>Stock just serves as a mechanism to distribute the risk
>associated with said exploitation.
Hey, don't forget the profits. Stocks are certificates of ownership of the capital stock and the profits it produces when humans put it to work (or vice versa, as it sometimes seems).
The use of "risk" really deserves some careful scrutiny. The risks that the shareholders and senior managers of a large public company faces are pretty different from those your average worker faces. Even a failed CEO isn't likely to suffer repetitive strain injury, not to mention death, on the job.
Doug
>>
The few times I owned stock, it didn't seem to me that I owned any part of the capital stock and profits it produced.
I read your book, and I think I understand the use of stock to mark ownership, but at my level, "ownership" is so attenuated it doesn't seem like ownership at all.
I can't walk into a company and give orders like an owner can. Not with my couple of hundred shares.
I may share in the profits, but then I may not. The officers seem to me like a nomenklatura class looting the profits. By the time they're done there isn't much to share with me.
Maybe I'm dumb but I don't understand stock. I just plain don't understand what I'm getting for my money. Bonds, ok, I have an intuitive sense even if I'm not good at articulating it, of what I'm buying. But what the hell am I buying with stock?
Even if the officers aren't looting the company (and I think many are), how can I get a return that is worth the risk at today's stock prices in reasonable time? It's impossible, no?
What am I missing?
-- John K. Taber