• huge_clock@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    You’re right that wealth is concentrated, but I was saying that the assets are collectively owned. For example I am a shareholder of Amazon, a publicly-traded company that Jeff Bezos owns a large stake in. So Amazon is “collectively owned” but each share gets one vote instead of one person.

    • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Shares only give you voting power if you have a massive amount of them. In the vast majority of cases shares function as either a place to store wealth to protect it from inflation or as speculative gambling, the majority of use cases is not to signify ownership. I would not classify that as collective ownership, maybe only in theory if you don’t look into it too much but real world application of shares is definitely not collective ownership.

      I’m very much in favour of businesses being actually collectively owned through a coop business model though.

        • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Plenty of things are legally indistinguishable but real world applications are often quite different.

          Though I would also challage that claim since owning a joint business gives you legal deciding power while owning 1 stock does not, you get zero votes from that.

        • zbyte64@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Gee, who decided what is legally equivalent? Certainly not the people with wealth to buy politicians and judges.