I disagree. First off the stock system isn't the economy as a whole, there are many more opaque parts like the Repo Markets. These opaque parts cause most of problems in the economy.

Second, if you want to have power in how a business is run, you gotta have skin in the game. If all the workers had the same exact skin in the game/power then there'd need to be a way distinguish who is willing to sacrifice more/take on more responsibility for the company without the rest losing their power. That's where the stock system comes in.

A guy who has spent a lifetime working at that company in various roles and buying up stocks over his career should have more votes/power in what that business than a new guy that's been there a year and doesn't have as much experience and money.

If the business were run equally by newest/poorest and most experienced/wealthy, it would be a lesser business that would eventually be overtaken by businesses that are more meritocratic.

It wouldn't be a problem if you had full transparency and prevented the buying of politicians (or mitigated its power).

The stock system can definitely be improved, that's where I see cryptocurrencies being a useful example of a more inclusive and transparent proposing and voting system for stocks that doesn't require someone to be there in person.

The buying of politicians can be lessened by having the average person share more power politically but not economically. And that can only work if the average person is willing to take on more responsibilities and bear more weight for how the government is run.