Umm… the value (presumably positive?) of the stock trading isn’t distributed to those who produced the goods because the latter group didn’t put any capital at risk, my friend. As soon as those who produce the goods put some capital at risk (and are thus willing to share in the losses), then we can have a rational discussion about what they “deserve” as owners. But until that time, it’s the old axiom: no risk, no reward (and recently, no huge losses). Again, c’mon.
——————
But, theoretically speaking, isn’t the price of the stock largely determined by dividend yield or expectation of capital gains?
Assuming the money used to pay dividends comes from profit, couldn’t one argue that some or all of that profit is really earned by those who produce what the profit is derived from?
Workers DO take on risk — the risk of losing their jobs if their company fails. Since most workers literally depend on their paychecks for survival, I’d say their risks are far greater than an investor’s, whose investment should only be a small portion of their portfolio, and should not be their main source of income.
And if risk is supposed to be commensurate with reward, how do you explain the taxpayers bailing out the uber-capitalists of the world? Shouldn’t they have ALL of their fraudulently-attained assets and future earnings seized so that they can compensate the taxpayers for all the losses they created?
[/quote]
The key word in your first paragraph is “expectation.” There is no guarantee. Therefore capital is at risk. Not so in the case of workers.
As far as the risk of losing one’s job is concerned, aren’t you putting the cart before the horse? Without first having the job itself, there’s no risk of losing it. And who provided the risk capital necessary to start the business that created the job? You know the answer. No one who’s ever started a business – and put their own capital at risk to do so – would ask these questions.
I’d say that 95%+ of “investors” don’t live off of their investments – they live off of their jobs and happen to have investments on the side. So they’re taking both job risk and capital risk. I don’t see a problem with this arrangement.
I’m not happy with the taxpayers bailing out the “uber-capitalists” either. I would have no problem with the govt. trying to recapture past payments to execs but for one slippery issue: the rule of law. Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to take a couple of hundred million dollars from each and every one of these banking clowns, but the laws are fairly unambiguous where these things are concerned and I don’t know how you get around them (or change them) without creating a lot of havok.
