Warren and the Divine Right of Capital: Accountable Capitalism Act

[georgephillip]

Ponzi Scheme | Investor.gov

"A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that pays existing investors with funds collected from new investors. Ponzi scheme organizers often promise to invest your money and generate high returns with little or no risk..."

"With little or no legitimate earnings, Ponzi schemes require a constant flow of new money to survive. When it becomes hard to recruit new investors, or when large numbers of existing investors cash out, these schemes tend to collapse."

"A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that pays existing investors with funds collected from new investors. Ponzi scheme organizers often promise to invest your money and generate high returns with little or no risk..."

Exactly. Glad you agree that buying/selling stock in the secondary market doesn't fit that definition.

Exactly. Glad you agree that buying/selling stock in the secondary market doesn't fit that definition.

Tan Liu: Why Many Of Today's Most-Owned Stocks Are Ponzi Schemes | Seeking Alpha

"When one person buys low and sells high, another is also buying high and needs to sell for even higher. And a system where current investors' profits are dependent on cash from new investors is by definition how a Ponzi scheme works.

"Stocks provide a return to today's investors via two mechanisms: dividends and capital gains.

"Dividends provide and income stream which can be quantitatively valued.

"Capital gains result from speculation - an expectation that future dividends will be higher than the market currently expects."

Capital gains is not exclusively the result of speculation. Investors are looking at a number of factors, only some of which are based on assumed future value. For example, they look at the companies current, and historical profit. They look at current and historical dividends. They look at growth trends, and other factors.

Those things are not speculation, anymore than getting a job is based on speculation. There is always risk when getting a job, that you will not fit with the company, that the company could close your department, or even that the company could close entirely.

None of which is speculation. But if you know the company wishes to expand into a different market, you are speculating that this expansion will succeed.... or you wouldn't take the job would you?

Now obviously there are some parts that are speculation. Such as if you hear that Google is starting up a new product line, you could buy the stock under the assumption the product line will be successful, and thus the value of the company will grow.

However that is still not a ponzi scheme.

The entire point of a ponzi scheme, is that there is no underlying asset. You are pretending to have an investment, when in reality there is nothing. You are just taking money from one person, to give to another.

With stocks though, there is an underlying asset. You own stock in a company. That is in fact an asset. No matter what happens, there is a real investment involved. No one was being duped, or defrauded.

Saying that "It is still dependent on someone else buying it"..... is irrelevant. All value that exists anywhere on this planet.... only exists because someone is willing to pay for it.

If no one is willing to buy your food.... your food has no value. If no one will buy your car, your car has no value. Where you work, if no one is willing to buy the product or service you provide, then your product or service has no value.

If you are suggesting that anything that is dependent on others buying it, is a ponzi scheme, then absolutely everything in the world is a ponzi scheme. And if everything is, then nothing is.

Capital gains is not exclusively the result of speculation. Investors are looking at a number of factors, only some of which are based on assumed future value. For example, they look at the companies current, and historical profit. They look at current and historical dividends. They look at growth trends, and other factors

Is this a definition of "speculation" you can subscribe to: an expectation future dividends will be higher than the market currently expects?

If so, what's the value of a company that continuously pays no dividends and does not appear as if it ever will?

WeWork’s Unraveling Is Another Indictment of Wall Street’s Universal Bank Model

Dividends alone is not a determining factor.

Again... you own a share of the company itself. That has value, even without dividends. Warren Buffet's company, Berkshire Hathaway, pays no dividends. But the company itself has grown. That growth has value. You as owner, have part ownership in that company, which has value.


Let's spin this around into something easier.

I own a house. Do I get dividends? No. But that house is an investment. Why? Because it has value that increases. Even without dividends showing me direct value, I know that over time property values do increase. Again... why? Because we all know that people need places to live. We can look at the history of property values, and see the increase.

Just like we know that people will need a car, so owning shares in a car company will have value.

Just like we know that people will need food, so owning shares in a food company will have value.

Now I am NOT saying... 'there is no speculation'. Again, everything has some amount of speculation. Democrats could take over my city, and put in place section 8 housing in my area, and the value of my house will drop like a rock. It could happen.

Government could put in place terrible protectionism, that could kill the auto market, and the car company I own shares in, could close.

But again, there is a huge difference between speculating on a real assets, and a ponzi scheme that has no assets.

Just like we know that people will need a car, so owning shares in a car company will have value.

Just like we know that people will need food, so owning shares in a food company will have value.

Even if the car and food company are not paying dividends?

Tan Liu: Why Many Of Today's Most-Owned Stocks Are Ponzi Schemes | Seeking Alpha

"So when one person buys low and sells high, another is also buying high and needs to sell for even higher. And a system where current investors' profits are dependent on cash from new investors is by definition how a Ponzi scheme works.

"What's wrong with that is a lot of stocks don't pay dividends and why are you an owner of a company if the company never pays the so-called owners?

"that's exactly how it works because when a stock doesn't pay dividends, there is no monetary connection between the revenues and profits of the company and the actual shares."

 

[daveman]

How do you square this circle: The structure and legal basis of the modern MAGA corporation bears a great deal of resemblance to feudal estates, and this reality is at odds in an era that claims to value democracy over the Divine Right of Kings?

Warren has a plan:

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"The Accountable Capitalism Act, 115th Congress (2017-2018) S. 3348 is a proposed federal bill introduced by Senator Elizabeth Warren in August 2018.

"It would require that employees elect 40% of a board of directors of any corporation with over $1 billion in tax receipts, and that 75% of shareholders and directors must approve any political spending.

"Corporations with revenue over $1 billion would be required to obtain a federal corporate charter.

"The Act contains a 'constituency statute' that would give directors a duty of 'creating a general public benefit' with regard to a corporation's stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, and the environment, and the interests of the enterprise in the long-term.[1]"

The US is among a minority of OECD countries that gives no representation to the workforce (majority) in corporate governance.

For years Warren has claimed "corporations are not people."

Now her Accountable Capitalism Act demands that corporations that claim the legal rights of personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood.

I owned a business once and decided who did what. If I had to share decision making,I would sell the business. Being boss is one reason you risk your money AND do extra for your workers.

I owned a business once and decided who did what. If I had to share decision making,I would sell the business. Being boss is one reason you risk your money AND do extra for your workers.

How many employees did you exploit?
What was your revenue?

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

"Capital Income + Retained earnings = Revenue – (Employee income + Cost of materials)

"Kelly uses some simple algebra to show that this formula could just as easily be re-written as:

"Employee income + Retained earnings = Revenue – (Capital income + Cost of materials)

"In other words, the company could just as easily be optimized to maximize employee income."

