> It is a well established phenomenon of our time that the financial system has deviated very far from real measurements of value, like GDP.
That sentence doesn't even make sense. How are you defining "financial system"? What makes GDP more "real" than other metrics? How are you defining a deviation between the two?
> This is an idealistic view of the stock market.
Of course it's not, it's literally the definition of how stocks are valued. Of course different people come to different conclusions about a stock's value, and supply and demand sets the final price. If you want to prove that day traders are massively distorting prices over the long term, the burden of proof is on you, friend.
> That stock price is no longer indicative of a company's long term sustainability.
You're the one constructing a straw man, a stock price isn't supposed to indicate sustainability, it indicates the summed probabilities of net present value of future profits.
What has the stock market got to do with sustainability? And why do you think the stock market had some "fundamental vision and purpose" of sustainability?
The whole premise of a vibrant economy is that investors take risks, that companies try for success, and many (most) fail along the way. But that the successes more than make up for it in the end. If every company had to prove (to who?) that it was perfectly "sustainable" economic improvement would slow to a crawl, since business it about risks.
> You've constructed a straw man regarding policy "why shouldn't you allow an unprofitable company" and are arguing against no one.
The article explicitly said "we did we allow". I'm not arguing against a strawman. I'm arguing against an actual sentence from the article.
There are all these people who claim (without any evidence whatsoever) that stocks are untethered to reality, that it's all a pyramid scheme, that valuations are obviously wrong. Well, go ahead, put your money where your mouth is and short it all. See if you know better than banks with entire teams of financial researchers and analysts.
That sentence doesn't even make sense. How are you defining "financial system"? What makes GDP more "real" than other metrics? How are you defining a deviation between the two?
> This is an idealistic view of the stock market.
Of course it's not, it's literally the definition of how stocks are valued. Of course different people come to different conclusions about a stock's value, and supply and demand sets the final price. If you want to prove that day traders are massively distorting prices over the long term, the burden of proof is on you, friend.
> That stock price is no longer indicative of a company's long term sustainability.
You're the one constructing a straw man, a stock price isn't supposed to indicate sustainability, it indicates the summed probabilities of net present value of future profits.
What has the stock market got to do with sustainability? And why do you think the stock market had some "fundamental vision and purpose" of sustainability?
The whole premise of a vibrant economy is that investors take risks, that companies try for success, and many (most) fail along the way. But that the successes more than make up for it in the end. If every company had to prove (to who?) that it was perfectly "sustainable" economic improvement would slow to a crawl, since business it about risks.
> You've constructed a straw man regarding policy "why shouldn't you allow an unprofitable company" and are arguing against no one.
The article explicitly said "we did we allow". I'm not arguing against a strawman. I'm arguing against an actual sentence from the article.
There are all these people who claim (without any evidence whatsoever) that stocks are untethered to reality, that it's all a pyramid scheme, that valuations are obviously wrong. Well, go ahead, put your money where your mouth is and short it all. See if you know better than banks with entire teams of financial researchers and analysts.