[quote=davelj][quote=no_such_reality][quote=CA renter]
By all means, people should go out there and create, innovate, and improve upon things. That’s valuable to society, no doubt. But “investors” who don’t create, don’t expand productive capacity, etc.? That’s zero-sum, and requires other to suffer in order for the “winners” to gain.[/quote]
You really need to go see a few more places where people don’t invest capital.[/quote]
Yeah, that’s actually empirically incorrect. Investing is a “market-sum” game where the participants share in the total market return pie (or “economic return” pie, if you like). Without the capital there’s essentially no market return to share. (Recall that the market return will ultimately be a function of economic growth… which requires that capital.) And the capital doesn’t just magically appear.
NSR is right – places that are unfriendly to capital tend not to grow much, which basically leaves everyone in the crapper.
Now, are the “financiers” (“investors” in your parlance) overpaid for the value they provide? Certainly. But there’s a pretty big gulf between the proposition they add no value versus the notion they are simply overpaid for the value they provide.[/quote]
I didn’t make my point clear in the above post. Yes, investing in those who *create, improve upon existing technology, or expand productive capacity* are making healthy investments that benefit society. But those who simply buy up existing assets (as opposed to investing in productive enterprises) do not contribute to society, and their “investments” are zero-sum. Yes, we need some market makers (a very small, highly-regulated group), but we cannot all give up productive jobs to become asset-price speculaltors. Somebody has to create the assets in the first place, and it’s not capital who does that.
