Economy without the Stock Market

[phk]

This is a question mainly directed at you liberals out there:

I've toyed with the iidea of favoring the abolishment of the stock market in favor of a quasisyndicalist system in which the corporation is preserved, but is owned by employees rather than outside stockholders. It is hoped that making the corporation responsible to its employees would promote social responsibility and awareness as well as a personal connection to the fate of the company, none of which I think the stock market system adequately provides. The major problem I can't seem to iron out (whether it's because it's an insurmountable flaw or because I don't know the nature of investment and the current stock market well enough is unknown) is how to allow for the same amount of money and investment flow in this new corporate form, since there would be no outside investers in the stock market sense.
Certianly, worker-owned companies are better in many ways, but if they have no money to grow, then there's a real problem. Is there some solution to this that I'm missing?

[12th Doctor]

This is a question mainly directed at you liberals out there:

I've toyed with the iidea of favoring the abolishment of the stock market in favor of a quasisyndicalist system in which the corporation is preserved, but is owned by employees rather than outside stockholders. It is hoped that making the corporation responsible to its employees would promote social responsibility and awareness as well as a personal connection to the fate of the company, none of which I think the stock market system adequately provides. The major problem I can't seem to iron out (whether it's because it's an insurmountable flaw or because I don't know the nature of investment and the current stock market well enough is unknown) is how to allow for the same amount of money and investment flow in this new corporate form, since there would be no outside investers in the stock market sense.
Certianly, worker-owned companies are better in many ways, but if they have no money to grow, then there's a real problem. Is there some solution to this that I'm missing?

Congratulations.  You just invented communism.

[phk]

This is a question mainly directed at you liberals out there:

I've toyed with the iidea of favoring the abolishment of the stock market in favor of a quasisyndicalist system in which the corporation is preserved, but is owned by employees rather than outside stockholders. It is hoped that making the corporation responsible to its employees would promote social responsibility and awareness as well as a personal connection to the fate of the company, none of which I think the stock market system adequately provides. The major problem I can't seem to iron out (whether it's because it's an insurmountable flaw or because I don't know the nature of investment and the current stock market well enough is unknown) is how to allow for the same amount of money and investment flow in this new corporate form, since there would be no outside investers in the stock market sense.
Certianly, worker-owned companies are better in many ways, but if they have no money to grow, then there's a real problem. Is there some solution to this that I'm missing?

Congratulations.  You just invented communism.

Well this is just quasi-syndaclist.

[David S]

This is a question mainly directed at you liberals out there:

I've toyed with the iidea of favoring the abolishment of the stock market in favor of a quasisyndicalist system in which the corporation is preserved, but is owned by employees rather than outside stockholders. It is hoped that making the corporation responsible to its employees would promote social responsibility and awareness as well as a personal connection to the fate of the company, none of which I think the stock market system adequately provides. The major problem I can't seem to iron out (whether it's because it's an insurmountable flaw or because I don't know the nature of investment and the current stock market well enough is unknown) is how to allow for the same amount of money and investment flow in this new corporate form, since there would be no outside investers in the stock market sense.
Certianly, worker-owned companies are better in many ways, but if they have no money to grow, then there's a real problem. Is there some solution to this that I'm missing?

Yes a very simple solution- Leave it as it is.

I know you only recently renounced communism and have not necessarily adopted capitalism. But capitalism, despite its shortcomings, works rather well. It consistently outperforms anything the central planners can achieve, and it is a self regulating system that can adapt to millions of inputs automatically.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

However, laisse faire capitalism does not work well in situations that can be modelled under game theory by the Prisoners’ Dilemma.  Of course the difficultylies in accurately identifying those situations. 

[opebo]

Well, I wouldn't interfere with the stock market.  If you want to improve workers lives unionization, labour regulations, and progressive taxation coupled with redisributive government programs are the way to go.  Harness the capitalist system rather than abolish it.  I understand that these are half measures, but I think it is safer than throwing out a system that, however heirarchical, has proven productive.

That said, there is no reason workers can't own companies under the current system, is there?

[Trilobyte]

That said, there is no reason workers can't own companies under the current system, is there?

Many public corporations give employees a stake through stock options. Many small private corporations are owned entirely by the boss and the employees.

[Beet]

You might want to this a look at this

[David S]

Nothing stops employees from buying stock in the companies they work for now. But I would caution against it. If the company goes belly-up then they lose their savings as well as their jobs. Its better to put the money in a diversified portfolio in a 401k or IRA.

Now having said that I can also tell you that microsoft employees who invested in company stock when the company was new probably made out well. Same for Chrysler employees who invested around 1980. But that's a high risk option. The potential rewards are higher but so are the risks. My opinion is stay diversified.