It's funny. A millionaire capitalist is telling you to believe capitalism is bad, and you swallow it without question.

t's funny. A millionaire capitalist is telling you to believe capitalism is bad, and you swallow it without question.

Which millionaire, Warren?
She made her money after experiencing childhood poverty.
Trump's racist dad made him a millionaire by his eighth birthday,
If you can supply any arguments to refute Warren's premises, go ahead.
Capitalism is a disease.

Communism is a disease...a fatal one.

So, you're okay with Warren's hypocrisy, as long as she says the things you want to hear.

Hey, speaking of Bernie, you notice how he only attacks billionaires ever since he became a millionaire? LOL!

 

[daveman]

Why not stop all the pretense and just have The State take over all business?

It's already clear that you and Princess Lying Rug are Marxists, so just be done with it.

What's your problem with bringing democracy (not the state) to the workplace?

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"With the Reward Work Act, the Accountable Capitalism Act is the second recent proposal to give employees a right to elect representatives on a company board of directors.

"The United States is in a minority of countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development that gives no representation of the workforce in corporate governance.[2]

"The Bill's explanatory document states that it seeks to borrow 'from the successful approach in Germany and other developed economies', by introducing that right."

US is not a democracy.

A corporation is certainly not a democracy.

US is not a democracy.

A corporation is certainly not a democracy.

The US is a Democratic Republic.
Would you prefer an aristocracy?
Corporations are closer to a feudal nature than a democratic one.
Give me one good reason to refrain from changing that reality.

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

"Look closely at the stock market and it betrays some fundamental assumptions about the creation of wealth in today’s markets.

"Only 1% of the total value of equity on Wall Street is actual investment in the sense of new money going into firms.

"The remaining 99% is speculation – people buying and selling existing stock in the aftermarket of equity."

Absolute nonsense. US was created to be a free nation, you have no right to the fruits of the labor of others. Fuck off thief.

Absolute nonsense. US was created to be a free nation, you have no right to the fruits of the labor of others. Fuck off thief.

Slavery and genocide created the US

It's funny how the left keeps saying how awful the US is...but isn't down at the border warning illegals about this terrible place.

 

[daveman]

I owned a business once and decided who did what. If I had to share decision making,I would sell the business. Being boss is one reason you risk your money AND do extra for your workers.

I owned a business once and decided who did what. If I had to share decision making,I would sell the business. Being boss is one reason you risk your money AND do extra for your workers.

How many employees did you exploit?
What was your revenue?

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

"Capital Income + Retained earnings = Revenue – (Employee income + Cost of materials)

"Kelly uses some simple algebra to show that this formula could just as easily be re-written as:

"Employee income + Retained earnings = Revenue – (Capital income + Cost of materials)

"In other words, the company could just as easily be optimized to maximize employee income."

It's funny. A millionaire capitalist is telling you to believe capitalism is bad, and you swallow it without question.

t's funny. A millionaire capitalist is telling you to believe capitalism is bad, and you swallow it without question.

Which millionaire, Warren?
She made her money after experiencing childhood poverty.
Trump's racist dad made him a millionaire by his eighth birthday,
If you can supply any arguments to refute Warren's premises, go ahead.
Capitalism is a disease.

Go to a non-Capitalist country if you feel that strongly-show us your true beliefs.

Go to a non-Capitalist country if you feel that strongly-show us your true beliefs.

Not until Crooked Donald dies in prison.

Well, that's not going to happen, so your lazy ass doesn't have to go anywhere.

 

[daveman]

What's your problem with bringing democracy (not the state) to the workplace?

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"With the Reward Work Act, the Accountable Capitalism Act is the second recent proposal to give employees a right to elect representatives on a company board of directors.

"The United States is in a minority of countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development that gives no representation of the workforce in corporate governance.[2]

"The Bill's explanatory document states that it seeks to borrow 'from the successful approach in Germany and other developed economies', by introducing that right."

US is not a democracy.

A corporation is certainly not a democracy.

US is not a democracy.

A corporation is certainly not a democracy.

The US is a Democratic Republic.
Would you prefer an aristocracy?
Corporations are closer to a feudal nature than a democratic one.
Give me one good reason to refrain from changing that reality.

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

"Look closely at the stock market and it betrays some fundamental assumptions about the creation of wealth in today’s markets.

"Only 1% of the total value of equity on Wall Street is actual investment in the sense of new money going into firms.

"The remaining 99% is speculation – people buying and selling existing stock in the aftermarket of equity."

"The remaining 99% is speculation – people buying and selling existing stock in the aftermarket of equity."

What's wrong with that?

It's that the socialist believes he is entitled to the money.

It's that the socialist believes he is entitled to the money.

A socialist believes labor trumps capital; what's wrong with that?

ROFL!! Even Snopes says that Lincoln quote is bullshit.

 

[daveman]

Liz Warren is a true anti capitalist.

She believes markets need rules in order to function effectively for all participants.
Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren: 'I am a capitalist' – but markets need to work for more than just the rich

Even Zuckerberg thinks she is nutty. I hope she wins the nomination.

Even Zuckerberg thinks she is nutty. I hope she wins the nomination.

Will you be investing?

People pay me $$ to gauge what to invest in. You’re old and poor. Sucks to be you.

George thinks he'll be given a corner office and a seat on the Politburo after other people do the heavy lifting of Revolution.

 

[iceberg]

Elizabeth Warren Net Worth 2019 | The Net Worth Portal

when she starts living more modestly and giving away her fortune to lead the way, i'll listen. otherwise hearing a multi-millionaire bitch at the rich is ironic beyond belief.

What makes you think her lifestyle is not modest, compared to Trump Tower, for example?

Trump isn't telling people to make the rich pay for everything now is he?

God damn the left will pull a whataboutism out of their ass in record time and find a way to bitch even faster if someone else does it.

 

[georgephillip]

Ponzi Scheme | Investor.gov

"A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that pays existing investors with funds collected from new investors. Ponzi scheme organizers often promise to invest your money and generate high returns with little or no risk..."

"With little or no legitimate earnings, Ponzi schemes require a constant flow of new money to survive. When it becomes hard to recruit new investors, or when large numbers of existing investors cash out, these schemes tend to collapse."

"A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that pays existing investors with funds collected from new investors. Ponzi scheme organizers often promise to invest your money and generate high returns with little or no risk..."

Exactly. Glad you agree that buying/selling stock in the secondary market doesn't fit that definition.

Exactly. Glad you agree that buying/selling stock in the secondary market doesn't fit that definition.

Tan Liu: Why Many Of Today's Most-Owned Stocks Are Ponzi Schemes | Seeking Alpha

"When one person buys low and sells high, another is also buying high and needs to sell for even higher. And a system where current investors' profits are dependent on cash from new investors is by definition how a Ponzi scheme works.

