Louis Ingenthron @LouisIngenthron@social.cleverlibre.org

@freemo Then presumably, "ignorance of the law" could likewise work in someone's favor.

@freemo I'm also surprised there's not a "mom" exception, lol.

@freemo So, that makes sense; especially if its purpose is to prevent people from getting duped by bad actors. If that's the case, then, wouldn't there also typically be a degree of leniency granted if both parties were acting in good faith? I did see some stuff in that law about bad actors, but that was more "actors with a record".

@freemo @admitsWrongIfProven So, say you know this person has worked in offices all their life, helping to facilitate day-to-day business. They're college educated, but not necessarily in business or investing. They've never invested before, but they hear out the business plan and have faith in the person they're investing in to succeed, and they want to support them.

Edge case?

@freemo @admitsWrongIfProven Agreed. But, no, I'm not looking to sell my company anytime soon.

Whatever happened to the term "sell-out" being an insult? When did that stop?

@freemo @admitsWrongIfProven So, based on a cursory search, it seems 230.504 makes allowances for securities sold for less than 10 mil a year, and 230.506 has a carve-out for securities that are not advertised publicly and have fewer than 35 buyers... that one says that all you need is basically a letter from the buyer saying they're informed enough to buy.

@freemo @admitsWrongIfProven That's so fucked up.

@freemo @admitsWrongIfProven Wait, what? I don't think that's right. If I want to sell 10% of my company to my friend because he wants to support me with a cash infusion, neither of us need a license for that, do we?

@freemo @admitsWrongIfProven If the companies were dying naturally, then I would agree with you. At some point, the stodgy Goliath must be beaten by the nimble and innovative David.

But they're not dying naturally, or being beaten in open competition. They're being sucked dry by vampires who claim an ownership percentage.

At this point, I legitimately treat an IPO as a death knell.

@freemo @admitsWrongIfProven You must admit, though, that the motivations behind investing privately in businesses tend to be *vastly* different than the motivations behind buying stock, even though they are both technically investment. That was the point I (apparently, inelegantly, lol) was trying to make.

I buy stock to support companies I like, but I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority there.

@freemo @admitsWrongIfProven Fair enough, yeah, that was meant as hyperbole, not a statement of fact.

@freemo @admitsWrongIfProven I'm a little bit annoyed about your assumptions about what I know, but not at all about your argument. I enjoy the give and take as well.

@freemo @admitsWrongIfProven All those things you claim I don't know about the stock market... I did. I even own stock and profited off of Elon's jackass purchase.

I would never claim that the stock market generates no value. My argument is simply that it generates more harm, and is therefore a net negative on society.

@freemo @admitsWrongIfProven
> "Generating a lot of wealth in the short term, knowing the company will be destroyed int he long, still generates wealth"

Sure, it "still generates wealth". Burning cash for heat generates wealth if you're cold, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing. Why would you look only at wealth in a single point of time? A company that lasts 100 years generates far more wealth than a company that closes after one. By seeking short-term profits over long, the investors are robbing the company of future wealth to pay themselves dividends now. And they enshittify the products and services as a result of their wealth extraction techniques. We see it happening over and over.

Investment is a good thing for business. But publicly-traded companies aren't invested into; They're bet on like ponies in a race, and the incentives that come from that rob all of us in the long run.

@freemo @admitsWrongIfProven

> If you have profit alone, then you just are moving money around

So then you would agree that most of the stock trading industry is not, by your definition, "generating wealth" despite the fact that they become fabulously wealthy by performing their jobs?

> yes the owners who risk everything and actually create the wealth are the people who should be wealthy.

The problem is that the guys who come in after the original owner sells are paid even more, usually just to ruin what the original owner built. Most businesses aren't owned by their founders, or even people who care about the long-term health of the business, but rather short-term investors who are only looking to cash out as soon as possible. That mindset of wealth extraction is what's wrong with so much of business today.

@freemo @admitsWrongIfProven Some of us prefer businesses that produce actual value, like cheeseburgers or houses, instead of just "wealth".

The people who actually create those things should be the wealthy in a just society, not the people who were born to it.

@freemo @admitsWrongIfProven Well, yeah, because a party's inner workings don't have to be democratic. Most regular folks don't participate in them anyway, so it's already skewed towards political insiders. That seems more reasonable to me than nonsense like the electoral college for the actual vote.

@freemo @admitsWrongIfProven This is kind of unrelated, but I'm shocked nobody has been able to form a solid labor party in this country. Especially with all the strikes lately, it seems like there's good potential there.

@admitsWrongIfProven @freemo Not to my knowledge. He just lost the primary, like he always does.

@admitsWrongIfProven @freemo Ah, I see @freemo beat me to it.