Skip to main content

Stock prices

It has become a tenet of American economic faith that stock prices ought always to rise. But there is a serious problem with this. Let's say we had a gold coin economy. If prices of stocks never ceased rising (particularly in the exponential manner we have seen them rising for the last century), the gold supply would quickly be exhausted and all gold would be tied up in stocks.

Clearly, something is amiss.

The problem is that stocks are a kind of credit, or loan from the stock buyer to the stock issuer, the company. The price of stocks can go up over time, but in an honest economy, we would expect stock prices to go down when credit is tight and up when credit is loose. Stock prices in a gold coin economy would not increase indefinitely. Instead, companies whose growth potential is greatest would experience rising stock prices while other companies would experience concomitant stock price decreases, given a fixed "tightness" of credit. That is, for a given supply and demand of credit, only so much gold would be available for stock investment. The money that goes into growth stocks would have to come out of other stock investments.

That most stocks are able to rise in price most of the time is a simple consequence of central bank inflation. As the supply of money is constantly increasing, the prices of stocks can continually rise with the prices of everything else. The continually increasing index of the stock market, then, is not an indicator of economic progress! It is an indicator of the steady march of inflation. In an honest money system, we would expect the stock market indices to increase with loose credit and decrease with tight credit. The long-term trend of the stock market indices should be proportional to the long-term trend of credit availability. Obviously, credit availability cannot exponentially increase over time (in a gold coin economy).

So, Wall Street is a bunch of crooks, just as Main Street suspects. But it's because they're in collusion with the government, not because the government has not sufficiently regulated them. So long as the public continues to imbue the state with a parental aura, Wall Street will continue to profit off their romanticism. Each new legal restriction on the free market will be twisted by the number surfers to their own benefit. The average Joe cannot win the battle of re-writing the rules of the game with the professional financial gamer. But the average Joe, by supporting the protection of his own property from theft by the crooks on Wall Street and Pennsylvania Avenue can defeat them. So long as we play their game, they will always beat us. Their worst nightmare is a strong, private property society where what's theirs is theirs and what's mine is mine. The vultures on Wall Street are not content with a private property society and free market. They want to increase what is theirs by stealing what is yours and mine.

Don't ever buy the lie that you and I can be better off by letting the government take from others to give to us. It's just an excuse for the professional crooks to get their hands on what's rightfully ours - our property.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Constitution has gone to the dogs

Actually, it should have gone to the dogs, but didn't. I'm talking about  Leona Helmsley's estate , of course. The contract clause of the Constitution says, "No State shall ... pass any ... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts..." This means that private contracts cannot be changed by legislative edict. This clause is incredibly important because the willingness of private individuals to engage in profitable enterprise - which is the foundation of social welfare - crucially depends on their belief that they can realize a profit. In turn, their belief that they can realize a profit depends on their belief that they can hold parties to a contract liable to the terms in the contract. For example, lenders must have confidence that they can repossess the collateral for a loan if the loan is defaulted on. Otherwise, they will not take the risk of giving the loan in the first place. When lenders are too scared to lend, everyone is worse off. In the case of Leona Hel...

What Law Is

Law What is law? Frederic Bastiat, in his treatise The Law, defines law as the collective use of force. As much as I love Bastiat’s treatise, I think his definition is not sufficiently analytical. It is certainly the case that the law plays a role in the collective use of force but the law is something more basic than this. We can begin by looking at law as it is today. The website for the Oregon courts has an excellent summary [1] of modern law and courts. I will quote it at length: Throughout history, people have had disputes and have needed some means to settle their disputes. As civil societies develop, they need an orderly system of conflict resolution. One system that developed in "western" cultures is the "law court" or court of law. In England, those early law courts developed a "body of law" called the common law, which defined both the rights of the people and the government and the duties people owe each other and their government. T...