"Stocks provide a return to today's investors via two mechanisms: dividends and capital gains.

"Dividends provide and income stream which can be quantitatively valued.

"Capital gains result from speculation - an expectation that future dividends will be higher than the market currently expects."

Capital gains is not exclusively the result of speculation. Investors are looking at a number of factors, only some of which are based on assumed future value. For example, they look at the companies current, and historical profit. They look at current and historical dividends. They look at growth trends, and other factors.

Those things are not speculation, anymore than getting a job is based on speculation. There is always risk when getting a job, that you will not fit with the company, that the company could close your department, or even that the company could close entirely.

None of which is speculation. But if you know the company wishes to expand into a different market, you are speculating that this expansion will succeed.... or you wouldn't take the job would you?

Now obviously there are some parts that are speculation. Such as if you hear that Google is starting up a new product line, you could buy the stock under the assumption the product line will be successful, and thus the value of the company will grow.

However that is still not a ponzi scheme.

The entire point of a ponzi scheme, is that there is no underlying asset. You are pretending to have an investment, when in reality there is nothing. You are just taking money from one person, to give to another.

With stocks though, there is an underlying asset. You own stock in a company. That is in fact an asset. No matter what happens, there is a real investment involved. No one was being duped, or defrauded.

Saying that "It is still dependent on someone else buying it"..... is irrelevant. All value that exists anywhere on this planet.... only exists because someone is willing to pay for it.

If no one is willing to buy your food.... your food has no value. If no one will buy your car, your car has no value. Where you work, if no one is willing to buy the product or service you provide, then your product or service has no value.

If you are suggesting that anything that is dependent on others buying it, is a ponzi scheme, then absolutely everything in the world is a ponzi scheme. And if everything is, then nothing is.

Capital gains is not exclusively the result of speculation. Investors are looking at a number of factors, only some of which are based on assumed future value. For example, they look at the companies current, and historical profit. They look at current and historical dividends. They look at growth trends, and other factors

Is this a definition of "speculation" you can subscribe to: an expectation future dividends will be higher than the market currently expects?

If so, what's the value of a company that continuously pays no dividends and does not appear as if it ever will?

WeWork’s Unraveling Is Another Indictment of Wall Street’s Universal Bank Model

If so, what's the value of a company that continuously pays no dividends and does not appear as if it ever will?

Whatever a willing buyer and a willing seller can agree on...…...

Whatever a willing buyer and a willing seller can agree on...…...

Would that require them to..


spec·u·late
/ˈspekyəˌlāt/
Learn to pronounce

verb

1. 1.
   form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence.
   "my colleagues speculate about my private life"
   
   Similar:
   conjecture
   
   
   theorize
   theorized that the atolls marked the sites of vanished volcanoes" data-hw="theorize" data-lb="" data-tae="false" data-te="false" data-tl="en-US" data-url="/search?rlz=1C1PRFI_enUS784US784&sxsrf=ACYBGNQszNq2Sy8fH4i7oKmHktshgSaofg:1571873851052&q=define+theorize&forcedict=theorize&dictcorpus=en-US">
   
   form theories
   
   hypothesize
   
   
   make suppositions
   
   postulate
   
   
   guess
   
   
   make guesses
   
   surmise
   
   
   think
   
   
   wonder
   
   
   muse
   
   
   
2. 2.
   invest in stocks, property, or other ventures in the hope of gain but with the risk of loss.
   "he didn't look as though he had the money to speculate in stocks"

speculate - Google Search

 

[Andylusion]

Elizabeth Warren Net Worth 2019 | The Net Worth Portal

when she starts living more modestly and giving away her fortune to lead the way, i'll listen. otherwise hearing a multi-millionaire bitch at the rich is ironic beyond belief.

What makes you think her lifestyle is not modest, compared to Trump Tower, for example?

I'm still open to Warren making her case, although forcing workers to be on corp boards and the ideas that seem to flow out make me consider not voting.

But personal greed is not her thing.

I'm still open to Warren making her case, although forcing workers to be on corp boards and the ideas that seem to flow out make me consider not voting.

German corporations have had workers sitting on their boards for years, and since those workers had voting rights, many German companies which might have followed US interests to China stayed home instead.

There are examples of successful corporations which function democratically:

Mondragon Corporation - Wikipedia

"The Mondragon Corporation is a corporation and federation of worker cooperatives based in the Basque region of Spain.

"It was founded in the town of Mondragon in 1956 by graduates of a local technical college. Its first product was paraffin heaters.

"It is the tenth-largest Spanish company in terms of asset turnover and the leading business group in the Basque Country.

"At the end of 2014, it employed 74,117 people in 257 companies and organizations in four areas of activity: finance, industry, retail and knowledge.[3] By 2015, 74,335 people were employed."

I love how people toss terms around.

Worker cooperatives. You know what the difference between a worker cooperative, and a typical business?

Nothing.

Absolutely nothing.

You think that by slapping a label on people "worker-member" makes even the smallest of differences? Oh way, they have buy-in. They own share in the co-operative!

You know who else owns share in the business? The employees at Walmart. They employee stock purchase program. But they don't have your nifty label, so therefore it's different.

One of the largest retail chain in Spain, operated by Mandragon, is called Eroski. You know how much these co-operative worker-members make as Cashier at Eroski?

A cashier at the much exulted Eroski of Mandragon the co-operative, where people are not employees, but rather "Worker Members".... is paid $5.5 per hour.

And please don't go on pretending that the cashier at Eroski has say in how the company runs. They don't.

 

[Andylusion]

"A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that pays existing investors with funds collected from new investors. Ponzi scheme organizers often promise to invest your money and generate high returns with little or no risk..."

Exactly. Glad you agree that buying/selling stock in the secondary market doesn't fit that definition.

Exactly. Glad you agree that buying/selling stock in the secondary market doesn't fit that definition.

Tan Liu: Why Many Of Today's Most-Owned Stocks Are Ponzi Schemes | Seeking Alpha

"When one person buys low and sells high, another is also buying high and needs to sell for even higher. And a system where current investors' profits are dependent on cash from new investors is by definition how a Ponzi scheme works.

"Stocks provide a return to today's investors via two mechanisms: dividends and capital gains.

"Dividends provide and income stream which can be quantitatively valued.

"Capital gains result from speculation - an expectation that future dividends will be higher than the market currently expects."

Capital gains is not exclusively the result of speculation. Investors are looking at a number of factors, only some of which are based on assumed future value. For example, they look at the companies current, and historical profit. They look at current and historical dividends. They look at growth trends, and other factors.

Those things are not speculation, anymore than getting a job is based on speculation. There is always risk when getting a job, that you will not fit with the company, that the company could close your department, or even that the company could close entirely.

