You can buy a part of company. If you buy 0.00001% of that company, you surely won’t take part in the decisions as your vote does not matter. From the other side, if millions of people owning 0.00001% of the company were making decisions, it would have been very slow to respond to the competition.

It’s all quite simple. If you disagree with company’s management, just sell the stocks. And no one is saying that company’s stock will be worth more next month.

Imagine calling stocks a casino xD

Sure, if the CEO is replaced by someone else who can manage the company, sure. But you cannot generally expect people to manage themselves. That’s why communism never worked and never will.

Also, what is according to you a glorified casino?

So if I have a small computer repair store and want to make it more successful, I should employ at least million people, so the ratio goes up?

Company is not a charity. There is a difference.

Suppose that dropbox employs twice as many people as other cloud providers. Would you be willing to pay them the twice amount for the same product the competition offers just because they employ more people?

You know, we live in the world of competition where you need to be ahead your rivals, otherwise your company fails (and all employees lose their jobs). So cutting costs where it’s possible makes perfect sense, especially if the employees can be replaced by computers or sth.

Well, if dropbox can exist without those 500 employees, then it’s logical. You don’t judge success of a business by how many people it employs

Tesla and Elon are one of the reasons why I don’t but individual stocks but I rather get indices… It’s just the lack of consistency and the fact a single person can make you lose money…

I do not really see why this is bad. If they can exist with 10% less, why not.

If someone says, “I support this because I am conservative,” you actually mean, “I support this because I am a cock.”

then you should resign

“God doesn’t make mistakes.” This has to be the best argument I have ever seen. Just wow… Can’t god also solve the 3x+1 problem? Would be useful.

Perspective of a European: Main problem of the USA are “pet-eating” Haitians lol… Politics here sucks but still… could be worse…

That’s literally anti-black black guy lol

Quite a reasonable choice considering china’s actions…

The fact you think the product sucks does not mean it’s not good for many other people.

For example, I have Framework Laptop and I really think surface laptops suck due to how unrepairable they are. However, that does not mean that everyone cares about their repairbility…

if a product sucks, it won’t be profitable

yeah, competition is basically they key to the society

Whilst harris is closer to marx than trump, she is still in safe distance from communism.

I think she made the correct decision. Banning fossil fuels is not realistic.

First of all, you said regular people cannot benefit from companies’ growth, which is clearly false, because as per my previous reply, you can easily buy their stocks and become one of the shareholders. They even pay you dividends and your wealth grows.

Second issue you mentioned can be easily fixed by having competition in the market. When there are more companies, they have to improve conditions for workers, otherwise they will end up working for the competition. If no company in the market does it, thanks to capitalism you can start you own, offer the best conditions for your employees and they will come to you from the competition. Last but not least, whilst I agree lowering taxes does not necessarily mean rising people’s wages, it at least motivates people to start their own company (which creates more competition and that’s what we want). And yes, people who run the company are equally as important as the workers. It’s literally their responsibility to make decisions regarding the company’s direction. If you have a terrible management, the company goes bankrupt and workers, just like the people who run the company, lose their incomes.

With last statement I agree, US has the space to invest into free medicare, however at the cost of having less influence over the world.