I'm sure it's clear to many people that the stock market is simply a gambling establishment, appealing to the very same people that go to casinos. For some reason, this didn't occur to me until late in my life.
The value of a stock, as it is bought, sold and exchanged on Wall Street, has little or nothing to do with the value of the company on whose name it is based. When originally sold by the company owners, it was a way of raising money to improve the market share of the company, and the stock purchasers were thereby to receive a share of the future profits.
But as soon as the stock was sold, not by the orignating company, but by the most recent purchaser of the stock, its new value was now based entirely on the expectations and perceptions of the new purchaser. The purchaser was simply gambling that the value of the stock would change in a predictable way, so that it could be resold for a profit, not on the originating company's products, but simply on the expectation of exploitable change in price. Stocks go up and down in the amrket on a hourly (or shorter) basis; this clearly has no base in change in the company product value. People develop systems to predict stock prices, and they make public predictions, both of which change the expectations of potential stock purchasers and thereby the "value" of the stock.
It's a "get-rich-quick" scheme, and the suckers are those who think they can predict it. When the majority of potential purchasers believe the market is in a cycle of positive change, the price goes up, thereby proving the prediction. When the majority of potential purchasers think the market is going to go down, they act on their predictions, and lo and behold, the price goes down. The value of the company which issued the stock probably hasn't changed, but the stock value has.
I don't mind people gambling, in Las Vegas or in New York. I object to the pretentiouness, the pretense that "business" is going on there, that stock purchasers are contributing to the economy. Of course they are not. Making money on the stock market is a form of vampiristic feeding on the blood of those who actually produce goods or services of value. It's just gambling. There's nothing scientific or productive about it. It represents, as all gambling does, the hope of making money without having to work for it or produce something of value.
Perhaps it keeps the non-productive part of the populace happy and content with their hopes. I think they should just get a job.
Monday, August 03, 2009
Sunday, August 02, 2009
Avoiding a rebellion
As the fiscal crisis deepens, it appears that we as a nation are dividing more and more clearly into classes. The "poor" class is really getting poorer all the time, and the upper classes are getting richer.
If we want this state of affairs to continue (which I rather favor), we should be aware that throughout history the "have-nots" have eventually risen up in rebellion and overthrown the system, usually doing away with a large percentage of the wealthy. If we don't want that to happen (and I really favor it not happening), we have to find ways to keep the poor happy. The Romans did it with entertainment, the English during the period of industrialization in the 19th century did it with alcohol. We have an even better soporific available now: drugs like marijuana and heroin.
People using those drugs readily remain stable and happy, even if their lives are somewhat shortened. However, they are there to change our tires and stock our shelves, to empty the bedpans and man the machines. We need them there, and we need them contented and happy. Let's give them free marijuana! Rising up in rebellion becomes almost impossible. Even hunger and envy won't drive them to it. And they'll think we're doing them a favor!
If we want this state of affairs to continue (which I rather favor), we should be aware that throughout history the "have-nots" have eventually risen up in rebellion and overthrown the system, usually doing away with a large percentage of the wealthy. If we don't want that to happen (and I really favor it not happening), we have to find ways to keep the poor happy. The Romans did it with entertainment, the English during the period of industrialization in the 19th century did it with alcohol. We have an even better soporific available now: drugs like marijuana and heroin.
People using those drugs readily remain stable and happy, even if their lives are somewhat shortened. However, they are there to change our tires and stock our shelves, to empty the bedpans and man the machines. We need them there, and we need them contented and happy. Let's give them free marijuana! Rising up in rebellion becomes almost impossible. Even hunger and envy won't drive them to it. And they'll think we're doing them a favor!
National Health Care
I'm astonished by the controversy over some sort of national Health Care insurance. The arguments about cost, who pays, who is entitled, go on and on. But surely it must be obvious that there is something profoundly wrong about this argument?
We are ALREADY providing health care for the indigent, the poor, the uninsured and the uninsurable. People without insurance simply go to the nearest emergency room and obtain treatment. Of course they don't go for routine examinations or really minor illnesses, but those issues are barely covered by insurance for anyone, if they are covered at all.
So the poor get free medical care. Free, that is, in the sense that they themselves don't pay for it. The hospital provides medication and facilities, physicians provide services. The hospital simply divides the cost up and raises fees for those covered by insurance so that the loss is absorbed. We pay for the indigent through higher fees to the hospital and to the physicans and nurses. Did we think that all those things were just either falling out of the skies or were being paid for by the benevolence of the hospitals?
The fees charged by hospitals and physicians will be higher in areas where more such services are provided to the uninsured. Border states, such as Texas, California and Florida, will charge higher fees than, say, Nebraska hospitals. In other words, all a national health insurance program will do is to redistribute the costs nationwide so that all medical insurance costs are coverfed more equally. That's a good deal for us border-state dwellers, not so good for those living in North Dakota.
Am I missing something here? Or is this largely a political farce?
We are ALREADY providing health care for the indigent, the poor, the uninsured and the uninsurable. People without insurance simply go to the nearest emergency room and obtain treatment. Of course they don't go for routine examinations or really minor illnesses, but those issues are barely covered by insurance for anyone, if they are covered at all.
So the poor get free medical care. Free, that is, in the sense that they themselves don't pay for it. The hospital provides medication and facilities, physicians provide services. The hospital simply divides the cost up and raises fees for those covered by insurance so that the loss is absorbed. We pay for the indigent through higher fees to the hospital and to the physicans and nurses. Did we think that all those things were just either falling out of the skies or were being paid for by the benevolence of the hospitals?
The fees charged by hospitals and physicians will be higher in areas where more such services are provided to the uninsured. Border states, such as Texas, California and Florida, will charge higher fees than, say, Nebraska hospitals. In other words, all a national health insurance program will do is to redistribute the costs nationwide so that all medical insurance costs are coverfed more equally. That's a good deal for us border-state dwellers, not so good for those living in North Dakota.
Am I missing something here? Or is this largely a political farce?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