None of which is speculation. But if you know the company wishes to expand into a different market, you are speculating that this expansion will succeed.... or you wouldn't take the job would you?

Now obviously there are some parts that are speculation. Such as if you hear that Google is starting up a new product line, you could buy the stock under the assumption the product line will be successful, and thus the value of the company will grow.

However that is still not a ponzi scheme.

The entire point of a ponzi scheme, is that there is no underlying asset. You are pretending to have an investment, when in reality there is nothing. You are just taking money from one person, to give to another.

With stocks though, there is an underlying asset. You own stock in a company. That is in fact an asset. No matter what happens, there is a real investment involved. No one was being duped, or defrauded.

Saying that "It is still dependent on someone else buying it"..... is irrelevant. All value that exists anywhere on this planet.... only exists because someone is willing to pay for it.

If no one is willing to buy your food.... your food has no value. If no one will buy your car, your car has no value. Where you work, if no one is willing to buy the product or service you provide, then your product or service has no value.

If you are suggesting that anything that is dependent on others buying it, is a ponzi scheme, then absolutely everything in the world is a ponzi scheme. And if everything is, then nothing is.

Capital gains is not exclusively the result of speculation. Investors are looking at a number of factors, only some of which are based on assumed future value. For example, they look at the companies current, and historical profit. They look at current and historical dividends. They look at growth trends, and other factors

Is this a definition of "speculation" you can subscribe to: an expectation future dividends will be higher than the market currently expects?

If so, what's the value of a company that continuously pays no dividends and does not appear as if it ever will?

WeWork’s Unraveling Is Another Indictment of Wall Street’s Universal Bank Model

If so, what's the value of a company that continuously pays no dividends and does not appear as if it ever will?

Whatever a willing buyer and a willing seller can agree on...…...

Whatever a willing buyer and a willing seller can agree on...…...

Would that require them to..


spec·u·late
/ˈspekyəˌlāt/
Learn to pronounce

verb

1. 1.
   form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence.
   "my colleagues speculate about my private life"
   
   Similar:
   conjecture
   
   
   theorize
   theorized that the atolls marked the sites of vanished volcanoes" data-hw="theorize" data-lb="" data-tae="false" data-te="false" data-tl="en-US" data-url="/search?rlz=1C1PRFI_enUS784US784&sxsrf=ACYBGNQszNq2Sy8fH4i7oKmHktshgSaofg:1571873851052&q=define+theorize&forcedict=theorize&dictcorpus=en-US">
   
   form theories
   
   hypothesize
   
   
   make suppositions
   
   postulate
   
   
   guess
   
   
   make guesses
   
   surmise
   
   
   think
   
   
   wonder
   
   
   muse
   
   
   
2. 2.
   invest in stocks, property, or other ventures in the hope of gain but with the risk of loss.
   "he didn't look as though he had the money to speculate in stocks"

speculate - Google Search

Yes. There is nothing wrong with speculation. You seem to be implying that speculation is bad.

But speculation is part of the human existence, that has existed since the dawn of the human race.

If no one, anywhere... ever speculated... we'd all be living on caves. Why would anyone build a home, unless they speculated it had value to get out of a cave?

 

[Andylusion]

"A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that pays existing investors with funds collected from new investors. Ponzi scheme organizers often promise to invest your money and generate high returns with little or no risk..."

Exactly. Glad you agree that buying/selling stock in the secondary market doesn't fit that definition.

Exactly. Glad you agree that buying/selling stock in the secondary market doesn't fit that definition.

Tan Liu: Why Many Of Today's Most-Owned Stocks Are Ponzi Schemes | Seeking Alpha

"When one person buys low and sells high, another is also buying high and needs to sell for even higher. And a system where current investors' profits are dependent on cash from new investors is by definition how a Ponzi scheme works.

"Stocks provide a return to today's investors via two mechanisms: dividends and capital gains.

"Dividends provide and income stream which can be quantitatively valued.

"Capital gains result from speculation - an expectation that future dividends will be higher than the market currently expects."

Capital gains is not exclusively the result of speculation. Investors are looking at a number of factors, only some of which are based on assumed future value. For example, they look at the companies current, and historical profit. They look at current and historical dividends. They look at growth trends, and other factors.

Those things are not speculation, anymore than getting a job is based on speculation. There is always risk when getting a job, that you will not fit with the company, that the company could close your department, or even that the company could close entirely.

None of which is speculation. But if you know the company wishes to expand into a different market, you are speculating that this expansion will succeed.... or you wouldn't take the job would you?

Now obviously there are some parts that are speculation. Such as if you hear that Google is starting up a new product line, you could buy the stock under the assumption the product line will be successful, and thus the value of the company will grow.

However that is still not a ponzi scheme.

The entire point of a ponzi scheme, is that there is no underlying asset. You are pretending to have an investment, when in reality there is nothing. You are just taking money from one person, to give to another.

With stocks though, there is an underlying asset. You own stock in a company. That is in fact an asset. No matter what happens, there is a real investment involved. No one was being duped, or defrauded.

Saying that "It is still dependent on someone else buying it"..... is irrelevant. All value that exists anywhere on this planet.... only exists because someone is willing to pay for it.

If no one is willing to buy your food.... your food has no value. If no one will buy your car, your car has no value. Where you work, if no one is willing to buy the product or service you provide, then your product or service has no value.

If you are suggesting that anything that is dependent on others buying it, is a ponzi scheme, then absolutely everything in the world is a ponzi scheme. And if everything is, then nothing is.

Capital gains is not exclusively the result of speculation. Investors are looking at a number of factors, only some of which are based on assumed future value. For example, they look at the companies current, and historical profit. They look at current and historical dividends. They look at growth trends, and other factors

Is this a definition of "speculation" you can subscribe to: an expectation future dividends will be higher than the market currently expects?

If so, what's the value of a company that continuously pays no dividends and does not appear as if it ever will?

WeWork’s Unraveling Is Another Indictment of Wall Street’s Universal Bank Model

Dividends alone is not a determining factor.

Again... you own a share of the company itself. That has value, even without dividends. Warren Buffet's company, Berkshire Hathaway, pays no dividends. But the company itself has grown. That growth has value. You as owner, have part ownership in that company, which has value.


Let's spin this around into something easier.

I own a house. Do I get dividends? No. But that house is an investment. Why? Because it has value that increases. Even without dividends showing me direct value, I know that over time property values do increase. Again... why? Because we all know that people need places to live. We can look at the history of property values, and see the increase.

Just like we know that people will need a car, so owning shares in a car company will have value.

Just like we know that people will need food, so owning shares in a food company will have value.

