[intended]

Eh.

Stock markets serve(d) a function as vehicles to invest in risky ventures. In other words, a way to channel investment.

In the average case scenario, removing the stock market results in rich people being the ones who can afford to fund projects, and thus owning the outcomes.

The underlying case would be for wealth concentration and therefore power concentration. Addressing that would give the working class more options to fund projects or work, more than being the right type of person in the right network to land a rich patron.

[runarberg]

If they ever served such a function, they no longer do so. Today’s risky ventures are funded by venture capital and the results are disastrous. I propose an alternative system where you fund your risky venture by taking out a loan at your local credit union, by crowd-sourcing it, or better yet, just don’t. I think we can give risky ventures a brake for 20-100 years.

Maybe concentrate our efforts on undoing the damage this era of capitalism has wrought us, maybe starting with reinstating consumer protection, dismantling the state surveillance system, protecting against the effects of the climate disaster. If you have a good idea on any of those, run for office, or get a degree and work with your local (state funded) university on the matter.

[intended]

They definitely served that function.

The sucky rule about history seems to be - “is this better than what was there before.”

Equity markets can definitely be made more competitive, and being ungodly rich needs to be more expensive than it currently is.

Loans don’t work the same way as equity investments, because loans are essentially low risk tools. They have a fixed payoff every month/year, whereas something like an expedition or new product launch can recoup its investments only post a certain period, if at all.

As a result loans originators don’t invest in high risk ventures.

This is a rule of thumb, there are many instruments you can create which will fill the gap.

We definitely need more competition and user protection in markets (and in general). The pendulum has swung very far in favor of firms in the US, and that needs to be balanced.

[satvikpendem]

Good luck with that pause. Things like the climate disaster require risky ventures these days like carbon sequestration at scale, you can't undo it just by doing the same things as today, which is basically what you're advocating for, upholding the status quo, for 20 to 100 years. You'll probably say that's not what you mean but that's what the outcome will become.

[runarberg]

Please just stop. Capitalists have already caused way too much damage with your “risky ventures”. After a thousand of these risky ventures with each one of them making the climate disaster worse actually, I think it is time that you are just stopped. “Just one more risky venture bro“, is just gonna cause more damage on top of the damage already being done.

What we need are boring and proven solutions. Lets start with boring old regulations, maybe boring old taxation, on top of boring old infrastructure build out (using proven technology; none of these modular small nuclear power plants; they don‘t exist and won‘t save us). And Finally boring old international agreements, this time without capitalist polluters polluting the agreements, just like the one which saved us from nuclear proliferation and the ozone layer depletion.

As for the status quo. The status quo is currently that the interest of the rich trumps everything. Climate inaction is the status quo because rich capitalists benefit from polluting, so governments simply allow them to continue. Risky ventures do nothing to stop that.

[satvikpendem]

How will you sequester carbon already out there with boring solutions? It literally doesn't exist, hence why those new companies are there in the first place. IMO there are a lot of risky ventures you directly benefit from, such as mRNA vaccines just to name one recently, that you don't even register them, instead going off about Trump this and capitalism that. It's capitalism that got you these solutions in the first place, which, sure, has issues too, but don't act like you have a utopic idea of a system without issues.

[runarberg]

> How will you sequester carbon already out there with boring solutions?

I don‘t care. First we need to address the urgent problem which is new carbon being released. Lucky for us that is also the easy problem. All we have to do is stop constantly catering to the interests of the rich. Let polluters become bankrupt if we have to.

mRNA vaccines were initially studied and developed in good old boring state funded universities, the stock traded research labs which did later develop them got state funded research grants. The stock market came nowhere near funding them until they were already proven. In fact publicly traded companies held patents and prevented a fair distribution of essential vaccines, leading to more people dying from COVID. Without the stock marked I am sure this technology would have been shared and lives would have been saved. Trading stocks in companies with mRNA patents was not about funding risky ventures, but about pandemic profiteering.

[satvikpendem]

> I don‘t care.

Alright, not worth discussing further with someone who doesn't actually have any solutions to issues, much less care about them in the first place. Have a good day and good luck with your philosophy.