>Yes, most people are shareholders in the western world.

Can you back that up? With numbers?

>Sorry you didn't know that?

I'm loving the snark, keep it up.

>Yes, it is... Anyone can be a shareholder. That's the whole point...

Anyone can, but are most people shareholders? You know, the public at large? That is the point.

>Being able to put a name to your behavior isn't an insult.

Waiting for the next one.

>A worker's collective isn't the public at large.

And a joint stock company is?

>Lol dude, I didn't at all, but ok, have fun building straw men to feel good I guess

Have fun with your logical fallacy check list buddy.

>And my point is how are the "people at large" ownership type companies functionally different from publicly traded companies?

You can't see the difference between a workers colective and a joint stock company?

>Like, I don't know what to tell you; you're the one delving into irrelevant "gotchas"...

Yeah, sure...

>I never said you did; I drew a logical inference from the assertion in your challenge.

Yes, you extrapolated to the extreme to prop up your argument.

>By your logic there has never been a company owned by "people at large" in all of history... cool bro.

It is cool indeed but I didn't say that. I challenged your claim that most people are shareholders, which I'm pretty sure is not true.

The initial commenter was obviosly hinting at communal ownership/worker collective type of ownership when he said "people at large", but that's beside the point since you've clearly chosen this hill to die on.

You believe that most of the world's population are shareholders?

Can you substantiate that claim? Because I find it hard to believe.

Because "people at large" means "most people", and most people aren't shareholders.

>publicly traded companies also fall under the "owned by the people at large" category...

It's pretty obvious what they mean by "people at large", and it sure doesn't mean shareholders.