Now I am NOT saying... 'there is no speculation'. Again, everything has some amount of speculation. Democrats could take over my city, and put in place section 8 housing in my area, and the value of my house will drop like a rock. It could happen.

Government could put in place terrible protectionism, that could kill the auto market, and the car company I own shares in, could close.

But again, there is a huge difference between speculating on a real assets, and a ponzi scheme that has no assets.

Just like we know that people will need a car, so owning shares in a car company will have value.

Just like we know that people will need food, so owning shares in a food company will have value.

Even if the car and food company are not paying dividends?

Tan Liu: Why Many Of Today's Most-Owned Stocks Are Ponzi Schemes | Seeking Alpha

"So when one person buys low and sells high, another is also buying high and needs to sell for even higher. And a system where current investors' profits are dependent on cash from new investors is by definition how a Ponzi scheme works.

"What's wrong with that is a lot of stocks don't pay dividends and why are you an owner of a company if the company never pays the so-called owners?

"that's exactly how it works because when a stock doesn't pay dividends, there is no monetary connection between the revenues and profits of the company and the actual shares."

Of course there is. You directly own a share in a company. That ownership has value. Are you suggesting that I can own something, that produces value, but that ownership of that thing has no value?

Ridiculous. And I can prove it, by simply owning that stock, and seeing it's value increase in proportion to the profits of the company. Which it does. I own shares of Berkshire Hathaway.

There is always a monetary connection between revenues and profits of the company, and the actual shares.

Again... as long as there is an underlying asset, it simply can't be a ponzi scheme. The defining aspect of a ponzi scheme, is the fact there are no assets.

 

[Old Man Grumbles]

Can't believe I waded through 14 pages on this thread. George, are you feeling underpaid for the value you provide to your employer and this is the way you hope to extract more money from the company you work for?

After you and Warren successfully ruin the USA, are you going after China or Russia with this scheme, because you can be damn sure neither of those countries operates like Europe (which you seem extremely fond of).

How expensive are one-way tickets to Spain? Brush up on your Spanish.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that pays existing investors with funds collected from new investors. Ponzi scheme organizers often promise to invest your money and generate high returns with little or no risk..."

Exactly. Glad you agree that buying/selling stock in the secondary market doesn't fit that definition.

Exactly. Glad you agree that buying/selling stock in the secondary market doesn't fit that definition.

Tan Liu: Why Many Of Today's Most-Owned Stocks Are Ponzi Schemes | Seeking Alpha

"When one person buys low and sells high, another is also buying high and needs to sell for even higher. And a system where current investors' profits are dependent on cash from new investors is by definition how a Ponzi scheme works.

"Stocks provide a return to today's investors via two mechanisms: dividends and capital gains.

"Dividends provide and income stream which can be quantitatively valued.

"Capital gains result from speculation - an expectation that future dividends will be higher than the market currently expects."

Capital gains is not exclusively the result of speculation. Investors are looking at a number of factors, only some of which are based on assumed future value. For example, they look at the companies current, and historical profit. They look at current and historical dividends. They look at growth trends, and other factors.

Those things are not speculation, anymore than getting a job is based on speculation. There is always risk when getting a job, that you will not fit with the company, that the company could close your department, or even that the company could close entirely.

None of which is speculation. But if you know the company wishes to expand into a different market, you are speculating that this expansion will succeed.... or you wouldn't take the job would you?

Now obviously there are some parts that are speculation. Such as if you hear that Google is starting up a new product line, you could buy the stock under the assumption the product line will be successful, and thus the value of the company will grow.

However that is still not a ponzi scheme.

The entire point of a ponzi scheme, is that there is no underlying asset. You are pretending to have an investment, when in reality there is nothing. You are just taking money from one person, to give to another.

With stocks though, there is an underlying asset. You own stock in a company. That is in fact an asset. No matter what happens, there is a real investment involved. No one was being duped, or defrauded.

Saying that "It is still dependent on someone else buying it"..... is irrelevant. All value that exists anywhere on this planet.... only exists because someone is willing to pay for it.

If no one is willing to buy your food.... your food has no value. If no one will buy your car, your car has no value. Where you work, if no one is willing to buy the product or service you provide, then your product or service has no value.

If you are suggesting that anything that is dependent on others buying it, is a ponzi scheme, then absolutely everything in the world is a ponzi scheme. And if everything is, then nothing is.

Capital gains is not exclusively the result of speculation. Investors are looking at a number of factors, only some of which are based on assumed future value. For example, they look at the companies current, and historical profit. They look at current and historical dividends. They look at growth trends, and other factors

Is this a definition of "speculation" you can subscribe to: an expectation future dividends will be higher than the market currently expects?

If so, what's the value of a company that continuously pays no dividends and does not appear as if it ever will?

WeWork’s Unraveling Is Another Indictment of Wall Street’s Universal Bank Model

If so, what's the value of a company that continuously pays no dividends and does not appear as if it ever will?

Whatever a willing buyer and a willing seller can agree on...…...

Whatever a willing buyer and a willing seller can agree on...…...

Would that require them to..


spec·u·late
/ˈspekyəˌlāt/
Learn to pronounce

verb

1. 1.
   form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence.
   "my colleagues speculate about my private life"
   
   Similar:
   conjecture
   
   
   theorize
   theorized that the atolls marked the sites of vanished volcanoes" data-hw="theorize" data-lb="" data-tae="false" data-te="false" data-tl="en-US" data-url="/search?rlz=1C1PRFI_enUS784US784&sxsrf=ACYBGNQszNq2Sy8fH4i7oKmHktshgSaofg:1571873851052&q=define+theorize&forcedict=theorize&dictcorpus=en-US">
   
   form theories
   
   hypothesize
   
   
   make suppositions
   
   postulate
   
   
   guess
   
   
   make guesses
   
   surmise
   
   
   think
   
   
   wonder
   
   
   muse
   
   
   
2. 2.
   invest in stocks, property, or other ventures in the hope of gain but with the risk of loss.
   "he didn't look as though he had the money to speculate in stocks"

speculate - Google Search

Obviously, a guy like you, with no money, doesn't need to worry about buying any stocks.

Leave the speculating to others.

 

[CWayne]

How do you square this circle: The structure and legal basis of the modern MAGA corporation bears a great deal of resemblance to feudal estates, and this reality is at odds in an era that claims to value democracy over the Divine Right of Kings?

Warren has a plan:

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"The Accountable Capitalism Act, 115th Congress (2017-2018) S. 3348 is a proposed federal bill introduced by Senator Elizabeth Warren in August 2018.

"It would require that employees elect 40% of a board of directors of any corporation with over $1 billion in tax receipts, and that 75% of shareholders and directors must approve any political spending.

