yego.me
💡 Stop wasting time. Read Youtube instead of watch. Download Chrome Extension

The Ponzi Factor | Stocks are NOT Ownership Instruments


2m read
·Nov 3, 2024

The reason why finance professionals do not see the stock market as a Ponzi scheme is because they believe the credibility for an idea rests on repetition, tradition, and people who recite it rather than proof, logic, or facts.

The first fallacy, which I believe is the most fundamental falsehood that leads to other false ideas, is the notion that stocks are equity instruments that represent ownership. Finance professionals will argue the stock market can't be a Ponzi scheme because the value of a stock represents value in a company, and ownership instruments are being exchanged in the transactions.

But there's practically no truth to this idea because the value of a stock has no legitimacy. It is just an arbitrary number derived from a Ponzi exchange process, and the value is not backed by anything. A share of Google can trade around nine hundred dollars, but Google explicitly states in writing that the par value of their stock is only 0.001 cent.

Google also says they do not pay their investors any dividends, and their Class C shareholders have no voting rights. So if you own a share of Google, you won't receive any money from Google's business activities, you won't be allowed to vote on any corporate issues, and Google isn't obligated to pay you anything more than 0.001 cent for that share you bought for nine hundred dollars.

Does that really sound like a legitimate ownership instrument? If I mail you a chair that was missing three legs, the seat cushion, and the backrest, whatever I sent you, can I really call it a chair? For a value to have legitimacy, there must be someone or something in place to back that value.

The value of the dollar is backed by the United States government; the value of a house is backed by the intrinsic physical value of the house itself. But the value of stocks is not legitimately backed by anyone or anything. The idea that today's common stock represents the real intrinsic value of a company is a baseless and unproven idea, and if people are selling such an idea to make money, then it is also a fraudulent idea.

More Articles

View All
Ask Sal Anything! Homeroom Wednesday, July 15
Hi everyone! Welcome to our homeroom live stream. Sal here from Khan Academy. Uh, before we get into, uh, our guest, who is me today, it’s just going to be an ask me anything type of thing. So actually start putting your questions on Facebook and YouTube…
Introduction to cilia, flagella and pseudopodia | Cells | High school biology | Khan Academy
The goal of this video is to appreciate some of the structures that you see, even in unicellular organisms. So, this right over here is a picture of the amoeba Chaos carolinensis, and what you see here is a projection coming off from the main part of the …
How Amazon Is Losing Money To Make Money
When is it okay for your business to lose money? Amateurs will say never, but the big guys know that’s not exactly true. Amazon is bleeding money on Prime, and they’re pleased about it. Here’s why. Welcome to a Lux. Now, before we dive into what’s been g…
Integration by parts: definite integrals | AP Calculus BC | Khan Academy
Going to do in this video is try to evaluate the definite integral from 0 to pi of x cosine of x dx. Like always, pause this video and see if you can evaluate it yourself. Well, when you immediately look at this, it’s not obvious how you just straight up…
Linear approximation of a rational function | Derivative rules | AP Calculus AB | Khan Academy
So there are situations where you have some type of a function. This is clearly a non-linear function. f of x is equal to 1 over x minus 1. This is its graph, or at least part of its graph, right over here. But where you want to approximate it with a line…
The Simple Solution to Traffic
Stuck at an intersection, you always watch unfold the Fundamental Problem of Traffic. On green, the first car accelerates, and then the next, and then the next, and then the next, and then you, only to catch the red. Had the cars accelerated simultaneousl…