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?