"Corporations with revenue over $1 billion would be required to obtain a federal corporate charter.

"The Act contains a 'constituency statute' that would give directors a duty of 'creating a general public benefit' with regard to a corporation's stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, and the environment, and the interests of the enterprise in the long-term.[1]"

The US is among a minority of OECD countries that gives no representation to the workforce (majority) in corporate governance.

For years Warren has claimed "corporations are not people."

Now her Accountable Capitalism Act demands that corporations that claim the legal rights of personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood.

You really don't see it, do you?

The Democrats set the working class against business, then try to set up a law that gives the working class a voice (soon to be a majority voice) in how a business protects itself from the Democrats.

How long will it be before we see the working class giving control and management of a business to the government (i.e., the Democrats) who are promising them a 2-hour workweek for a 1500 dollar week?

Please don't say that it is some kind of fantasy. The Democrats working for foreign entities was a fantasy until they started working for illegals entering the country. Now it is treated as an everyday thing.

 

[bripat9643]

How do you square this circle: The structure and legal basis of the modern MAGA corporation bears a great deal of resemblance to feudal estates, and this reality is at odds in an era that claims to value democracy over the Divine Right of Kings?

Warren has a plan:

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"The Accountable Capitalism Act, 115th Congress (2017-2018) S. 3348 is a proposed federal bill introduced by Senator Elizabeth Warren in August 2018.

"It would require that employees elect 40% of a board of directors of any corporation with over $1 billion in tax receipts, and that 75% of shareholders and directors must approve any political spending.

"Corporations with revenue over $1 billion would be required to obtain a federal corporate charter.

"The Act contains a 'constituency statute' that would give directors a duty of 'creating a general public benefit' with regard to a corporation's stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, and the environment, and the interests of the enterprise in the long-term.[1]"

The US is among a minority of OECD countries that gives no representation to the workforce (majority) in corporate governance.

For years Warren has claimed "corporations are not people."

Now her Accountable Capitalism Act demands that corporations that claim the legal rights of personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood.

Morons like you don't seem to understand the concept called "private property."

 

[Andylusion]

How do you square this circle: The structure and legal basis of the modern MAGA corporation bears a great deal of resemblance to feudal estates, and this reality is at odds in an era that claims to value democracy over the Divine Right of Kings?

Warren has a plan:

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"The Accountable Capitalism Act, 115th Congress (2017-2018) S. 3348 is a proposed federal bill introduced by Senator Elizabeth Warren in August 2018.

"It would require that employees elect 40% of a board of directors of any corporation with over $1 billion in tax receipts, and that 75% of shareholders and directors must approve any political spending.

"Corporations with revenue over $1 billion would be required to obtain a federal corporate charter.

"The Act contains a 'constituency statute' that would give directors a duty of 'creating a general public benefit' with regard to a corporation's stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, and the environment, and the interests of the enterprise in the long-term.[1]"

The US is among a minority of OECD countries that gives no representation to the workforce (majority) in corporate governance.

For years Warren has claimed "corporations are not people."

Now her Accountable Capitalism Act demands that corporations that claim the legal rights of personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood.

I owned a business once and decided who did what. If I had to share decision making,I would sell the business. Being boss is one reason you risk your money AND do extra for your workers.

I owned a business once and decided who did what. If I had to share decision making,I would sell the business. Being boss is one reason you risk your money AND do extra for your workers.

How many employees did you exploit?
What was your revenue?

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

"Capital Income + Retained earnings = Revenue – (Employee income + Cost of materials)

"Kelly uses some simple algebra to show that this formula could just as easily be re-written as:

"Employee income + Retained earnings = Revenue – (Capital income + Cost of materials)

"In other words, the company could just as easily be optimized to maximize employee income."

It's funny. A millionaire capitalist is telling you to believe capitalism is bad, and you swallow it without question.

t's funny. A millionaire capitalist is telling you to believe capitalism is bad, and you swallow it without question.

Which millionaire, Warren?
She made her money after experiencing childhood poverty.
Trump's racist dad made him a millionaire by his eighth birthday,
If you can supply any arguments to refute Warren's premises, go ahead.
Capitalism is a disease.

Communism is a disease...a fatal one.

So, you're okay with Warren's hypocrisy, as long as she says the things you want to hear.

Hey, speaking of Bernie, you notice how he only attacks billionaires ever since he became a millionaire? LOL!

Holy crap. I didn't notice that. But yeah, before he was complaining about millionaires too. Now it's only billionaires..... since we found out he's a millionaire.

The hypocrisy never ends.....

 

[georgephillip]

Tan Liu: Why Many Of Today's Most-Owned Stocks Are Ponzi Schemes | Seeking Alpha

"When one person buys low and sells high, another is also buying high and needs to sell for even higher. And a system where current investors' profits are dependent on cash from new investors is by definition how a Ponzi scheme works.

"Stocks provide a return to today's investors via two mechanisms: dividends and capital gains.

"Dividends provide and income stream which can be quantitatively valued.

"Capital gains result from speculation - an expectation that future dividends will be higher than the market currently expects."

Capital gains is not exclusively the result of speculation. Investors are looking at a number of factors, only some of which are based on assumed future value. For example, they look at the companies current, and historical profit. They look at current and historical dividends. They look at growth trends, and other factors.

Those things are not speculation, anymore than getting a job is based on speculation. There is always risk when getting a job, that you will not fit with the company, that the company could close your department, or even that the company could close entirely.

None of which is speculation. But if you know the company wishes to expand into a different market, you are speculating that this expansion will succeed.... or you wouldn't take the job would you?

Now obviously there are some parts that are speculation. Such as if you hear that Google is starting up a new product line, you could buy the stock under the assumption the product line will be successful, and thus the value of the company will grow.

However that is still not a ponzi scheme.

The entire point of a ponzi scheme, is that there is no underlying asset. You are pretending to have an investment, when in reality there is nothing. You are just taking money from one person, to give to another.

With stocks though, there is an underlying asset. You own stock in a company. That is in fact an asset. No matter what happens, there is a real investment involved. No one was being duped, or defrauded.

Saying that "It is still dependent on someone else buying it"..... is irrelevant. All value that exists anywhere on this planet.... only exists because someone is willing to pay for it.

If no one is willing to buy your food.... your food has no value. If no one will buy your car, your car has no value. Where you work, if no one is willing to buy the product or service you provide, then your product or service has no value.

If you are suggesting that anything that is dependent on others buying it, is a ponzi scheme, then absolutely everything in the world is a ponzi scheme. And if everything is, then nothing is.

Capital gains is not exclusively the result of speculation. Investors are looking at a number of factors, only some of which are based on assumed future value. For example, they look at the companies current, and historical profit. They look at current and historical dividends. They look at growth trends, and other factors

Is this a definition of "speculation" you can subscribe to: an expectation future dividends will be higher than the market currently expects?

