Hacker News Reader

Comment by gosub100 | Hacker News Reader

at least it could be argued that FOREX traders actually provide something of value because they provide liquidity for businesses to trade internationally and people to carry their wealth between different nations.

I struggle to see the value of publicly traded companies, and even more so options and other "exotic vehicles" other than enticing people to gamble and make some lucky few people rich. I see the corporatization of businesses as harmful to almost everybody, including investors who are lied to or denied profits from the companies their shares control (but mainly to the working class, for humanitarian reasons).

Even capital intensive industries could just borrow money from investors, which would bring everything back to reality. build the oil rig, or you go into default, thats it. no trickery, no growth promises or "pivoting". If you don't make money you go out of business. I don't see any need for shareholders.

View on HN

FOREX volume is almost 10% of annual global GDP _per day_.

This trading is overwhelmingly unrelated to trade in goods or services, or the movement of wealth with much permanence.

Cool, so speculators are just providing shitloads of liquidity to people trading in goods and services. As an importer/exporter, I love that FX is so liquid, cheap, and easy today.

thats fine, I dont think the amount should be regulated to match the good it provides. I just claim that it provides some good for the world, whereas equities does not.

I think what you don't see is that the shareholders are in large part pension funds and people saving for retirement. In the absence of a wildly higher-tax government pension system, which as many other countries have demonstrated, come with just as much risk, there isn't a plausible way that I can save for retirement without holding stocks. Plus I get to pick stocks instead of just hoping the government knows what it's doing with my pension dollars.

> at least it could be argued that FOREX traders actually provide something of value because they provide liquidity [...] I struggle to see the value of publicly traded companies

Seeing this A>B comparison made me stop and re-check whether it was the introduction to a satirical post.

Many of those companies are actually doing something transformative in the world like growing food or inventing better mousetraps. That's way more "value" than "providing liquidity", regardless of whatever debates we might have about who ends up with the rewards.

> Even capital intensive industries could just borrow money from investors

Does that mean using shares as collateral for a cash-loan, versus selling shares outright?

I believe the op wasn't arguing that companies themselves aren't valuable, just the public speculation markets.

I never said the companies shouldn't exist. Try reading what I said more carefully since you also misclassified it as satire.

Those investors would be buying shares in the company in all but name.

Mate, what on Earth are you talking about? "Even capital intensive industries could just borrow money from investors" > What do you think publicly traded companies are?

The most-charitable interpretation I can think of is that the company never sells shares outright (preventing speculation on their value) but only uses them as collateral when borrowing cash from a lender... But that raises questions about why the lender would agree:

* If there's no competitive market to sell them on, how does the lender recoup its losses by selling the shares?

* If the company is in such a bad place that it can't repay the cash loan, why would the shares retain any value?

* Even if the shares entitle you to some portion of the capital that was purchased with the missing cash (e.g. a mine and mining machines) then getting your cash back means you have to work fighting against other shareholders who might not want to liquidate anything.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com