but the stock literally represents the exchange value of the company...the labor, the fixed assets and how effectively those two things are being put to use.
if the value of the company goes up, that literally means the profit rate has gone up(again cash burning companies like tesla work a bit differently).
like...to a marxist, the definition of profit is literally the difference between the value the worker creates and the amount they get paid. hence yea any given share represents labor being exploited.
Because we’ve seen the stock market, by and large, act in ways which are completely untethered from material reality.
Aggregates like the Dow Jones are a full 50% higher than they were when trump took office in 2016. It’s been five years! I see absolutely no metrics tied to exploitation of labor or whatever else that would explain a 50% rise in asset prices. Rather, profitability has long been falling for companies as a whole.
So the argument that “stocks are inherently speculative assets whose prices are simply determined by the amount of money that has nowhere else to go” (i.e., money which cannot find a more lucrative, actually exploitative investment like more factories or whatever) is far more convincing to me personally.
but the stock literally represents the exchange value of the company...the labor, the fixed assets and how effectively those two things are being put to use.
if the value of the company goes up, that literally means the profit rate has gone up(again cash burning companies like tesla work a bit differently).
like...to a marxist, the definition of profit is literally the difference between the value the worker creates and the amount they get paid. hence yea any given share represents labor being exploited.
idk how what I'm saying could possibly be wrong.
Because we’ve seen the stock market, by and large, act in ways which are completely untethered from material reality.
Aggregates like the Dow Jones are a full 50% higher than they were when trump took office in 2016. It’s been five years! I see absolutely no metrics tied to exploitation of labor or whatever else that would explain a 50% rise in asset prices. Rather, profitability has long been falling for companies as a whole.
So the argument that “stocks are inherently speculative assets whose prices are simply determined by the amount of money that has nowhere else to go” (i.e., money which cannot find a more lucrative, actually exploitative investment like more factories or whatever) is far more convincing to me personally.