If so, what's the value of a company that continuously pays no dividends and does not appear as if it ever will?

WeWork’s Unraveling Is Another Indictment of Wall Street’s Universal Bank Model

Dividends alone is not a determining factor.

Again... you own a share of the company itself. That has value, even without dividends. Warren Buffet's company, Berkshire Hathaway, pays no dividends. But the company itself has grown. That growth has value. You as owner, have part ownership in that company, which has value.


Let's spin this around into something easier.

I own a house. Do I get dividends? No. But that house is an investment. Why? Because it has value that increases. Even without dividends showing me direct value, I know that over time property values do increase. Again... why? Because we all know that people need places to live. We can look at the history of property values, and see the increase.

Just like we know that people will need a car, so owning shares in a car company will have value.

Just like we know that people will need food, so owning shares in a food company will have value.

Now I am NOT saying... 'there is no speculation'. Again, everything has some amount of speculation. Democrats could take over my city, and put in place section 8 housing in my area, and the value of my house will drop like a rock. It could happen.

Government could put in place terrible protectionism, that could kill the auto market, and the car company I own shares in, could close.

But again, there is a huge difference between speculating on a real assets, and a ponzi scheme that has no assets.

Just like we know that people will need a car, so owning shares in a car company will have value.

Just like we know that people will need food, so owning shares in a food company will have value.

Even if the car and food company are not paying dividends?

Tan Liu: Why Many Of Today's Most-Owned Stocks Are Ponzi Schemes | Seeking Alpha

"So when one person buys low and sells high, another is also buying high and needs to sell for even higher. And a system where current investors' profits are dependent on cash from new investors is by definition how a Ponzi scheme works.

"What's wrong with that is a lot of stocks don't pay dividends and why are you an owner of a company if the company never pays the so-called owners?

"that's exactly how it works because when a stock doesn't pay dividends, there is no monetary connection between the revenues and profits of the company and the actual shares."

Of course there is. You directly own a share in a company. That ownership has value. Are you suggesting that I can own something, that produces value, but that ownership of that thing has no value?

Ridiculous. And I can prove it, by simply owning that stock, and seeing it's value increase in proportion to the profits of the company. Which it does. I own shares of Berkshire Hathaway.

There is always a monetary connection between revenues and profits of the company, and the actual shares.

Again... as long as there is an underlying asset, it simply can't be a ponzi scheme. The defining aspect of a ponzi scheme, is the fact there are no assets.

Of course there is. You directly own a share in a company. That ownership has value. Are you suggesting that I can own something, that produces value, but that ownership of that thing has no value?

Market value or par value?
Google currently trades for over $1200, but the corporation states in writing it doesn't pay dividends, there are no voting rights, and the par value of GOOG is only $0.001 per share. "The value of a stock is just an idea. It is something completely cerebral and imaginary. Real money on the other hand, is finite, traceable, and ...what investors ultimately care about."

https://www.quora.com/How-true-is-the-statement-that-the-stock-market-is-essentially-a-Ponzi-scheme

 

[georgephillip]

Can't believe I waded through 14 pages on this thread. George, are you feeling underpaid for the value you provide to your employer and this is the way you hope to extract more money from the company you work for?

After you and Warren successfully ruin the USA, are you going after China or Russia with this scheme, because you can be damn sure neither of those countries operates like Europe (which you seem extremely fond of).

How expensive are one-way tickets to Spain? Brush up on your Spanish.

Is capitalism working well for you, OMG?
If so, I suspect you are among the investor class.

For most productive Americans, the answer is no.
Warren's ACA corrects some of common law benefits corporations have acquired over the past two hundred years:

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"The Accountable Capitalism Act, 115th Congress (2017-2018) S. 3348 is a proposed federal bill introduced by Senator Elizabeth Warren in August 2018.

"It would require that employees elect 40% of a board of directors of any corporation with over $1 billion in tax receipts, and that 75% of shareholders and directors must approve any political spending. Corporations with revenue over $1 billion would be required to obtain a federal corporate charter.

"The Act contains a 'constituency statute that would give directors a duty of 'creating a general public benefit' with regard to a corporation's stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, and the environment, and the interests of the enterprise in the long-term.[1]"

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Capital gains is not exclusively the result of speculation. Investors are looking at a number of factors, only some of which are based on assumed future value. For example, they look at the companies current, and historical profit. They look at current and historical dividends. They look at growth trends, and other factors.

Those things are not speculation, anymore than getting a job is based on speculation. There is always risk when getting a job, that you will not fit with the company, that the company could close your department, or even that the company could close entirely.

None of which is speculation. But if you know the company wishes to expand into a different market, you are speculating that this expansion will succeed.... or you wouldn't take the job would you?

Now obviously there are some parts that are speculation. Such as if you hear that Google is starting up a new product line, you could buy the stock under the assumption the product line will be successful, and thus the value of the company will grow.

However that is still not a ponzi scheme.

The entire point of a ponzi scheme, is that there is no underlying asset. You are pretending to have an investment, when in reality there is nothing. You are just taking money from one person, to give to another.

With stocks though, there is an underlying asset. You own stock in a company. That is in fact an asset. No matter what happens, there is a real investment involved. No one was being duped, or defrauded.

Saying that "It is still dependent on someone else buying it"..... is irrelevant. All value that exists anywhere on this planet.... only exists because someone is willing to pay for it.

If no one is willing to buy your food.... your food has no value. If no one will buy your car, your car has no value. Where you work, if no one is willing to buy the product or service you provide, then your product or service has no value.

If you are suggesting that anything that is dependent on others buying it, is a ponzi scheme, then absolutely everything in the world is a ponzi scheme. And if everything is, then nothing is.

Capital gains is not exclusively the result of speculation. Investors are looking at a number of factors, only some of which are based on assumed future value. For example, they look at the companies current, and historical profit. They look at current and historical dividends. They look at growth trends, and other factors

Is this a definition of "speculation" you can subscribe to: an expectation future dividends will be higher than the market currently expects?

If so, what's the value of a company that continuously pays no dividends and does not appear as if it ever will?

WeWork’s Unraveling Is Another Indictment of Wall Street’s Universal Bank Model

Dividends alone is not a determining factor.

Again... you own a share of the company itself. That has value, even without dividends. Warren Buffet's company, Berkshire Hathaway, pays no dividends. But the company itself has grown. That growth has value. You as owner, have part ownership in that company, which has value.


Let's spin this around into something easier.

