So what you're saying is that we all just need to become better gamblers? That doesn't exactly scream functional society to me.
Besides, this can't work for everyone - if you get 100 cars without an equivalent amount of more work put in then someone else has to do that work without being properly compensated for it.
It shifts the gains away from the marginal investor in Microsoft who was only willing to pay a penny less for those shares (probably an eighth of a dollar when this anecdote happened). Instead of them getting the 100 cars, the buyer who was willing to hit the ask earlier gets them.
That profit comes from owning a piece of a productive company, productive companies often spring from early-stage losses that require investment money from somewhere, seed stage money comes from the high likelihood that later stage money will come in if the venture appears successful.
"I can win" is not a refutation of the claim that investment is gambling in any way that matters. The more relevant question is: does investment reward productivity (i.e. skill, strength, labor) or does it reward ownership (i.e. those who have capital will continue to accumulate capital)? By your own statement, it seems the latter.
All of that money that you've "earned" with investment, where do you think it came from? What do you think you've done to deserve it? If investment is fundamentally risky, then it's an unsound basis for a stable society (i.e. it's gambling); if it's not risky, then you can't even argue that you deserve that money by having risked your own capital.
That's right: the value was created by other people, but yet you are benefiting. That makes you a parasite.
> I took the risk of providing capital for the company to use to create wealth.
So what? I can take a risk by jumping into a shallow pool. That's not the same as labor and does not entitle me, ethically, to profit. The profit should go to the people who do the work.
> That's right: the value was created by other people, but yet you are benefiting. That makes you a parasite.
This is classic Marxism.
The employees were compensated commensurate with the value they produced. The value the investors create is the result of taking the risk by providing the capital and organization needed for the company to operate.
If you don't believe that, you're free to organize with like-minded fellow travelers, set up a commune, and split the rewards equally. I would caution you, however, that 20,000 other communes have been set up in the US, and they all disappeared. In my estimation, the typical commune member leaves after about 2 years, because they were doing all the work and the others were lazing around getting their equal share.
Put another way, SpaceX would not exist without Musk.
Correct. Are you going to dispute it or is "this is Marxism" the extent of your argument?
> The employees were compensated commensurate with the value they produced.
If they were compensated commensurate with the value they produced, then there would be no profit for the company, and the CEO's compensation would not be 1000x that of a line worker.
> If you don't believe that, you're free to organize with like-minded fellow travelers, set up a commune, and split the rewards equally.
That is one approach supported by unions.
> Put another way, SpaceX would not exist without Musk.
Yes, and I would not exist without my parents. That does not mean that I give them 90% of my profit.
“Never lost money over any 20 year period” is a good enough refutation of investing in the S&P being gambling in any way that matters to allow me to act.
Others might be more conservative and I hope they find and choose investments which match their style and risk-tolerance.
I don't care how you act. That capitalism benefits the rich is not the subject of debate. This isn't /r/wallstreetbets
What is at stake us that all value is created by labor; and that the capitalist class (of which you are a member) is allowed to profit despite not producing anything at all. That makes you a parasite. Isn't that what the rich say about the poor?
> That's the communist "Labor Theory of Value" which is nonsense.
Can you explain how it's nonsense? Can you think of a valuable product or service that you consume that is not produced by labor?
> For example, spend the day digging a hole in your backyard. Did you create any value? Nope.
I didn't say that all labor produces value; I said that all value is produced by labor. As a Smart Guy who Created His Own Software Company with No Capital At All, I'm sure you know enough about elementary logic to recognize the difference.
I recommend you start a commune. Or a business. It's a free country, there are no laws against it.
> all value is produced by labor
But you deny that the labor of the CEO produces value.
Consider Microsoft. The company's stock was flat for 10 years. Then Nadella took over as CEO. The stock went up by a factor of 10. Same company, same employees, same intellectual property. The difference was Nadella. A similar story with Steve Jobs' second coming at Apple. And Steve Jobs at Pixar. There are innumerable such stories.
It's similar to military generals. An army's victory or defeat is pretty much entirely due to the general.
> I recommend you start a commune. Or a business. It's a free country, there are no laws against it.
So in your view, there are only two options: (a) unlimited astronomical compensation for CEOs while line workers get minimum wage or (b) hippie commune? You really can't see any other option? Even 50 to 60 years ago, CEO salaries were not as distorted as they are today and yet the world did not grind to a stop.
> Then Nadella took over as CEO. The stock went up by a factor of 10
The stock is not a measure of productivity. It's a measure of expectation. The problem with you and many capitalists is that you view the stock as the company's product. It isn't. Is the current version of Windows ten times better than the previous version? No? Then why did the stock go up?
> It's similar to military generals.
Great analogy. A general (O-10) in the US army serving since 1986 makes $19,000/mo. A private (E-1) makes $2,407/mo. That's a difference of ~8x. Now explain to me again why a CEO makes >1000x what his employees make?
> You're assuming the economy is zero sum, which it obviously is not.
That assumption does not follow from my statement.
What I do assume is that the easiest way to make money is to have money, which means that the rich and get richer and the poor get poorer. We've already seen that the rise of billionaires correlatives with an increase in wealth inequality and poverty.
> Gambling is zero sum, so it does follow from your statement.
My statement was "long enough time line, all the money ends in very few hands." That has nothing to do with zero-sum. Even if we assume that your premise of "rich billionaires make everyone else richer too", it does nothing to contradict my statement.
> The rise of the wealthy in the 19th century corresponded with scores of millions of people rising out of poverty into the middle class and beyond.
The decrease in poverty in that time period stems principally from industrialized farming techniques, increasing available food resources. There is nothing in that process that requires super-billionaires.
> Creating value does not make the poor poorer.
That depends. If all the created value is in the hands of rich, it gives the rich the power to buy more things, including things that the poor people need, e.g. housing. That drives up prices for the poor, and effectively decreases their buying power. That's how supply and demand work.
> Consider the wealth in America today. Compare it with the wealth in America in 1800.
Now consider the wealth distribution in America now versus the wealth distribution in America 60 years ago. At that time, the difference between the rich and the poor was much smaller. It was also a time of great economic expansion, opportunity, and innovation. So clearly super-billioniares cannot be necessary for economic productivity.
> So what you're saying is that we all just need to become better gamblers?
It means take advantage of the free education you received. Make an assessment of what you enjoy and what you are good at. Select an opportunity in the intersection of those two endeavors.
People start businesses every day in America.
> Besides, this can't work for everyone
Wealth is not zero sum. If you create wealth, that does not mean someone else must be worse off.
We all make different choices, and so have different consequences.
For example, I squandered the proceeds of a business deal on a new car. If I'd bought MSFT instead, I could have bought 100 new cars.