I said in my last post that Jeff's argument made sense to me, and I thought it did, but now that I'm sitting down to explain how it does, I find that it doesn't.

It's a good first step, though, comparing it to something that is as similar as it can possibly be, but which demonstrably has no value at all.

Quote:
The more value a company has, the more value there is of being able to control.

Maybe my problem is that I don't see any value in the ability to control.

I do see the value in dividends, obviously, and maybe I'm overestimating their rarity. And I suppose I can see the value in potential dividends, though that's a lot closer to gambling to me.

BTW, I didn't mean to offend anyone with my Kool-Aid reference. And, for the record, it's not like I think it's all some big conspiracy, or that people don't make money. And I don't have a problem with anyone playing the stock market (or gambling, for that matter) -- I'm just of the opinion that the whole concept has clay feet, and therefore would never do it myself.