I own a house. Do I get dividends? No. But that house is an investment. Why? Because it has value that increases. Even without dividends showing me direct value, I know that over time property values do increase. Again... why? Because we all know that people need places to live. We can look at the history of property values, and see the increase.

Just like we know that people will need a car, so owning shares in a car company will have value.

Just like we know that people will need food, so owning shares in a food company will have value.

Now I am NOT saying... 'there is no speculation'. Again, everything has some amount of speculation. Democrats could take over my city, and put in place section 8 housing in my area, and the value of my house will drop like a rock. It could happen.

Government could put in place terrible protectionism, that could kill the auto market, and the car company I own shares in, could close.

But again, there is a huge difference between speculating on a real assets, and a ponzi scheme that has no assets.

Just like we know that people will need a car, so owning shares in a car company will have value.

Just like we know that people will need food, so owning shares in a food company will have value.

Even if the car and food company are not paying dividends?

Tan Liu: Why Many Of Today's Most-Owned Stocks Are Ponzi Schemes | Seeking Alpha

"So when one person buys low and sells high, another is also buying high and needs to sell for even higher. And a system where current investors' profits are dependent on cash from new investors is by definition how a Ponzi scheme works.

"What's wrong with that is a lot of stocks don't pay dividends and why are you an owner of a company if the company never pays the so-called owners?

"that's exactly how it works because when a stock doesn't pay dividends, there is no monetary connection between the revenues and profits of the company and the actual shares."

Of course there is. You directly own a share in a company. That ownership has value. Are you suggesting that I can own something, that produces value, but that ownership of that thing has no value?

Ridiculous. And I can prove it, by simply owning that stock, and seeing it's value increase in proportion to the profits of the company. Which it does. I own shares of Berkshire Hathaway.

There is always a monetary connection between revenues and profits of the company, and the actual shares.

Again... as long as there is an underlying asset, it simply can't be a ponzi scheme. The defining aspect of a ponzi scheme, is the fact there are no assets.

Of course there is. You directly own a share in a company. That ownership has value. Are you suggesting that I can own something, that produces value, but that ownership of that thing has no value?

Market value or par value?
Google currently trades for over $1200, but the corporation states in writing it doesn't pay dividends, there are no voting rights, and the par value of GOOG is only $0.001 per share. "The value of a stock is just an idea. It is something completely cerebral and imaginary. Real money on the other hand, is finite, traceable, and ...what investors ultimately care about."

https://www.quora.com/How-true-is-the-statement-that-the-stock-market-is-essentially-a-Ponzi-scheme

Looks like willing buyers-willing sellers decided GOOG was worth about $1260 yesterday.
They earned about $50 per share over the last 12 months. Sounds pretty solid.

 

[georgephillip]

Tan Liu: Why Many Of Today's Most-Owned Stocks Are Ponzi Schemes | Seeking Alpha

"When one person buys low and sells high, another is also buying high and needs to sell for even higher. And a system where current investors' profits are dependent on cash from new investors is by definition how a Ponzi scheme works.

"Stocks provide a return to today's investors via two mechanisms: dividends and capital gains.

"Dividends provide and income stream which can be quantitatively valued.

"Capital gains result from speculation - an expectation that future dividends will be higher than the market currently expects."

Capital gains is not exclusively the result of speculation. Investors are looking at a number of factors, only some of which are based on assumed future value. For example, they look at the companies current, and historical profit. They look at current and historical dividends. They look at growth trends, and other factors.

Those things are not speculation, anymore than getting a job is based on speculation. There is always risk when getting a job, that you will not fit with the company, that the company could close your department, or even that the company could close entirely.

None of which is speculation. But if you know the company wishes to expand into a different market, you are speculating that this expansion will succeed.... or you wouldn't take the job would you?

Now obviously there are some parts that are speculation. Such as if you hear that Google is starting up a new product line, you could buy the stock under the assumption the product line will be successful, and thus the value of the company will grow.

However that is still not a ponzi scheme.

The entire point of a ponzi scheme, is that there is no underlying asset. You are pretending to have an investment, when in reality there is nothing. You are just taking money from one person, to give to another.

With stocks though, there is an underlying asset. You own stock in a company. That is in fact an asset. No matter what happens, there is a real investment involved. No one was being duped, or defrauded.

Saying that "It is still dependent on someone else buying it"..... is irrelevant. All value that exists anywhere on this planet.... only exists because someone is willing to pay for it.

If no one is willing to buy your food.... your food has no value. If no one will buy your car, your car has no value. Where you work, if no one is willing to buy the product or service you provide, then your product or service has no value.

If you are suggesting that anything that is dependent on others buying it, is a ponzi scheme, then absolutely everything in the world is a ponzi scheme. And if everything is, then nothing is.

Capital gains is not exclusively the result of speculation. Investors are looking at a number of factors, only some of which are based on assumed future value. For example, they look at the companies current, and historical profit. They look at current and historical dividends. They look at growth trends, and other factors

Is this a definition of "speculation" you can subscribe to: an expectation future dividends will be higher than the market currently expects?

If so, what's the value of a company that continuously pays no dividends and does not appear as if it ever will?

WeWork’s Unraveling Is Another Indictment of Wall Street’s Universal Bank Model

If so, what's the value of a company that continuously pays no dividends and does not appear as if it ever will?

Whatever a willing buyer and a willing seller can agree on...…...

Whatever a willing buyer and a willing seller can agree on...…...

Would that require them to..


spec·u·late
/ˈspekyəˌlāt/
Learn to pronounce

verb

1. 1.
   form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence.
   "my colleagues speculate about my private life"
   
   Similar:
   conjecture
   
   
   theorize
   theorized that the atolls marked the sites of vanished volcanoes" data-hw="theorize" data-lb="" data-tae="false" data-te="false" data-tl="en-US" data-url="/search?rlz=1C1PRFI_enUS784US784&sxsrf=ACYBGNQszNq2Sy8fH4i7oKmHktshgSaofg:1571873851052&q=define+theorize&forcedict=theorize&dictcorpus=en-US">
   
   form theories
   
   hypothesize
   
   
   make suppositions
   
   postulate
   
   
   guess
   
   
   make guesses
   
   surmise
   
   
   think
   
   
   wonder
   
   
   muse
   
   
   
2. 2.
   invest in stocks, property, or other ventures in the hope of gain but with the risk of loss.
   "he didn't look as though he had the money to speculate in stocks"

speculate - Google Search

Obviously, a guy like you, with no money, doesn't need to worry about buying any stocks.

Leave the speculating to others.

Obviously, a guy like you, with no money, doesn't need to worry about buying any stocks.

Leave the speculating to others.

"'The U.S. financial markets had always been either corrupt or about to be corrupted.' – Michael Lewis, Flash Boys"

Wall Street has Always Been Corrupt…