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
Why Military Veterans Are Turning to Archaeology | National Geographic
Most people think of archaeology as telling us about the past. What we’re trying to do is actually use archaeology to improve people’s lives in the present. In this particular program, we’re aiming that specifically at military veterans and trying to use …
Safari Live - Day 348 | National Geographic
This program features live coverage of an African safari and may include animal kills and carcasses. Viewer discretion is advised. Good afternoon, everybody! A very good afternoon on this Sunday, coming to you live from the Mara Triangle in Kenya. My nam…
HOW TO CONTROL YOUR ANGER - SENECA | STOICISM INSIGHTS
Have you ever experienced a surge of anger so intense it felt like a volcanic eruption within you? Picture this anger burning with the fury of a thousand suns. But what if I told you there’s a way to extinguish it? Not tomorrow or next week, but today. We…
Was Nero the Antichrist? | The Story of God
But why might early Christians have called Nero the Antichrist? Kim brings me to the very heart of the Vatican, St. Peter’s Square, to show me the answer. So, we know that the code 666 refers to the emperor Nero. Why? Emperor Nero was despised for many t…
Tips From an Ultramarathoner for Common Trail Injuries | Get Out: A Guide to Adventure
I’m Scott Jurek, and I’m an ultra-marathoner. Today, we’re gonna be talking about injury prevention. I love pushing myself to the edge, and when I’m injured, I’m not able to train; I’m not able to race. Thus, avoiding injuries — but then once they do occu…
The Contradiction In The U.S. Constitution
Did you know that one of the greatest mathematicians of the 20th century discovered a logical contradiction in the US Constitution that, if found, could be used to legally change America’s democracy into a dictatorship? Well, he did, but we no longer kno…