Skip to main content

View Diary: Give Me One Good Reason Why The Rich Should Pay Higher Taxes (214 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You haven't answered anything (0+ / 0-)

    It's your comments that have been the "non-responsive non-answers". Your first answer was so completely devoid of explanation, and stated with such certainty, that how can I believe it's anything other than a glib and superficial understanding of economics at its most ideal, therefore abstract, and therefore irrelevant that came right out of a textbook? Your second answer isn't any better. You don't address any of the points I've made, not even to demolish them.

    I expect better from a philosopher.

    •  Your initial comment stated that stocks (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      only have value because someone else is willing to buy them at a higher value. ("it's only all that money with nothing else to do chasing after them that gives them value.")

      That's simply false; a stock pays dividends and grants control.  Of course, if you were a reasonable interlocutor, you'd point out the equity premium, but after being on Kos for so many years I'm used to having to make arguments for others.  So I just plopped your counterargument in your lap.  You can do something useful with it, or not, either way is fine w/ me.

      •  Same as before: theory versus reality (0+ / 0-)

        If no-one is willing to buy a stock from you, then it's value cannot be anything more than the dividends it delivers over the time that you hold it. That can be as little as a couple cents per quarter, especially for large companies with millions of shares available. Even thousands of pennies only add up to a few hundred dollars. There's much more money to be made by all involved (but especially by the rich with the most skin in the game) by trading stocks rather than sitting on them, hence the far more important measure of a stock's value is driven by demand for the stock.

        Control? Control over what exactly? A corporation? Yeah, my theoretical handful of shares versus institutional investors collectively holding millions of shares and the CEO's single largest percent of ownership of the company.

        As for the equity premium, economists can't even agree on why it exists at all. My argument would be that, as we've seen, there are plenty of traders smart enough and/or with enough institutional money and computer power at their disposal to make money on the short-term volatility of the stock market - most of it engineered by those same traders - and by the ability of a stock to go almost arbitrarily high or low in price, rather than wait for the long-term and more importantly fixed payoff as you would with a bond.

        You're thinking in terms of ideal situations, where everything works the way the system's cheerleaders have decided it should work. The ideal is completely irrelevant to me, and will never convince me of anything. I'm talking about the way things actually do work, and from that perspective, I'm right.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site