The meaning of your objections is difficult to understand, but it seems clear that you are not understanding the broader discussion.
Instead, it feels as you are spinning in narrow loops, trying to find problems with certain ideas, yet not realizing that such ideas are outside the scope of your loops.
Hopefully I can help, at least a bit.
Yes, I agree with this, but plz realize that this is not solely dependent on stocks as people can, and do, amass wealth through other means. But it is definitely a big part of the problem.
No one has argued that eliminating stock trading is sufficient to address the problems in current systems, but surely at least as much is necessary, and the stock market is plainly a sensible target for antagonism, noticing that in it the most wealthy and powerful of society hold their wealth, and from it, derive their power.
Sometimes yes… and sometimes no!!!
All wealth gained in the stock market is profit gained by the work of others.
Again, people CAN amass wealth without taking advantage of workers
Depending on interpretation, the statement either is false on its merits, or too simplistic to be meaningful.
Property, and therefore wealth, is a social relationship, that is, occuring within social systems, whose structure transcends the choices of any participant.
Since no one endeavors to be deprived of wealth relative to another, everyone who has wealth relative to others has such position due to the surrounding social system having conferred structural disadvantages to others.
Therefore, being wealthy is nothing if not taking advantage of others and their disadvantages.
Any system, including the stock market, that confers vast advantages to some, is a rotten system.
??? Where do you think the definition of stocks and the rules governing their trade exists? It absolutely IS particular laws that are the problem.
My claim is not that trading stocks is not predicated on a set of governing rules. My claim is that every set of rules supporting the trade of stocks is broadly objectionable.
In other words, I object to your characterization that a single formulation of stock trading is problematic more than the practice at large.
As I’ve said in other comments, you could get rid of stocks and replace them with some other set of rules for defining ownership, and guess what? If those totally new rules allow some people to a differentmass billions of dollars of wealth
Yes. Replacing a bad system with a slightly different system as bad or worse than the current is obviously not a thoughtful way address the current problems.
The meaning of your objections is difficult to understand, but it seems clear that you are not understanding the broader discussion.
Instead, it feels as you are spinning in narrow loops, trying to find problems with certain ideas, yet not realizing that such ideas are outside the scope of your loops.
Hopefully I can help, at least a bit.
No one has argued that eliminating stock trading is sufficient to address the problems in current systems, but surely at least as much is necessary, and the stock market is plainly a sensible target for antagonism, noticing that in it the most wealthy and powerful of society hold their wealth, and from it, derive their power.
All wealth gained in the stock market is profit gained by the work of others.
Depending on interpretation, the statement either is false on its merits, or too simplistic to be meaningful.
Property, and therefore wealth, is a social relationship, that is, occuring within social systems, whose structure transcends the choices of any participant.
Since no one endeavors to be deprived of wealth relative to another, everyone who has wealth relative to others has such position due to the surrounding social system having conferred structural disadvantages to others.
Therefore, being wealthy is nothing if not taking advantage of others and their disadvantages.
Any system, including the stock market, that confers vast advantages to some, is a rotten system.
My claim is not that trading stocks is not predicated on a set of governing rules. My claim is that every set of rules supporting the trade of stocks is broadly objectionable.
In other words, I object to your characterization that a single formulation of stock trading is problematic more than the practice at large.
Yes. Replacing a bad system with a slightly different system as bad or worse than the current is obviously not a thoughtful way address the current problems.
Perhaps try thinking harder.