, very wrong? Hard to follow why it is bad to share a thing and only good to own all of it yourself, even if you only need a part of it...why are you opposed to collective ownership?

[Odin2005]

57. Most small shareholders have essentially no voice in the workings of corporations.

[Chan790]

60. Your notion is flawed prima causa.

Because the inverse is provable, your hypothesis is unsubstantiatable and almost certainly false.

How, pray-tell, is stock ownership anti-worker and how could it be when some of the most successful corporations globally are worker-cooperatives run as corporations?

Those don't work by magic, you know...the majority of the stock (if not, but rarely, all) is owned either by a worker-trust or by individual laborers...also membership is rarely automatic, typically requiring laborers to "buy-in" with either payroll deduction or "labor-share" (that is, they earn into ownership with a portion of their labor as measured in seniority or work-hours) That's to say nothing of syndicates, which are corporations wholly-or-partially owned by the unions representing their labor...there are also syndicates and cooperatives which are owned in whole-or-part by worker-trusts or unions not comprised of those corporation's labor. To wit, this is the ideal resting-point of any Scandinavian-styled social Democracy, one staunchly advocated by liberal economists for half-a-century as a hedge against socialism that is also equitable to labor.

Even many non-cooperatives offer stock-ownership or stock-granting to employees...every Starbucks partner receives stock automatically on a yearly basis after four years with Starbucks in a program called Bean Stock meant to boost employee longevity and job-satisfaction, as well as allow them to claim partial ownership of their labor. In addition, every Starbucks partner is eligible after 90 days of employment to purchase stock at an extreme discount on a weekly basis in a program called SIP as a pre-tax deduction. Combined, these are nothing to sneeze at. My friend Shannon, having worked there for 8 years, has almost $12000 in accrued stock value between SIP and Bean-Stock.

[mmonk]

61. Ridiculous assertion.

Many workers are shareholders.

[Recursion]

62. Wow, that's absurd

No, it's not the case that owning shares in a joint stock company keeps you from being on the side of the workers, or from being a worker.

Next?

[rdking647]

66. stereotype much????