Don, I feel your lengthy response deserves a reply.
You said:
"The icing that you see in the stock market is the short term trading that would be a zero sum game except for spreads and commissions. This also provides a valuable service in helping to provide liquidity for the underlying market that is investment and
business based."
It is this liquidity that you refer to that also makes for a higher volume or turnover and lack of 'investment' activity. Somewhere in your thesis it seems is the contention that because the public has access to ownership via the stock exchanges (as opposed to private placements, bonds, etc.) that they, and the corporations, are better for it. I say that the public has the opportunity to own stock that is as safe in many respects as an investment in trading cards, barbie dolls, and 17th century tulip bulbs. The stock market is a casino no matter how pretty you paint the outside. I see beyond the "icing" in that respect, my question is therefore, do you ?
You said:
"The existence of the stock market thus both increases the reward and reduces the risk of an entrepreneur and his backers as a new venture is contemplated."
Dare I counter that argument with statistics on how many IPO's from 2000 are presently deep underwater, or do you still insist that this is the case ?
Don, I'm not one to make a big fuss on message boards. I've got better things to do, and I'm sure you do to. But I did want to see what kind of feedback I would get from a very astute audience of traders who are clearly bearish about our current market.
Since this morning, I gather that there is either little interest in the subject of changing the status quo, or there is general distaste for the thought of doing away with something that is providing these people with a habit if not away of making a living.
I appreciate your reply and as Voltaire is oft' quoted:
"I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. " |
