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 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] huge_clock@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Owning public stock is legally indistinguishable from directly owning a joint business venture.

[–] FluffyPotato@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] huge_clock@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

It depends on the percent of the company you own.

[–] zbyte64@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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

[–] huge_clock@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

I have no idea what point you’re trying to make.